« March 2008 | Main | May 2008 »

The McCain Hezbollah "Connection" *

April 30, 2008 8:37 PM

The campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., removed a man from his Michigan Finance Committee today.

It started after conservative writer Debbie Schlussel called Michigan businessman Ali Jawad not only a supporter of Hezbollah -- a group the US State Department labels a "terrorist organization" -- but also claimed he was a "key agent of the terrorist group in the Detroit area."

After Schlussel started asking questions the McCain campaign removed him from the finance committee for a May fundraiser.

"Apparently he is a well known member of the Arab-American community in Dearborn," a McCain staffer tells ABC News. "He is also a known Republican donor and former Bush finance committee member. When these rumors surfaced he notified the campaign and we removed him from the finance committee. The guy never raised a dime for us and he isn’t even a contributor."

Yes, that's right, the McCain campaign said they removed him because of "rumors."

Jawad is president of Armada Oil & Gas Company and founder of the Lebanese American Heritage Club.

In 1997 he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor insurance fraud. Prosecutors accused him of submitting names of non-employees to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan to receive health insurance benefits and claims. He received two years of probation and he paid approximately $6,000 in fines and restitution.

In this 2002 story, Jawad is quoted saying he "rejects talk that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that should be shunned by the United States and other governments. 'Killing innocent people -- we reject that,' he said. 'Hezbollah does not fit this category. It has protected its people.'"

Read Schlussel's story -- she lays out many charges against him.

You will note in one photograph in Schussel's story, Jawad is sitting at a table with Michael Rosen, a lawyer and policy advisor with the U.S. Office of Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes of the U.S. Treasury Department, and Andrew Arena, Michigan FBI Special Agent in Charge, and formerly in charge of Counterterrorism for the New York FBI.

This all seems a little odd to me.

Is there anyone out there who thinks McCain supports Hezbollah? Was McCain truly offended by the notion that an Arab-American businessman with sympathy for Hezbollah supports him? Or was today's move just to deprive Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, of some future rebuttal?

- jpt

* I don't mean "Connection" literally.

UPDATE: I spelled Schlussel's name incorrectly in this original post. Apologies to her; it has been corrected. Moreover, Schlussel says that there was more to the conclusion of USA v. Makki et al, than the small fine I reported. More than $252,000 was ordered to be repaid, most of which came from or Armada Oil, and one associate was sentenced to 8 months in prison and about $75,000 in fines and restitution.

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

Hillary Clinton's Clinton Administration Amnesia, Part Two

April 30, 2008 4:30 PM

Having taken many looks at Sen. Hillary Clinton's attempts to distance herself from the pro-NAFTA events she participated in, today we take a look at how she's bashing the Bush administration for letting the high-tech magnet manufacturer Magnetech head to China -- when it was her husband's administration that first allowed the Chinese consortium to buy the company despite concerns at the time about jobs and national security.

Read more HERE.

- jpt

April 30, 2008 in Weblogs | Permalink | User Comments (52) | TrackBack (0)

"The Shoe Is On the Other Footage"

April 30, 2008 2:42 PM

I noted this week, out of curiosity more than anything else, that the new Democratic National Committee TV ad against Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., uses stock footage from Getty Images that was also used by Michael Moore in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Curiously, the Republican National Committee is using this nugget as further evidence as to why the DNC TV ad should be pulled.

However you feel about the DNC TV ad -- and Factcheck.org is not too keen on the way the DNC depicts McCain's "100 years" in Iraq comment -- I was not saying that the DNC took the footage from Michael Moore. They both appear to have taken it from stock footage.

If one were so inclined, one could point to the RNC ad from 2006 that used footage of Osama bin Laden taken from Al-Jazeera and use it to question whether the RNC is too closed aligned with Al-Jazeera.

That would be silly, but one could do so, right?

"Looks like the shoes on the other footage," e-mailed Mike Gehrke, self-described "DNC Research Director and Joke Plagiarist." "We won't be intimidated by a candidate desperately trying to avoid his own record -- or his lawyers."

Responded the RNC's Danny Diaz: "I believe there are very real differences between pointing out the threat we face from radical Islamic extremism as opposed to using images from a radical, left wing movie to promote surrendering to the terrorists.  It is unfortunate that Democrats continue to stand by radical policies supported by Michael Moore and MoveOn.org and fail to understand the consequences of failure against the terrorists."

OK…moving on….

- jpt

April 30, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (20) | TrackBack (0)

Democratic Congressional Candidate: Obama? Obama Who?

April 30, 2008 10:07 AM

In North Mississippi, Democratic congressional candidate Travis Childers has been hammered by Republicans for ties to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in THIS AD from the National Republican Congressional Committee and THIS AD from Childers' opponent -- "When Obama's pastor cursed America blaming us for 9/11 Childers said nothing," the ad says.

Now Childers is pushing back -- by acting as if he's never even heard of Obama.

In a new TV ad launching today, Childers says his family "has heard the lies and attacks linking me to politicians I don't know and have never even met," the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal reports.

And Memphis's WREG-TV has an interesting report in which Childers distances himself quite a bit from Mr. Obama. Watch HERE.

"Senator Obama hasn't endorsed my candidacy," Childers says. "I have not been in contact with his campaign nor has he been in contact with mine."

Obama's campaign has tried to help Childers, as you can see on Obama's website.

Obama:Childers::Wright:Obama?

- jpt

April 30, 2008 in Obama, Barack | Permalink | User Comments (118) | TrackBack (0)

Wright Confidante: He Didn't Intend to Hurt Obama

April 30, 2008 9:30 AM

Father Michael Pfleger -- an associate of both Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- says Wright didn't mean to do Obama any damage in his Monday appearance at the National Press Club, what Obama disdainfully called a "performance."

"I don't think he had any intention to hurt Barack. He loves Barack," Pfleger told the CBS station in Chicago.  "I think the pain and the moment took over."

"Sometimes you get caught up in the emotional response because you're hurt, because you're injured," Pfleger said.

Argument* to be debated below: Wright's appearance at the Press Club may have been the most personally and purely self-centered act by a public figure in the political arena since right after Monica Lewinsky delivered pizza to then-President Bill Clinton.

Discuss.

- jpt

* Throwing it out for discussion purposes only, not necessarily a belief to which I subscribe.

April 30, 2008 in Obama, Barack | Permalink | User Comments (127) | TrackBack (0)

Sharpton on Obama on Wright

April 29, 2008 11:47 PM

ABC News' Brinda Adhikari reports: Reacting to Sen. Barack Obama's comments today about his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright's inflammatory remarks at the National Press Club on Monday, the Rev. Al Sharpton told ABCNEWS that it took "a lot of courage for [Sen. Obama] to say some unequivocal statements against someone that has been dear to him, his pastor."

Calling Rev. Wright's comments "appalling" and "outrageous," Sen. Obama denounced the words of his former pastor.

When asked how the African-American community at large would respond to Sen. Obama's denunciation, Sharpton said that "some are going to agree, and some are going to disagree."

He quickly added: "But none of that is going to change my vote. There's no difference between what Barack Obama said he believes in today than when we first heard him four years ago at the 2004 convention."

And what of his fellow African-American clergymen, who might be in somewhat of an uncomfortable position over their loyalties to the black church versus the possibility of electing the first African-American president?

"I think that this is a very painful, and troubling issue particularly for those of us in the black church," responds Sharpton. "I think some would want to try and tell [Obama] what would be the right thing to do."

Ultimately, Sharpton said, "Barack Obama's not running against Jeremiah Wright. He's running against Mrs. Clinton and later, hopefully, John McCain. And when we choose between him and them, even if we disagree on the Rev. Wright controversy, I don't think it changes our vote on whether we think he'd be better for all Americans than his opponents."

-- Brinda Adhikari

April 29, 2008 in Obama, Barack | Permalink | User Comments (116) | TrackBack (0)

Hutchinson on Obama: Stop Him Before He Talks About Wright Again!

April 29, 2008 6:42 PM

On the Huffington Post, Earl Ofari Hutchinson writes, "Whoever on Team Obama keeps feeding into Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's seeming compulsive need to speak out on the Reverend Jeremiah Wright should get the swift boot."

Faulting Obama for his "halting, stumbling, anguished voice press conference" today, Hutchinson says the myriad speeches, interviews and press conferences he's given on the subject have given "talking heads more salacious grist for the gossip and rumor mill about Wright, the church and Obama's long term relationship with both. He's elevated Wright from a relatively obscure, local preacher to a nationally known polarizing figure. He's deepened the suspicions of those who all along felt that he was a closet radical and race panderer."

The episode has caused many Democrats to have second thoughts about Obama and no "matter how much he protests that Wright doesn't represent him or his thinking, the fact is he sat in his church for nearly two decades, called him a spiritual mentor and family confidant, appointed him to an advisory post in his campaign, and in his so-called race speech refused to disown his two decade experience and relationship with him. This instantly makes his Wright protest sound like the wail of a politician running scared, and who sees the long, arduous, time consuming and patient work he put into building up public trust in him as the nation's great political hope fast washing down the drain."

Tough stuff. Whaddaya think?

- jpt

April 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (189) | TrackBack (0)

Obama Presser Today

April 29, 2008 3:59 PM

OBAMA: Before I start taking questions I want to open it up with a couple of comments about what we saw and heard yesterday. I have spent my entire adult life trying to bridge the gap between different kinds of people. That’s in my DNA, trying to promote mutual understanding to insist that we all share common hopes and common dreams as Americans and as human beings. That’s who I am. That’s what I believe. That’s what this campaign has been about.

Yesterday we saw a very different vision of America. I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday. You know, I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992. I have known Reverend Wright for almost 20 years. The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church. They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Reverend Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought either.

Now, I’ve already denounced the comments that had appeared in these previous sermons. As I said I had not heard them before. And I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church, he's built a wonderful congregation, the people of Trinity are wonderful people, and what attracted me has always been their ministry's reach beyond the church walls. But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS; when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century; when he equates the United States' wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses. They offend me, they rightly offend all Americans, and they should be denounced. And that's what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.

Let me just close by saying this, I -- we started this campaign with the idea that the problems that we face as a country are too great to continue to be divided; that, in fact, all across America people are hungry to get out of the old, divisive politics of the past. I have spoken and written about the need for us to all recognize each other as Americans, regardless of race or religion or region of the country; that the only way we can deal with critical issues like energy and health care and education and the war on terrorism is if we are joined together. And the reason our campaign has been so successful is because we had moved beyond these old arguments. What we saw yesterday out of Reverend Wright was a resurfacing and, I believe, an exploitation of those old divisions. Whatever his intentions, that was the result. It is antithetical to our campaign, it is antithetical to what I am about, it is not what I think America stands for, and I want to be very clear that moving forward Reverend Wright does not speak for me, he does not speak for our campaign. I cannot prevent him from continuing to make these outrageous remarks, but what I do want him to be very clear about, as well as all of you and the American people, is that when I say I find these comments appalling, I mean it. It contradicts everything that I’m about and who I am. And anybody who has worked with me, who knows my life, who has read my books, who has seen what this campaign's about, I think will understand that it is completely opposed to what I stand for and where I want to take this country.

Last point, I’m particularly distressed that this has caused such a distraction from what this campaign should be about, which is the American people. Their situation is getting worse. And this campaign has never been about me. It’s never been about Senator Clinton or John McCain. It’s not about Reverend Wright. People want some help in stabilizing their lives and securing a better future for themselves and their children, and that's what we should be talking about. And the fact that Reverend Wright would think that somehow it was appropriate to command the stage for three or four consecutive days in the midst of this major debate is something that not only makes me angry, but also saddens me. So with that, let me take some questions.

Yeah, go ahead.

Q: Why the change in tone from yesterday when you spoke to us on the tarmac yesterday –

BO: I'll be honest with you, because I hadn't seen it yet.

Q: That was the difference?

BO: Yes.

Q: Had you heard the reports about the AIDS comment?

BO: I had not. I had not seen the transcript. What I had heard was that he had given a performance and I thought, at the time that it would be sufficient to re-iterate what I had said in Philadelphia. Upon watching it, what became clear to me was that it was more than just a -- it was more than just him defending himself. What became clear to me was that he was presenting a world view that -- that's -- that contradicts who I am and what I stand for and what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion, somehow, that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I'm about knows that I'm about trying to bridge gaps and that I see the commonality in all people. And so when I start hearing comments about conspiracy theories and AIDS and suggestions that somehow Minister Farrakhan is -- has been a great voice in the 20th century, then that goes directly at who I am and what I believe this country needs. Jeff?

Q: What do you expect or what do you plan do about this right now, to further distance yourself? Do you think you need to do that? What does that say about your judgment for superdelegates who are trying to decide which democratic nominee is better? Your candidacy has been based on judgment. What does this say?

BO: Well, look, as I said before, the person I saw yesterday was not the person that I had come to know over 20 years. I understand that I think he was pained and angered from what had happened previously during the first stage of this controversy. I think he felt vilified and attacked, and I understand that he wanted to defend himself. You know, I understand that, you know, he's gone through difficult times of late and that he's leaving his ministry after many years. And so, you know, that may account for the change but the insensitivity and the outrageousness of his statements and his performance in the question and answer period yesterday, I think, shocked me. It surprised me. As I said before, this is an individual who has built a very fine church and a church that is well-respected throughout Chicago. During the course of me attending that church, I had not heard those kinds of statements being made or those kinds of views being promoted. And I did not vet my pastor before I decided to run for the presidency. I was a member of the church. So, you know, I think what it says is that, you know, I have not -- you know, I did not run through -- run my pastor through the paces or review every one of the sermons that he had made over the last 30 years, but I don't think that anybody could attribute those ideas to me.

Q: What affect do you think it's going to have on your campaign?

BO: That's something that you guys will have to figure out. Obviously we've got elections in four or five days. So we'll find out. You know, what impact it has. Ultimately, I think that the American people know that we have to do better than we're doing right now. I think that they believe in the ideas of this campaign. I think they are convinced that special interests have dominated Washington too long. I think they are convinced that we've got to get beyond some of the same political games that we've been playing. I think they believe that we need to speak honestly and truthfully about how we're going to solve issues like energy or health care and I believe that this campaign has inspired a lot of people. And that's part of what, you know, going back to what you asked, Mike, about why I feel so strongly about this today. You know, after seeing Reverend Wright's performance, I felt as if there was a complete disregard for what -- for what the American people are going through and the need for them to rally together to solve these problems. You know, now is the time for us not to get distracted. Now is the time for us to pull together, and that's what we've been doing in this campaign and you know, there was a sense that that did not matter to Reverend Wright. What mattered was him commanding center stage.

Q: Did you have a conversation with Reverend Wright?

BO: No.

Q: What's going to happen with the distraction?

BO: I want to use this press conference to make people absolutely clear that obviously whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed, as a consequence of this. I don't think that he showed much concern for me. I don't -- more importantly -- I don't think he showed much concern for what we're trying to do in this campaign and what we're trying to do for the American people and with the American people And obviously, he's free to speak out on issues that are of concern to him and he can do it in any ways that he wants. But I feel very strongly that -- well, I want to make absolutely clear that I do not subscribe to the views that he expressed. I believe they are wrong. I think they are destructive. And to the extent that he continues to speak out, I do not expect those views to be attributed to me.

Q: I'm wondering, I don't know what -- I'm wondering -- [inaudible]

BO: Well, the new pastor, the young pastor, Reverend Otis Moss, is a wonderful, young pastor. And as I said, I still very much value the Trinity community. This -- I'll be honest, this obviously has put strains on that relationship, not because of the members or because of Reverend Moss, but because this has become such a spectacle. And, you know, when I go to church, it's not for spectacle, it's to pray and to find -- to find a stronger sense of faith. It's not to posture politically. It's not to -- you know, it's not to hear things that violate my core beliefs. And so, you know, and I certainly done want to provide a distraction for those who are worshiping at Trinity. So as of this point, I'm a member of Trinity. I haven't had a discussion with Reverend Moss about it, so I can't tell you how he's reacting and how he's responding. Okay? Kathy?

Q: Senator, I'm wondering to sort of follow on Jeff's question about why it's different now. Have you heard from some of your supporters, you know, you have supporters who expressed any alarm about what this might be doing to the campaign?

BO: Look, I mean, I don't think that it's that hard to figure out from if it was just a purely political perspective. You know, my reaction has more to do with what I want this campaign to be about and who I am. And I want to make certain that people understand who I am. You know, in some ways what Reverend Wright said yesterday, directly contradicts everything that I've done during my life. It contradicts how I was raised and the setting in which I was raised. It contradicts my decisions to pursue a career of public service. It contradicts the issues that I've worked on politically. It contradicts what I’ve said in my books. It contradicts what I said in my convention speech in 2004. It contradicts my announcement. It contradicts everything that I've been saying on this campaign trail. And what I tried to do in Philadelphia was to provide a context and to lift up some of the contradictions and complexities of race in America of which, you know, Reverend Wright is a part, and we're all a part, and try to make something constructive out of it. But there wasn't anything constructive out of yesterday. All it was, was a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth. And you know, I can construct something positive out of that. I can understand it. I, you know, the -- you know, the people do all sorts of things and, as I said before, I continue to believe that Reverend Wright has been a leader in the South Side. I think that the church he built is outstanding. I think that he has preached in the past some wonderful sermons. He provided, you know, valuable contributions to my family. But at a certain point, if what somebody says contradicts what you believe so fundamentally, and then he questions whether or not you believe it in front of the National Press Club, then that's enough. That's a show of disrespect to me. It's -- it is also, I think, an insult to what we've been trying to do in this campaign.

Q: Did you discuss with your wife after having seen Reverend Wright …

BO: Yeah, she was similarly angered. Joe?

Q: Reverend Wright said it's not an attack on him but an attack on the black church. First of all, do you agree with that? Second of all, the strain of theology that he preached, black liberation theology, can you explain something about the anger and the sentiments, how important a strain is liberation theology and why …

BO: Well, the – first of all of all, in terms of liberation theology, I'm not a theologian. So I think to some theologians there might be some well worked out theory of what constitutes liberation theology versus non-liberation theology. I went to church and listened to sermons, and the -- in the sermons that I heard -- and this is true, I do think, across the board in many black churches -- there is an emphasis on the importance of social struggle, the importance of striving for equality and justice and fairness, a social gospel. So a lot of people would, rather than using a fancy word like that, simply talk about preaching the social gospel and that -- there's nothing particularly odd about that. Dr. King, obviously, was the most prominent example of that kind of preaching. But you know, what I do think can happen, and I didn't see this as a member of the church, but I saw it yesterday, is when you start focusing so much on the plight of the historically oppressed that you lose sight of what we have in common, that it overrides everything else that we're not concerned about the struggles of others because we're looking at things only through a particular lens, then it doesn't describe properly what I believe in the power of faith to overcome but also to bring people together. Now, you had a first question that I don't remember.

Q: (Something about whether he sees this as an attack on the black church.)

BO: you know, I did not -- I did not view the initial round of sound bites that triggered this controversy as an attack on the black church. I viewed it as a simplification of who he was, a caricature of who he was. And, you know, more than anything, something that piqued a lot of political interest. I didn't see it as an attack on the black church. I mean, probably the only aspect of it that probably had to do with specifically the black church is the fact that some people were surprised when he was shouting. I mean, that is just a black church tradition. And so I think some people interpreted that as somehow, wow, he's really hollering and black preachers holler and so that, I think, showed a cultural gap in America. The sad thing is that, although the sound bites I, as I stated, I think, created a caricature of him and when he was in that Moyers interview though there were some things that, you know, continued to be offensive, at least there was some sense of rounding out the edges. Yesterday, I think he caricatured himself and that was -- as I said, that made me angry, but also made me sad.  Richard?

Q: (Inaudible) Did you consult with him before the speech or after the speech in Philadelphia to get his reaction?

BO: I tried to talk to him before the speech in Philadelphia. Wasn't able to reach him, because he was on a -- he was on a cruise. He had just stepped down from the pulpit. When he got back, I did speak to him and the -- you know, I prefer not to share sort of private conversations between me and him. I will talk to him perhaps someday in the future. But what I can say is that I was very clear that what he had said in those particular snippets, I found objectionable and offensive. And that the intention of the speech was to provide context for them but not to excuse them because I found them inexcusable.

Q: (Something about his relationship with Wright)

BO: There's been great damage. You know, I -- it may have been unintentional on his part, but, you know, I do not see that relationship being the same after this. Now, to some degree, you know, I know that one thing that he said was true was that he was never my, quote/unquote spiritual adviser, he was never my spiritual mentor, he was my Pastor. And so to some extent how, you know, the press characterized in the past that relationship, I think was inaccurate. But he was somebody who was my pastor and married Michelle and I and baptized my children and prayed with us when we announced this race. And so, you know, I'm disappointed. All right? thank you, guys.

-- jpt

April 29, 2008 in Obama, Barack | Permalink | User Comments (62) | TrackBack (0)

Big Super-D for Clinton

April 29, 2008 3:56 PM

IKE SKELTON FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE

P.O. Box A, Harrisonville, MO 64701

April 29, 2008

Harrisonville, MO - Today, U.S. Representative Ike Skelton released the following statement regarding the Democratic Presidential contest:

"It is my intention as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention to vote for Senator Hillary Clinton because of her support in rural America, her commitment to National Security, and her dedication to our men and women in uniform."

- jpt

April 29, 2008 in Clinton, Hillary | Permalink | User Comments (25) | TrackBack (0)

Huckabee on Rev. Wright: 'I Wonder if Hillary is Really Paying for His Security Force'

April 29, 2008 12:27 PM

In an interview with Salena Zito of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, former GOP presidential candidate and ordained minister Mike Huckabee says, "When Rev. Wright's comments were first exposed, I actually had some sympathetic words for him because I felt his sentiments needed to be put in the context of his own experience of being treated with racism and that being an underlying point of pain and agony for him, but he's now seeming to do it because he enjoys the spotlight."

"I have to wonder if he realizes or even cares that the more he says, the more damage it is doing to Obama," Huckabee says. "I wonder if Hillary is really paying for his security force instead of Farrakhan since she is getting the greatest benefit from this."

- jpt

April 29, 2008 in Weblogs | Permalink | User Comments (125) | TrackBack (0)

Clinton on Easley Street

April 29, 2008 9:57 AM

One week before the North Carolina primary, Gov. Mike Easley comes out for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY.

Easley said that Clinton "makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy," per ABC News' Eloise Harper, in a comment that assuredly will cause something of a ruckus among Clinton's myriad gay supporters.

Easley also took a shot at Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, though he didn't make any references to his looking like a "pansy."

"There’s a lot of ‘yes we can’ and ‘yes we should’ going on," Easley said. "Hillary Clinton is ready to deliver, that’s the difference.”

Watch the VIDEO HERE.

- jpt

April 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (64) | TrackBack (0)

RNC Tries to Stop DNC Ad Against McCain

April 29, 2008 8:18 AM

The debate over Sen. John McCain's comments about US troops being in Iraq for up to "100 years" continues to heat up, with the Democratic National Committee launching a new TV ad using McCain's words against him, and the Republican National Committee demanding that TV and cable networks stop running the ad.

As we've covered before, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, has twisted McCain's words, in the past to make it seem as though McCain had been advocating continued war for 100 years, as opposed to a US troop presence as exists in South Korea.

What McCain said, when asked about President Bush's comments that having US troops in Iraq for another 50 years would be acceptable was, "Maybe 100. That's be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that'd be fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

That said, the Republicans have tried to use this small number of misrepresentations to make any political use of McCain's "100 Years" remarks somehow inaccurate and dishonest. It's an interesting attempt to remove a gaffe from the public sphere, but it's a reach.

The DNC ad (watch it HERE) doesn't give McCain's whole remarks -- namely his disclaimer that the presence of the troops would only be OK if they were not engaged in continued combat -- but neither does it say McCain is called for 100 years' more worth of war.

It runs a clip of him saying "Maybe 100. That'd be fine with me."

"If all he offers is more of the same," the narrator says, "is John McCain the right choice for America's future?"

With footage of the war and graphics explaining the cost in dollars and lives, it implies McCain is calling for 100 years of continued carnage, but it doesn't outright state it.

RNC chief counsel Sean Cairncross sent letters yesterday to NBC, CNN and MSNBC telling them to "cease and desist" airing the TV ad since the ad is "a malicious falsehood." (Read the RNC letter HERE.)

The RNC quotes Factcheck.org calling a previous DNC fundraising email that characterized McCain as advocating an "endless war" in Iraq as a "rank falsehood" -- but that is not what this TV ad says, nor was Factcheck.org fact-checking this TV ad.

On Meet the Press Sunday, DNC chair Howard Dean defended the ad, saying, "we're not arguing that he's going to be at war for a hundred years.  We don't think we ought to be in Iraq for a hundred years under any circumstances.  Think of the hundreds of billions of dollars that are being spent in Iraq, which we need right here at home right now to preserve American jobs....Secondly, if Senator McCain believes that you can occupy a country like Iraq for a hundred years without having a long war and violence and our troops being hurt and, and killed, I think Senator McCain is wrong."

Dean asked who thinks "that if you keep our troops in Iraq for a hundred years, people won't be attacking them and won't be setting off suicide bombs and won't be having militias go after them?  I don't think so.  And most Americans don't think so. What Senator McCain is saying doesn't make any sense.  We cannot be in Iraq for a hundred years.  Those dollars belong in America."

Incidentally, there's an image from the ad that intrigued me. Namely this one, of an IED blowing up near US soldiers.

It was very reminiscent of an image used in Michael Moore's controversial, Oscar-winning documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Democratic strategist Steve McMahon, a partner at the firm McMahon Squier Lapp & Assoc, which made the ad, tells me that he bought the footage from Getty Images, which is where Moore must have bought it as well. He didn't remember the same footage being used in the Moore movie, he said.

And it's true, right on the Getty Images website, you can see the footage from January 16, 2004 is for sale.

- jpt

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

Blue Collar Obama

April 28, 2008 10:15 PM

He rolled out some new autobiographical lines in a stumpe speech today, trying to shed the "elitist" cape that has been thrown on him.

Watch our World News report HERE.

- jpt

April 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (117) | TrackBack (0)

Wright Assails Media, Cheney, Obama at National Press Club

April 28, 2008 10:46 AM

"This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright," said Rev. Jeremiah Wright this morning at the National Press Club, explaining why he was emerging before a national audience, regardless of what harm it might do to the candidacy of one of his parishioners, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois. "This is an attack on the black church."

With that justification -- however sincere or self-serving -- in mind, Wright continued his publicity blitz, arguing that he's compelled to speak out because he does not operate in the world of politics.

"On November 5 and on January 21, I will still be a pastor. In our community we got a thing called 'Playing the dozens,'" he said, referring to the African-American tradition of trading clever insults in a competition. "If you think I'm gonna let you talk about my momma and her religious tradition, and my Daddy and his religious tradition,…you got another think coming."

Watch a portion of Wright's speech HERE.

Obama's controversial former pastor was defiant as he spoke to a room packed with non-journalistic supporters, defending himself, dismissing Obama's criticism of him as mere political expedience, and jokingly offering himself as a vice presidential prospect. He clearly was not doing Obama any favors, not only by reappearing before a ravenous media thus distracting from Obama's attempt to relate better to white working class voters in Indiana and North Carolina, but by implying Obama's condemnation of some of his sermons was not sincere.

"Politicians say what they say and do what they do because of electability," Wright said, arguing that Obama had not seen the sermons played in the media that Obama has called "offensive." "He had to distance himself because he's a politician...Whether he gets elected or not, I'm still going to have to be answerable to God."

Wright -- throughout his speech and a Q&A period -- argued that many of his critics had not heard his whole sermons and that the media had twisted his words.

But he didn't distance himself from any of the sentiments underlying the clips shown on television. Indeed, the former pastor embraced the most controversial items he has said.

On his contention that the U.S. government had created AIDS as a method of committing genocide against African-Americans, Wright referred to a hotly-disputed 1996 book "Emerging Viruses: AIDS And Ebola : Nature, Accident or Intentional?" by Leonard G Horowitz, which contends that AIDS and the Ebola viruses evolved during cancer experiments on monkeys.

He also referenced "Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present" by Harriet Washington, and said based on the Tuskegee experiment -- in which the U.S. Public Health Service conducted a 40-year study on 400 poor black men in Alabama with syphilis whom they did not properly treat -- "I believe our government is capable of anything."

"Have you heard the whole sermon?" he asked a questioner about his infamous post-9/11 sermon in which he seemed to blame the terrorist attacks on New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania as blowback from U.S. foreign policy, saying "America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Wright said he was quoting a previous U.S. Ambassador to Iraq -- in a quote that none of his supporters has been able to find -- and relaying Biblical proverbs, "whatever you sow, that is what you shall reap," and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"You cannot do terrorism on other people and not expect it to come back on you," Wright said. "Those are Biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright 'bombastic' principles."

Asked about those who wondered about his love of the U.S. in light of his "God d--- America" comments during a sermon, Wright said "those citizens who say that have never heard my sermons, nor do they know me...I served six years in the military, does that make me patriotic? How many years did (Vice President Dick) Cheney serve?"

He underlined that whatever he has said about America was "about policy, not the American people."

Wright was also asked about his relationship with Nation of Islam founder Louis Farrakhan, whom Wright described as merely haven once said that Zionism -- not Judaism -- was a poisonous weed. (Farrakhan has far more than that one comment in his collection of anti-Semitic statements.

Farrakhan, Wright said, is "one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century," noting the Million Man March. "When Louis Farrakhan speaks, it's like when E.F. Hutton speaks...Black America listens."

The media asking him to condemn Farrakhan reminded him of one time when Ted Koppel asked Nelson Mandela about past statements he'd made in praise of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro's "love for human rights and liberty," Wright said.

"Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy," Wright said, since Farrakhan had not enslaved Africans and brought them in chains to the U.S.

Wright argued that his fiery nature was appropriate since the leaders of the U.S. have never apologized for slavery or racism.

- jpt

April 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (340) | TrackBack (0)

McCain Tries to Have It Both Ways on Rev. Wright

April 28, 2008 7:39 AM

Yesterday in Florida, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., raised and twisted remarks Rev. Jeremiah Wright made in 2003 while insisting he would continue to avoid making political hay out of Wright.

Quite an interesting maneuver.

Asked what steps, if any, he would take to stop the North Carolina GOP TV ad that hammers two Democratic gubernatorial candidates for associating with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, who associated with Wright, McCain said, "I've stated my position very clearly that I don't like the ad."

McCain's campaign has intimated using Wright in the ad is race-baiting and asked the state party to stop running it.

That said, McCain noted comments Obama made to Fox News Sunday seeming to OK Wright as an issue. Obama said that, "I think that people were legitimately offended by some of the comments that he had made in the past.  The fact he's my former pastor I think makes it a legitimate political issue.  So I understand that."

Said McCain, "If he believes that, then, it will probably be a political issue."

McCain then picked up some of the Wright passages that are getting renewed attention on conservative/Hillary Clinton-backing blogs and radio, though they are not new.

"I saw yesterday some additional comments that have been revealed by Pastor Wright," McCain said. "One of them, comparing the United States Marine Corps with Roman legionnaires who were responsible for the death of our savior.  I mean, being involved in that.  It’s beyond belief.  And then of course, saying that al Qaeda and the American flag were the same flags.  So, I can understand.  I can understand why people are upset about this.  I can understand why, that Americans when viewing these kinds of comments are angry and upset."

Wright never said "al Qaeda and the American flag were the same flags." He compared Americans thinking that God blesses US military actions that kill innocent civilians with the belief of al Qaeda. He decried "making a pre-emptive strike in the name of God. We cannot see how what we are doing is the same thing that al-Qaeda is doing under a different color flag -– calling on the name of a different God to sanction and approve our murder and our mayhem.”

You may well find that offensive in itself, but McCain misrepresented what Wright said, in his April 2003 sermon.

After making a political issue out of an issue he said he wouldn't make a political issue, McCain then pivoted to attach Obama to Wright in making comments McCain considers to be out-of-touch, saying Americans would be offended by what Wright said "just like they viewed Senator Obama’s statements about why people turned to their faith and their values. He believes that it’s out of economic concerns, when we all know that it’s out of fundamental belief, fundamental faith in this country and its values and its principles.  Again, Senator Obama, out of touch.  I can’t control, and will not in the future control.  I will voice my opinion, and I will continue to think it to say that I think that that ad should not be run."

A reporter noted that McCain had previously said that Wright was not a legitimate political issue.

“I have said that I will not do, have any comment on it and that because I thought, and I believe that Senator Obama does not share those views," McCain said. "But Senator Obama himself says it’s a legitimate political issue.  So, I would imagine that many other people will share that view and it will be in the arena.  My position, that Senator Obama doesn’t share those views, remains the same.”

How is it unacceptable for the North Carolina GOP to use Wright as an issue, quoting him accurately in the TV ad, but totally fine for McCain to do so, misrepresenting what Wright said?

Wright, meanwhile, continues to draw attention to himself.

- jpt

April 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (75) | TrackBack (0)

Rev. Wright Delivers Fiery Address to NAACP

April 27, 2008 11:28 PM

Speaking in Detroit, at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's 53rd annual "Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner," Rev. Jeremiah Wright took on his critics even while he spoke of a new, unified day coming.

You can watch the speech HERE.

Addressing a local Republican official who'd called Wright “divisive," Wright told the welcoming crowd in his keynote address, "I am not one of the most 'divisive.' Tell him the word is 'descriptive.' I describe the conditions in this country -- conditions divide, not my description."

Wright's appearance guaranteed more media attention for the former pastor of the Democratic president frontrunner, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, who likely had hoped the issue -- and Wright -- would go away. In more news that would no doubt trouble Obama, Wright mentioned that he was working on a book.

"I'm not here for political reasons," Wright said. "I'm not a politician." He said that might surprise in the crowd of 10,000 since "many in the corporate-owned media have made it seem that I'm running for the Oval Office. I am not running for the Oval Office; I've been running for Jesus for a long, long time, and I'm not tired yet."

Most of Wright's speech addressed the theme of the dinner, “A Change is Gonna Come,” talking about the differences between different cultures and races, saying "a change is coming because we no longer see others as being deficient…Different doesn't mean deficient."

"The black religious tradition is different," he said in comments that seemed to address the controversy about his sermons. "We do it a different way."

Wright discussed how different groups have seen other groups as "deficient." After saying English-speakers saw Arabic-speakers as "being deficient," Wright mentioned Obama almost as an aside.

"Please run and tell my stuck-on-stupid friends that Arabic is a language -- is a language, it is not a religion," he said. "Barack HUSSEIN Obama," he said, emphasizing the Illinois senator's middle name dramatically, "Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Barack HUSSEIN Obama. There are Arabic-speaking Christians, there Arabic-speaking Jews, Arabic-speaking Muslims and Arabic-speaking atheists. Arabic is a language, it is not a religion. Stop trying to scare folks by giving them this Arabic name like it's some disease."

The bulk of his remarks addressed, however, different groups seeing each other as deficient. He acted out the differences between marching bands at predominantly black and predominantly white colleges. "Africans have a different meter, and Africans have a different tonality," he said. Europeans have seven tones, Africans have five. White people clap differently than black people. "Africans and African-Americans are right-brained, subject-oriented in their learning style," he said. "They have a different way of learning." And so on.

After jokingly mocking the Boston accents of former Presidents John F. and Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., Wright said, "nobody says to a Kennedy, 'You speak bad English,' only to a black child was that said."
Wright said that he believes "a change is going to come, 'cause many of us are committed to change how we see others who are different."

Earlier in the day, Wright delivered two sermons at the Friendship-West Baptist Church in Dallas, referring to his "public crucifixion," according to the Houston Chronicle. Wright will address the National Press Club in Washington, DC, Monday morning.

- jpt

April 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (445) | TrackBack (0)

Mr. Campaign Finance Reform Exploited Campaign Finance Loophole

April 27, 2008 12:48 PM

The New York Times today takes a gander at how, during the dark days of Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign last year, he used a corporate jet owned by the company his wife Cindy heads.

The campaign used it for seven months -- from August through February -- paying $241,149, which the Times reports is "approximately the cost of chartering a similar jet for a month or two, according to industry estimates.

"The senator was able to fly so inexpensively because the law specifically exempts aircraft owned by a candidate or his family or by a privately held company they control," the newspaper reports. "The Federal Election Commission adopted rules in December to close the loophole -- rules that would have required substantial payments by candidates using family-owned planes -- but the agency soon lost the requisite number of commissioners needed to complete the rule making.

"Because that exemption remains, Mr. McCain’s campaign was able to use his wife’s corporate plane like a charter jet, while paying first-class rates, several campaign finance experts said. Several of those experts, however, added that his campaign’s actions, while keeping with the letter of law, did not reflect its spirit."

- jpt

April 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (14) | TrackBack (0)

Tom Hayden Looks at Clinton's 60s Past

April 27, 2008 12:35 PM

In The Nation, former 60s radical Tom Hayden -- in an essay called "Why Hillary Makes My Wife Scream" -- hammers Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, for attacking Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, for his association with former Weather Underground member William Ayers. "Hillary is blind to her own roots in the sixties," Hayden writes. "She was in Chicago for three nights during the 1968 street confrontations. She chaired the 1970 Yale law school meeting where students voted to join a national student strike again an 'unconscionable expansion of a war that should never have been waged.' She was involved in the New Haven defense of Bobby Seale during his murder trial in 1970, as the lead scheduler of student monitors. ... She wrote that abused children were citizens with the same rights as their parents.

"Most significantly in terms of her recent attacks on Barack, after Yale law school, Hillary went to work for the left-wing Bay Area law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, which specialized in Black Panthers and West Coast labor leaders prosecuted for being communists. Two of the firm's partners, according to Treuhaft, were communists and the two others 'tolerated communists'. Then she went on to Washington to help impeach Richard Nixon, whose career was built on smearing and destroying the careers of people through vague insinuations about their backgrounds and associates. ...

"All these were honorable words and associations in my mind, but doesn't she see how the Hillary of today would accuse the Hillary of the sixties of associating with black revolutionaries who fought gun battles with police officers, and defending pro-communist lawyers who backed communists? Doesn't the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom Hillary attacks today, represent the very essence of the black radicals Hillary was associating with in those days? And isn't the Hillary of today becoming the same kind of guilt-by-association insinuator as the Richard Nixon she worked to impeach?"

April 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (142) | TrackBack (0)

Wright Back

April 27, 2008 12:34 PM

Another passage from Rev. Jeremiah Wright's April 13, 2003, sermon "Confusing God and Government" -- perhaps better known as the "God d---- America" speech; watch it HERE -- is making the rounds.

Wright says in the sermon, of the Iraq war, "we say that God will bless the shock and awe as we take over unilaterally another country, calling it a coalition because we’ve got three guys from Australia, going against the United Nations, going against the majority of Christians, Muslims and Jews throughout the world, making a pre-emptive strike in the name of God. We cannot see how what we are doing is the same thing that al-Qaeda is doing under a different color flag -– calling on the name of a different God to sanction and approve our murder and our mayhem.”

Writes conservative commentator Jim Geraghty at National Review, in a preview of Republican (or Hillary Clinton) talking points to come, "Permit me to propose a new rule: If your mentor of 20 years has ever declared the United States to be ‘the same as al-Qaeda, under a different color flag, calling on the name of a different God to sanction and approve our murder and our mayhem!’ you are ineligible for the presidency."

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was asked about Wright's resurgence in the public today on "Fox News Sunday."

Quoting Wright on PBS Friday, saying the media treatment of him was unfair, unjust and untrue, anchor Chris Wallace asked Obama if he thinks that Wright is just the victim in this controversy.

"No," Obama said. "I think that people were legitimately offended by some of the comments that he had made in the past.  The fact he's my former pastor, I think, makes it a legitimate political issue.  So, I understand that. I think that it is also true that to run a snippet of 30-second sound bites, selecting out of a 30-year career, simplified and caricatured him and caricatured the church. And I think that was done in a fairly deliberate way, and that is unfortunate, because as I've said before, I have strongly denounced those comments that were the subject of so much attention.  I wasn't in church when he made them. But I also know that, you know, I go to church not to worship the pastor, to worship God.  And that ministry, the church family that's been built there, does outstanding work, has been, I think, applauded for its outreach to the poor. He built that ministry, and I think that, you know, people need to take a look at the whole church and the whole man in making these assessments."

Obama said he did not talk to Wright about his decision to make a series of public appearances, but he earlier had said to him, "Look, we have very strong differences.  I do not agree with the comments that you made.  On the other hand, I regret that you have drawn so much attention."

Obama said, "it's understandable that somebody, after an entire career of service, would want to defend themselves."

Asked by Wallace for specific examples of controversial remarks he recalls hearing from Wright's pulpit, Obama said Wright "has oftentimes talked about some of the problems in the black community in very controversial ways.  I mean, I think -- or in sharp ways, in ways that are provocative. You know, he will talk about the failure of fathers to look after their children in ways that, sometimes, people might be taken aback by. He can use street vernacular in his sermons in ways that people wouldn't expect to hear in church ... he has certainly preached in the past when I was there about the history of race in this country in very blunt terms, talking about slavery, talking about Jim Crow. The problem -- and I pointed this out in my speech in Philadelphia -- where oftentimes he would err, I think, is in only cataloging the bad of America and not doing enough to lift up the good. And that's probably where he and I have the biggest difference."

Wright will speak at the National Press Club Monday morning.

- jpt

April 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (75) | TrackBack (0)

Clinton Campaign Chair Threatened to Strip Michigan of Delegates in 2004

April 26, 2008 5:33 PM

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has staked her path to the Democratic nomination on the officially illegitimate contests held in Michigan and Florida somehow being recognized, in opposition to Democratic National Committee rules.

What's so remarkable about this is that two of the Clinton campaign's most important strategists have in the past taken the stand that these states should abide by the DNC's instructions -- even if that meant stripping them of their delegates.

In direct contrast to the positions they hold now.

Senior strategist Harold Ickes as a DNC Rules Committee member in 2007 voted -- along with the other 11 Clinton supporters on the 30-member committee -- to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates as punishment for disobeying the DNC primary calendar schedule.

Ickes now is a leader of the "count Michigan and Florida" rhetoric coming from the Clinton campaign, despite his previous position.

Now comes this curious find, on Daily Kos.

It turns out that irrepressible Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe once -- when he was DNC chairman -- threatened to strip Michigan of delegates if that state's Democrats carried out their long-time goal of disobeying the DNC calendar.

In his lively book, "What A Party!: My Life Among Democrats: Presidents, Candidates, Donors, Activists, Alligators and Other Wild Animals," McAuliffe tells the tale. If you're an Amazon.com member, you can read the passage for yourself on pages 324 and 325.

McAuliffe at the time had been pushing for early contests for South Carolina and a Western state with a large Latino population, perhaps Arizona or New Mexico.

"Our plan became very controversial," McAuliffe writes. "Some people thought any change was bad. Others thought we were not shaking things up enough. Leading the charge for more radical alterations in the primary calendar was Michigan Senator Carl Levin, who thought Iowa and New Hampshire should not have exclusive rights on voting first and that it was time for other states to have a turn. He had pushed unsuccessfully for change before the 2000 elections and was back in full force this election cycle. He made it very clear on the telephone that if I allowed Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, then Michigan was going to act on its own and put its primary first."

McAuliffe invited Levin to make his argument before the full DNC meeting on Jan. 19, 2002. Levin did, and his motion was defeated by a unanimous vote.

"After the vote, the issue was settled in my mind -- however, not in Carl's," McAuliffe writes.

On Feb. 1, 2003, Levin, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., and Dingell's wife Debbie (a DNC member and power broker unto herself) called McAuliffe.

"They told me they were going to hold the Michigan primary before New Hampshire's," McAuliffe writes, "which would have led to complete chaos since New Hampshire has a law stating that it must hold the first primary and the DNC had already voted on this issue and settled it.

"'If you do that, I will take away 50 percent of your delegates,' I told him.

"They thought I was bluffing. But it was my responsibility as chairman to take action for the good of the party, and taking away half their delegates was well within my authority...The whole primary calendar was in danger of spinning out of control. The candidates kept calling me and asking what was happening with the schedule, and I made it clear that I was not going to let Michigan throw the entire process out of whack. Finally I'd had enough and scheduled a meeting in Carl's Senate office for April 2 to settle this once and for all...

"Soon Carl and I were going at it.

"'I'm going outside the primary window,' he told me definitively.

"'If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses,' I said. 'We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost.'

"He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"'You won't deny us seats at the convention,' he said.

"'Carl, take it to the bank,' I said. 'They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it.'

"We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it."

Clinton herself said, in October 2007, "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything." She said she was keeping her name on the ballot (unlike her competitors) just so when it came time for the general election she could argue she had not ignored the state.

It wasn't until Clinton lost the Iowa caucuses in January that she acted as if the Florida and Michigan contests had any meaning at all. As Tallahassee political journalist S.V. Dáte recently wrote in Slate, "Last summer and fall, when the DNC made these decisions, she had a lot more clout. She exercised none of it."

As for Ickes and McAuliffe -- they have exercised a great deal of clout. But it has been in the name of preserving order, even if that meant stripping recalcitrant state Democrats of their delegates.

As McAuliffe said then -- "the rules are the rules."

Why? "For the good of the party," he wrote (then).

- jpt

April 26, 2008 in 2008: Democrats | Permalink | User Comments (234) | TrackBack (0)

Obama on Those Who Say He Doesn't Respect the Flag: 'It's a Lie'

April 26, 2008 3:59 PM

At a town hall in Kokomo, Ind., Friday a woman told Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., that her mother wasn’t going to vote for him because he didn’t "address the flag."

"This is a phony issue," Obama said. "So let me address it right now."

ABC News' Sunlen Miller reports that the lanky Illinoisan said that "folks have been sending out these emails trying to make it out like I am not a patriot and I don't salute the flag and I don't pledge allegiance and this and that and the other. This is all phony. This is not true. You know, I've been saying the pledge of allegiance since I was what, four? Four years old. I lead, when I'm presiding in the Senate, I lead the pledge of allegiance, as the presiding officer of the Senate, when I open up the Senate, so it's been on C-SPAN.

"There are two places where this rumor started," Obama said. "All right? Number one, we were at an event in Iowa and the 'Star Spangled Banner' was being sung by a woman and the camera caught me, not, I didn't have my hand over my heart while I was listening and singing along with her, not out of disrespect, just because I was listening to her song and thought, 'Boy, I was getting into the song.' Now, I acknowledge the mistake of not having put my hand over my heart during the singing of the 'Star Spangled Banner,' although anybody who's watching -- I'm gonna look at all of you at a ball game one time and see if you always get it right, 'cause sometimes, we all, I just want to point that out, so that's point number one.

"And the second thing, the way this has come up is the fact that I don't always wear a flag pin. Now I don't know if any of you who don't have flag pins consider yourselves unpatriotic. I think you're patriotic. The reason that I don't always wear a flag pin is not that I disrespect the flag, it's that when I started wearing a flag pin after 9/11, I gotta admit that sometimes I would misplace it and so I didn't always put it on."

Obama then referred to the time last October, when a Cedar Rapids, Iowa, TV reporter asked him why he didn't wear a flag pin.

"Then I was asked about this in Iowa," Obama said. "And somebody said 'Why don't you wear a flag pin?' I said, well, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I said, although I will say that sometimes I notice that they're people who wear flag pins but they don't always act patriotic. And I was specifically referring to politicians, not individuals who wear flag pins, but politicians who you see wearing flag pins and then vote against funding for veterans, saying we can't afford it."

(What Obama said last October was: "You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.")

Obama continued, saying "so I make this comment. suddenly a bunch of these, you know, TV commentators and bloggers (say) 'Obama is disrespecting people who wear flag pins.' Well, that's just not true. Also, another way of saying it is, it's a lie."

Obama finished, telling the crowd, "anybody who tells you out there that I disrespect the flag, that I don't salute the flag, that I don't say the pledge of allegiance, that I don't wear flag pins -- don't listen to 'em. Look at what I do and look at what I say and my commitment to making this a stronger country. And, you know, I get pretty fed up with people questioning my patriotism, especially a bunch of these folks who do who have instituted policies that have made America weaker. I am happy to have that debate with them anyplace, anytime."

- jpt

April 26, 2008 in Obama, Barack | Permalink | User Comments (100) | TrackBack (0)

The Bill Comes Due

April 26, 2008 12:57 PM

Lots of talk about former President Bill Clinton these days.

Perhaps, as Bono once said, too much talk.

He is a force out there on the trail, as ABC News' Sarah Amos reports.

And yet . . .

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., tells Fox News that “Many of the surrogates in the Clinton campaign of recent days have been saying things that have been angering African-American voters over again.

"I mean, who 'played the race card' on President Clinton?" Clyburn said, referring to comments made in an interview Clinton gave to WHYY-FM in Philadelphia and later denied making. "What does he mean by that unless he is trying to send some kind of signal on race?”

Clyburn, the highest-ranking African American in Congress, has remained neutral throughout this contest, but he has continually expressed concern about the tactics of the Clinton campaign.

"I am concerned … that the conduct of this campaign could very well make the nomination not worth having,” Clyburn told Fox. "“Our party is much bigger than Bill Clinton. It is much bigger than Sens. Clinton or Obama. It is a party that is here to serve the American people. … And I don’t want to see us conduct a campaign in such a way that it does irreparable harm to our being able to do that. When this campaign is over, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, she cannot get elected president if 25 to 30 percent of black people vote for McCain. She is going to have … to have that same 92 percent of black people that Obama [has] now. And if [Obama] is the nominee, he is going to need her help and her husband’s help getting white voters that he is not now getting. And I don’t see how you can go back to these people and get them to vote for the nominee if you have done all these things and said all of these things about him during the campaign … because you are not going to be able to reverse field in the middle of general election."

The Wall Street Journal's Monica Langley today takes a look at what some "insiders" are calling the "Billification" of the campaign.

"Mr. Clinton has placed several of his own aides at headquarters, including his former lawyer and a bevy of strategists. Known as a bad loser, Mr. Clinton privately buttresses his wife's drive to push on, telling her, according to aides: 'We're not quitters.' On his own daily message calls, advisers say, he implores: 'We've got to take him on every time.' At the Clintons' Washington, D.C., home recently, these people say, he reviewed possible TV spots and told ad makers to be more hard-hitting, faster and harsher."

Langley says that Bill Clinton's "role has come at a cost -- to morale among some campaign staff, relations inside the Democratic Party and with African-American leaders, and in the view of some, his own legacy. He has lost considerable credibility with many party leaders, who, as 'superdelegates' to the party convention, will be crucial in determining who is the Democratic presidential nominee. ... 'Bill is blessed and cursed as a super-spouse," says one adviser. 'He can go off-message, but mostly he delivers big crowds and positive results. He's fully invested and involved every single day.'"

April 26, 2008 in Clinton, Hillary | Permalink | User Comments (241) | TrackBack (0)

Tinker to Evers to FOX

April 25, 2008 5:34 PM

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., continued to try and use the Weather Underground to rain on Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., telling conservative bloggers in a conference call today that Obama needs to repudiate William Ayers, apologize to Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., for comparing him to Ayers (as an example of a friend with whom Obama disagrees), and to apologize to the American people for his relationship with Ayers, "an unrepentant terrorist."

The presumptive GOP frontrunner expresses surprise that the media is making more out of Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright than his relationship with Ayers.

Town Hall, the American Spectator, Human Events, Commentary and others are up and running with the comments.

McCain -- unlike the husband of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., who commuted the jail sentences of two members of the Weather Underground -- seems eager to bring this subject up, as he did on This Week with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday.

- jpt

UPDATE: Obama spox Bill Burton writes to say, "We want to take Senator McCain at his word that he wants to run a respectful campaign, but that is becoming increasingly difficult when he continually tries to use the politics of association and makes claims he knows not to be true to advance his campaign.  This type of politics of division and distraction, not only lead to a campaign not worthy of the American people, but also has failed to help our families for too long."

McCain spox Brian Rogers responds: "Senator Obama was introduced to the local political scene at the home of an unrepentant terrorist, William Ayers, with whom he has had a friendship for many years. Mr. Ayers was a leader of the Weather Underground, a terrorist group responsible for countless bombings against targets including the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and numerous police stations, courthouses and banks. In recent years, Mr. Ayers has stated, 'I don't regret setting bombs . . . I feel we didn't do enough.' Then last week, Senator Obama went so far as to compare this unrepentant terrorist to Senator Tom Coburn, a physician who goes home to Oklahoma on the weekends and brings babies into life. Surely the American people agree that judgment matters in our next president. Senator Obama's long association with an unrepentant terrorist is an issue of judgment, and it will absolutely be an issue in this election."

April 25, 2008 in Weblogs | Permalink | User Comments (366) | TrackBack (0)

Obama Campaign Says White Race-Based Voters Are McCain's

April 25, 2008 5:28 PM

In an interview with National Journal's Linda Douglass, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe downplays the impact Obama's race will have on any November match-up, saying "the vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain's camp already."

It's an interesting assertion. One not particularly born out by polling or data, but interesting nonetheless.

- jpt

April 25, 2008 in Weblogs | Permalink | User Comments (65) | TrackBack (0)