« April 2008 | Main | June 2008 »

The "Disenfranchised" Who Didn't Vote at All

May 31, 2008 5:41 PM

One talking point we're hearing a bit more about today has to do with the Democrats in Florida and Michigan who didn't bother voting in their state primaries because the DNC had told them their votes wouldn't count.

Would counting the two states' primaries not affirmatively disenfranchise these voters as surely as not counting the contests would disenfranchise those who did go to the polls?

Gregory P. Nini and Glenn Hurowitz make "a statistical comparison with turnout in other states’ primaries" and conclude that "roughly two million more people would have voted in Florida and Michigan had they expected their delegates to be seated."

Eric Kleefeld of the liberal muckraking site Talking Points Memo takes a look at these numbers and concludes that "while the Florida primary turnout was high relative to past primaries within the state, the relative Democratic turnout vs. the Republican primary lagged way behind relative party turnout in other primaries and caucuses across the country, where the voting counted from the start. And in Michigan in particular, the voting level there was simply abysmal. This suggests the possibility that far more Democratic voters would have come out in both states if they'd expected the contests to count, meaning that it's hard to argue that the primaries that actually took place really reflected the will of the people."

Any Floridians and Michiganers out there with thoughts on the matter?

-jpt

May 31, 2008 in 2008: Democrats | Permalink | User Comments (195) | TrackBack (0)

The Protests Outside

May 31, 2008 5:15 PM

Hillary Clinton supporters inside the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee brouhaha here tell me that a number of the pro-Clinton protestors outside the hotel seem to be under the mistaken impression that if Michigan and Florida were seated at 100 percent strength, the New York senator would immediately pass Sen. Barack Obama in delegates and would have enough delegates to win the nomination.

That is obviously not what would happen.

Meanwhile, on YouTube someone has posted this interview with one of the pro-Clinton protestors outside who has some rather strong feelings on the subject.

- jpt

May 31, 2008 in 2008: Democrats | Permalink | User Comments (87) | TrackBack (0)

Ickes Sees "Perversion" at the DNC Meeting

May 31, 2008 3:46 PM

Harold Ickes, a senior adviser to the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., took issue just now with any notion that the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is conceding anything by agreeing to a proposal being floated to seat the full Florida delegation with each delegate getting half a vote -- thus netting Clinton 19 pledged delegates.

"Concession?" said Ickes. "Gimme a break. Under their formula, Hillary Clinton loses delegates, not gains delegates. It is just a perversion of the word to call that a concession."

At last year's DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting, Ickes was one of several Clinton supporters to vote to not recognize any delegates from either Florida or Michigan because the two states were about to violate party rules and hold their contests early. He has since changed his position on the matter.

- jpt

May 31, 2008 in Clinton, Hillary | Permalink | User Comments (103) | TrackBack (0)

A Clinton Hurricane Hits Outside the DNC Hearing Room

May 31, 2008 2:05 PM

There was a tornado watch outside the Democratic National Committee's Rules & Bylaws Committee meeting at the Marriot Wardman Park Hotel Saturday afternoon. And there was a brewing storm inside the hotel as well.

A group of public officials -- allies of both Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barack Obama -- walked out of the hearing room to discuss their willingness to come together on a plan to seat all their delegates, each voting at half-delegate status, but representatives of the Clinton campaign from outside Florida interrupted their press conference to dispute the idea that the Clinton campaign agreed with the plan.

The "Florida unity" group, which included Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, a Clinton supporter, Rep. Bob Wexler, D-Florida, am Obama supporter, and Florida Democratic National Committee member Jon Ausman of Tallahassee, who filed a challenge to the DNC's decision to not recognize any of Florida's delegates.

They seemed to come around the idea that for now the DNC would agree to seat Florida's entire 211-member delegation at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August, though all the delegates -- pledged and superdelegates -- would have their vote count as half a delegate. The move would net Clinton 19 pledged delegates. Participants seemed to agree that the door was open to the eventual Democratic nominee seating them at full strength if he or she so chose.

Clinton campaign surrogate Lanny Davis stood outside the circle and interrupted, raising his voice in protest that the Clinton campaign had agreed to anything less than a 100% seating of the delegates at 100% of their strength.

Nelson noted that he was speaking "on behalf of the voters of Florida," not on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

"They're misrepresenting our stance," Davis said repeatedly.

Then Arthenia L. Joyner, Clinton's designated Florida representative, approached the circle.

"The campaign is only for 100%," Joyner said.

Davis and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, a fiery supporter of Sen. Clinton's, exchanged some heated words with Ausman after the Florida DNC member suggested they had no business speaking.

Davis took issue with some from the Florida unity group saying the Obama campaign's concession was "generous" since Clinton would net 19 delegates.

"That is not generous when they take away 50%," Davis said. "That is spin!"

What's wrong with netting 19 delegates? "It's 19 less than the people of Florida voted," Davis said.

This was more than Florida DNC member Ausman could apparently take. "I can say they're being generous," Ausman said of the Obama campaign, "and I'm the one who filed the petition."

"Are you a paid staff member for Clinton?" Ausman asked Davis.

"Actually I'm just a friend," said Davis.

"Are you a designated representative of the Clinton campaign?" Ausman, who may be a foot taller than Davis, asked.

"I am not," Davis said.

"Why don't you let the designated representative speak for Clinton and you be silent?" Ausman said, more a statement than a question. "Are you from Florida?"

"Why don't you go about your business?" Jones asked Ausman.

"As a matter of fact I will not be silent," Davis said, "you're not going to silence me."

"You had your interview," interjected Jones. "Why don't you let someone else be interviewed? I am the designated representative for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. My name is Stephanie Tubbs Jones and I represent the great state of Ohio.

"We don't expect that the Obama campaign will be so 'generous' as to 'give' us the 19 delegates," Jones continued. "It is in fact more generous and more appropriate to count all the votes as they were cast."

Jones would not comment on the Clinton campaign's position that Obama be awarded zero delegates and zero popular votes from Michigan, where his name was not on the ballot.

- jpt

May 31, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (133) | TrackBack (0)

McClellen's Book Gets Up McAuliffe's Irish

May 30, 2008 9:12 PM

Hillary Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe tells the National Journal's splendiferous Tammy Haddad that he doesn't care for former Bush White House press secretary Scott McClellen's scathing memoir.

"I never like it when someone works for someone and then comes out and writes a book trashing them," quoth the Macker. "I don't care if it is politics or life. If he was that upset about everything, he should have quit. Remember, Gerald Ford's press secretary quit when he disagreed with pardoning, Ford pardoning Nixon. If you don't agree, then get out. And I just, I find it abhorrent the way these people come out and write books about their boss. It made 'em money, it made 'em prestige, it gave them all this power, and then they turn around and slap 'em. I just, I gotta tell you, I just uh, I don't care who it is -- Democrat, Republican -- it's wrong."

Hat tip: J-Mart

- jpt

May 30, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (59) | TrackBack (0)

With Friends Like McCain's...

May 30, 2008 5:18 PM

ABC NEWS' Z. BYRON WOLF WRITES FROM THE ABC BOOTH IN THE U.S. SENATE:

The second measure in weeks to pit Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., against two of his strongest supporters is coming down the pipeline.

Sen. John Warner was among the first to back McCain's quest for the presidency. Warner endorsed his Senate Armed Services Committee colleague back in February of 2007, even as the two were publicly airing very different thoughts about the troop surge.

But if Warner was one of McCain's first supporters, his actions recently have put McCain in some difficult situations. And he's getting help from Indy Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, another staunch McCain supporter.

After all, it was the backing by Warner and Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and their public campaign in favor of a major overhaul of the GI Bill -- an effort to basically send all post-9/11 vets to college -- that really gave the bill some steam. Senators passed it last week with 75 votes. Lieberman was not one of the 58 cosponsors of the bill, but he did vote for it.

McCain, along with the White House and the Pentagon, thinks that GI bill will hurt military retention and, while he voiced his opposition to it, skipped the vote to campaign in California.

Next up is another tricky political maneuver for McCain. Climate Change.

McCain has been a leader in the Republican party in voicing concern about climate change and vocal in recent years in his support along with Lieberman for measures to create nation-wide greenhouse gas standards and let businesses that cannot meet limits trade for carbon credits with businesses that can.

But it is not McCain's name next to Lieberman's on the Climate Security Act Senators are set to debate next week. It's Warner's.

And McCain, although he and his Democratic rivals for the Presidency will all three miss the debate, is for the moment withholding support for the bill despite his past endorsement of a cap and trade system. He wants to make sure it contains more incentives for the development of nuclear energy. The rub, of course, is that those sorts of incentives would scuttle the bill for many Democrats.

So, When the Senate takes up the Climate Security Act, it will be the second measure in a row to take something McCain has built his career supporting - veterans two weeks and cap and trade legislation next week - and present it in a way that he finds unpalatable.

-- Z. Byron Wolf

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

McCain Says It Was Inappropriate to Use Petraeus in His Fundraising Solicitation

May 30, 2008 2:35 PM

Per ABC News' Bret Hovell, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was asked today if it was appropriate to use an image of Gen. David Petraeus in a fundraising soliciation.

"No," McCain said. "It won't happen again."

- jpt

May 30, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (34) | TrackBack (0)

Zimbabwean Ambassador Takes Umbrage at Clinton's Florida Remarks

May 30, 2008 1:43 PM

The ambassador to the United States from Zimbabwe, Machivenyika Mapuranga, took issue this week with comments Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, made in Florida last week to urge that the Democratic National Committee count every vote as cast from disputed contests in Florida and Michigan.

In Sunrise, Florida, on May 21, Clinton referred to people who "go through the motions of an election only to have them discarded and disregarded. We're seeing that right now in Zimbabwe. Tragically, an election was held, the president lost, they refused to abide by the will of the people. So we can never take for granted our precious right to vote."

Mapuranga said Clinton's remarks were made "out of ignorance or malice."

"The 29th March 2008 election resulted in the ruling party (Zanu PF) winning 97 seats, and the opposition party (MDC) winning 99 seats, as declared by the independent electoral commission," Mapuranga said. "If Sen. Hillary Clinton was not aware of these facts, her ignorance can be excused considering the stressful situation she is in because of her faltering campaign; but if she was aware of the facts, we can only conclude that this is yet another of her misspoken utterances."

"There were four presidential candidates and none of them attained the requisite threshold of 50 percent plus 1 votes," Mapuranga said. "The Electoral Act provides that in that event there must be a run-off between the two top candidates."

- jpt

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

Archdiocese of Chicago Hammers Father Pfleger

May 30, 2008 1:25 PM

Cardinal Francis George of the Archdiocese of Chicago just issued this statement about Father Michael Pfleger's ridicule of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in a sermon at the church of Sen. Barack Obama, Trinity United Church of Christ, on Sunday:

"The Catholic Church does not endorse political candidates.  Consequently, while a priest must speak to political issues that are also moral, he may not endorse candidates nor engage in partisan campaigning.

"Racial issues are both political and moral and are also highly charged. Words can be differently interpreted, but Fr. Pfleger’s remarks about Senator Clinton are both partisan and amount to a personal attack.  I regret that deeply.

"To avoid months of turmoil in the church, Fr. Pfleger has promised me that he will not enter into campaigning, will not publicly mention any candidate by name and will abide by the discipline common to all catholic priests."

I just have to say, as someone of faith, I have never before heard a cleric engage in such disdainful mockery from a pulpit. Have you?

- jpt

May 30, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (229) | TrackBack (0)

David Caruso, Underrated Genius

May 30, 2008 11:54 AM

Jim Carrey pays homage.

A compilation.

A special compilation dedicated to sunglasses.

Happy Friday.

- jpt

May 30, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (14) | TrackBack (0)

Hillary, Nutcrackers & Sexism

May 30, 2008 11:52 AM

ABC News' Claire Shipman took a look at sexism and the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, this morning on GMA.

Check it out.

Claire also made mention of the Women's Media Center and its video "Sexism May Sell, But I'm Not Buying It!" which you can watch HERE.

For a counterpoint, check out Peggy Noonan's "Sex and the Sissy," where she writes, "If Golda Meir, a woman of not only proclaimed but actual toughness, heard about Golda nutcrackers, she would have bought them by the case and given them away as party favors."

For the record, the other day on Fox News Channel Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said he owned a Hillary Nutcracker. Is that sexist?

-jpt

May 30, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (66) | TrackBack (0)

Monsignor Mockery at Empire State GOP Gala

May 30, 2008 10:18 AM

Monsignor Jim Lisante mocks Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, last night at the New York State Republican Party dinner, attended by Vice President Dick Cheney.

Watch HERE.

"One more thing, Lord," Lisante said during the invocation. "Please tell Senator Obama that maybe change is a good thing and that maybe he should think about changing his favorite preacher

"I know a lot more of us would be comfortable with his judgment skills if he hadn’t sat for 20 years through those words offered by his preacher of division, bigotry, and --honestly -- half truths without a word of objection from the Senator. That is, until the media brought it up, and now he doesn’t want any part of the guy. I’m willing to be his new preacher."

I think God has better things to do than listen to this stuff, whether it's coming from the Right or the Left.

- jpt

May 30, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (42) | TrackBack (0)

Democratic Divisions

May 30, 2008 9:14 AM

Father Pfleger's ridicule of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, could not come at a more sensitive time.

Watch our GMA report HERE.

- jpt

May 30, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (160) | TrackBack (0)

McCain Uses Image of Gen. Petraeus in Fundraising Solicitation

May 30, 2008 8:29 AM

On Monday, Memorial Day, Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen wrote an open letter to troops in uniform that "the U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times. It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway."

"The only things we should be wearing on our sleeves are our military insignia," Mullen wrote.

Three days later, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, sent a fundraising solicitation using an image of him and Gen. David Petraeus.

"Something is wrong with your judgment when you want to sit down unconditionally with Raul Castro and Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but you don't take the opportunity to sit down with General Petraeus and learn about the situation in Iraq firsthand," the letter reads. "My friends, this is not the 'change' we need in our next president."

Presumably the McCain campaign did not ask Petraeus' permission to use the picture. Do you think it's at all contrary to Mullen's message to use the photo of McCain and Petraeus in a fundraising solicitation?

- jpt

UPDATE: ABC News' Jonathan Karl notes that Petraeus's spokesman, Colonel Steven Boylan, says the McCain campaign did not ask for permission to use the photo.

"By no means does the use of his photo mean he has endorsed anybody.  He has not.  He won't.  He remains apolitical," Boylan told Karl

Does Petraeus object to the use of his photo?

"He has no comment on that one way or another," Boylan said.

UPDATE 2: McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers says using the image of Petraeus is not at all contrary to the spirit of Mullen's directive. "We’re not suggesting General Petraeus has endorsed anyone in this race. I’m sure you’ll find (attached is one example) that Senator Obama has used pictures of himself with troops in the course of this campaign."

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

Argus Leader: Clinton's the One

May 30, 2008 7:55 AM

When all is said and done about the most controversial editorial board meeting in recent American political history, the Argus Leader in South Dakota endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, today, whether or not her invoking of the Bobby Kennedy assassination was inappropriate.

- jpt

May 30, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (88) | TrackBack (0)

WWII Vet Fires at Conservative Bloggers Re: Obama's Great Uncle Charlie

May 29, 2008 10:04 PM

His name, according to the Obama campaign, was Charles T. Payne.

He was born in February 1925, and he served in the 89th Infantry Division of the Army during World War II.

Checking out Obama's story -- you may recall that on Memorial Day, Obama mistakenly said his great uncle was one of the soldiers who helped liberate the concentration camp Auschwitz, when in fact the 89th helped liberate Buchenwald -- our friends at Politifact looked into the matter.

"Although we were not able to reach Payne directly, Payne's son, Richard Payne, said his father 'definitely served in the 89th Infantry Division' and confirmed that Obama's account was substantially accurate, except for identifying the wrong concentration camp. Richard Payne declined to say anything further."

Politifact spoke with researchers at the National Personnel Records Center, who reported that "Army personnel records for Payne would have been destroyed in a 1973 fire that consumed many such archives, but they dug up a 'Morning Report' dated April 11, 1945, showing Pfc. Charles T. Payne was assigned to the 355th Regiment Infantry, Company K. The Records Center provided a copy of the report."

Then there's the unofficial website dedicated to the 89th Infantry Division. Politifact spoke with Mark Kitchell, son of 89th veteran Raymond E. Kitchell, who has a list of servicemen -- a list that includes Pfc. C.T. Payne, K Company, 355th Infantry Regiment, 89th Infantry Division -- from the official Division History book.

Politifact concluded that while Obama erred in the name of the concentration camp, the story otherwise checked out.

**

An interesting side story here -- the Kitchells are not particularly happy with the conservative bloggers who have set out to prove Obama was "lying" about his great uncle.

On their website, the Kitchells have written:

"Concerning the service of Mr. Charles Payne: C.T. Payne was a soldier in the 89th Infantry Division. He served in the 355th Infantry Regiment, Company K. The 355th Infantry Regiment was the unit to liberate Ohrdruf. Mr. Payne was there.

"For those who seek to minimize the horrors of Ohrdruf since it was a 'work' camp and not a 'death' camp, we have but one word: shame. Ironically, this argument has been made to us time and time again by various Holocaust-deniers and other pro-Nazi groups. We will let the testimony of survivors and veterans speak for themselves.

"'It has been recorded that in Ordruf itself the last days were a slaughterhouse. We were shot at, beaten and molested. At every turn went on the destruction of the remaining inmates. Indiscriminant criminal behavior (like the murderers of Oklahoma City some days ago). Some days before the first Americans appeared at the gates of Ordruf, the last retreating Nazi guards managed to execute with hand pistols, literally emptying their last bullets on whomever they encountered leaving them bleeding to death as testified by an American of the 37th Tank Battalion Medical section, 10 a.m. April 4, 1945.

"'Today I'm privileged thanks to G-d and you gallant fighting men. I'm here to reminisce, and reflect, and experience instant recollections of those moments. Those horrible scenes and that special instance when an Allied soldier outstretched his arm to help me up became my re-entrance, my being re-invited into humanity and restoring my inalienable right to a dignified existence as a human being and as a Jew. Something, which was denied me from September 1939 to the day of liberation in 1945. I had no right to live and survived, out of 80 members of my family, the infernal ordeal of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Ordruf, and its satellite camp Crawinkle and finally Theresinstadt Ghetto-Concentration Camp.

"'Rabbi Murray Kohn'

**

Then there's this remarkable exchange between the conservative bloggers at Sweetness & Light and Ray Kitchell, who served with the 89th:

From: Steve Gilbert
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 6:14 AM
Subject: Any Record Of Charles W Payne?

Mr. Kitchell,

As you may have heard by now, Barack Obama has claimed that his great uncle Charlie Payne was a member of the 89th Div that liberated Buchenwald.

According to records his full name is either Charles W Payne or Charles T Payne (most likely the former), and he was born in 1924 — and he is still alive today.

He most likely was from Kansas at the time of enlistment.

Do you have any record of this gentleman?

Thank you,

Steve Gilbert
sweetness-light.com

PS - If you go to my website, you will see that I was probably the first to note the error in Mr. Obama’s first claims about his “uncle.”

**

And the response:

Please crawl back under the rock you came out from.

Good day

Raymond Kitchell, veteran 89th Inf Div

**

Kitchell also wrote in a subsequent email:  "Please spend ample time chasing down the lies fed to you by chickenhawks Bush & Co. Like 90% of this administration, they don’t have the foggiest idea what we went through or what we saw at Ohrdruf." *

The response at Sweetness & Light was to compare Kitchell to Cindy Sheehan.

- jpt

* It's been pointed out to me that the Cindy Sheehan comparison was in response to the "chickenhawks" email, so I added it for better context.

May 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (69) | TrackBack (0)

Clinton Campaign Statement on Father Pfleger Comments

May 29, 2008 8:28 PM

The Clinton campaign's communications director, Howard Wolfson, clearly thinks Obama's rejection of Father Pfleger's sermon was lacking.

Wolfson says: "Divisive and hateful language like that is totally counterproductive in our efforts to bring our party together and have no place at the pulpit or in our politics.  We are disappointed that Senator Obama didn't specifically reject Father's Pflegler's despicable comments about Senator Clinton, and assume he will do so."

- jpt

May 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (221) | TrackBack (0)

Priest and Obama Ally Mocks Clinton's Tears from Obama's Church's Pulpit

May 29, 2008 3:34 PM

Father Michael Pfleger, a fiery liberal social activist and a white reverend at an African-American church -- St. Sabina’s Catholic Church on the South Side of Chicago -- is a longtime friend and associate of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, having known him since the presidential hopeful was a community activist. In September, the Obama campaign brought Pfleger to Iowa to host one of several interfaith forums for the campaign.

Their relationship spans decades. Pfleger has given money to Obama's campaigns and Obama as a state legislator directed at least $225,000 towards social programs at St. Sabina's, according to the Chicago Tribune.

A new Youtube video making the rounds shows Pfleger speaking at Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ, just last Sunday, mocking Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, for having cried in New Hampshire, suggesting that she wept because she thought as a white person and wife of a former president she was entitled to the presidency.

Watch HERE.

In response to the sermon, Obama issued a statement saying: “As I have traveled this country, I've been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that that unites us. That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause.”

This is what Obama was responding to: After being introduced by Obama's church's new pastor -- Rev. Otis Moss -- Rev. Pfleger talks about the importance of taking on "white entitlement and supremacy wherever it raises its head."

"Rev. Moss, when Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don't believe it was put on," Pfleger says from the pulpit. "I really believe that she just always thought, 'This is mine! I'm Bill's wife, I'm white, and this is mine! I just gotta get up and step into the plate.' And then out of nowhere came, 'Hey, I'm Barack Obama,' and she said, 'Oh, damn! Where did you come from? I'm white! I'm entitled! There's a black man stealing my show!'

Pfleger then mocks her crying, much to delight of the crowd, many of whom stand up and applaud.

"She wasn't the only one crying, there was a whole lot of white people crying!" Pfleger says to laughter.

The tape, which just shows this one controversial part of Pfleger's sermon, then cuts to Moss thanking Pfleger: "We thank God for the message, we thank God for the messenger, we thank God for Father Michael Pfleger," Moss says.

The New York Times recently described Father Pfleger as having "long worked with South Side political leaders to reduce crime and improve the community. But he has drawn fire from some quarters for defending the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and inviting him to speak at his church."

- jpt

UPDATE: Pfleger appears to have been scrubbed from the Obama campaign's page that features the testimony of faith leaders, but you can see the cached version HERE.

UPDATE II: Father Pfleger writes to say, "I regret the words I chose on Sunday. These words are inconsistent with Senator Obama's life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Senator Clinton or anyone else who saw them."

May 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (1018) | TrackBack (0)

Obama-Backing Congressman Wants McClellan to Testify Before Congress

May 29, 2008 2:45 PM

Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla. -- who has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and may be a superdelegate for him depending on what happens at the DNC meeting this Saturday -- yesterday called upon former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to testify under oath before the House Judiciary Committee.

“The admissions made by Scott McClellan in his new book are earth-shattering and allege facts to establish that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby – and possibly Vice President Cheney -  conspired to obstruct justice by lying about their role in the Plame Wilson matter and that the Bush Administration deliberately lied to the American people in order to take us to war in Iraq," said Wexler, who has led a campaign to hold impeachment hearings against Cheney.

Wexler said he wants McClellan to tell Congress how the Bush administration "deliberately orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq to the American people.”

- jpt

May 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (22) | TrackBack (0)

House Majority Whip to Endorse Tuesday

May 29, 2008 1:48 PM

Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-SC, the House Majority Whip, told the Stamford (Conn.) Advocate that he will announce whom he as a superdelegate is backing on the last primary day of the season, Tuesday June 3.

"As the House majority whip, I didn't want to interject myself into the process," Clyburn told the paper. That said, he voted in the South Carolina primary. "I'm not undecided, just unpledged."

The question is not whether Clyburn will come out for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, but how many other Representatives come off the fence.

- jpt

UPDATE: I'm told the report that Clyburn will announce at 11 am Tuesday is not true -- that he will be on a plane at that time.

May 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (54) | TrackBack (0)

The "Told You So" Calculation

May 29, 2008 11:59 AM

"Have you seen the general election polls lately?" Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, asks in a new email fundraising pitch. "They consistently show that we'll beat John McCain in November. In a national head-to-head match and in the critical swing states, the numbers show I'm the best candidate to take back the White House for Democrats. That is why it's critical that we stay in this race and keep fighting for every last vote. We can win the nomination if we extend our popular vote lead, and that means putting everything we have into the final races. With just a few days before the voters in Puerto Rico head to the polls, our campaign is working hard -- and your support is making the difference."

Chris Cillizza at The Fix postulates that Clinton and her husband "seem to be laying the groundwork -- whether unconsciously or consciously -- to go back to Democratic voters if Barack Obama comes up short in November with a very concise message: 'Told you so.'"

Cillizza notes that Clinton herself in that Argus Leader editorial board meeting said she found calls for her to drop out "curious because it is unprecedented in history. I don't understand it and between my opponent and his camp and some in the media, there has been this urgency to end this and you know historically that makes no sense, so I find it a bit of a mystery."

Bill Clinton over the weekend, noting the electoral math arguments we've pointed out before (most significantly that Clinton out-polls Obama significantly in Florida and Ohio), said "she is winning the general election today and he is not, according to all the evidence. And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running."

I don't know that comparing Clinton's numbers to Obama's right now is fair. Obama has been getting attacked fairly regularly by McCain, and until recently by Clinton. Conversely, I think it's fair to say that Obama has been unable to fully attack Clinton on a number of issues on which she'd be vulnerable to GOP attacks during a general election -- Clinton scandals, Bill Clinton's business dealings.

On the other hand, Obama has benefited from some embarrassingly obsequious media coverage, and Clinton from some of the roughest treatment a candidate's experienced since the Nixon years.

Some supporters of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, felt this way in 2000, too -- that Al Gore would beat George W. Bush, that the Republican party was nominating their weaker candidate.

I guess we'll see.

- jpt

May 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (87) | TrackBack (0)

Rupert Murdoch Effuses Praise for…Barack Obama?

May 29, 2008 11:50 AM

At the Wall Street Journal's "D: All Things Digital" conference, Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corporation -- owner of Fox News Channel, and the New York Post, among other platforms many consider conservative -- was practically gushing about ….liberal Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois.

"He's become a rock star, it's fantastic," Murdoch said.

(Watch video excerpts HERE and HERE.)

Murdoch said Republicans were in for a tough time this November. "You've got the Obama phenomenon; you've got undoubtedly a recession," he said.

As for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Murdoch said McCain has "been in Congress a long time" which means he's made "too many compromises. So, what's he really stand for? He's a patriot, he's a friend of mine, a very  decent guy, I think he has -- and I say this sympathetically -- I think he has a lot of problems."

Asked point-blank if he had anything to with the New York Post endorsing Obama in the New York primary, Murdoch said, "yeah."

The Alley Insider also reports that Murdoch said, "I want to be convinced that Obama is the real thing, that he can really carry through. I'm open to that."

He said Obama "might not carry Florida, because the Jewish people are suspicious of him, and so are Hispanics... and while people won't talk about it, race will matter."

And Clinton supporter Hillary Rosen writes at the Huffington Post that Murdoch also said of Obama, "I don't think he will win Florida.....but he will win in Ohio and the election" plus "I am anxious to meet him" and "I want to see if he will walk the walk."

What the heck…?

- jpt

May 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (30) | TrackBack (0)

Oh, Yucca

May 29, 2008 10:12 AM

Sen. John McCain's support for a nuclear waste depository in Nevada at the Yucca Mountain site is pretty clear.

In March 2007, according to the Deseret News, McCain even "mocked a question about the dangers of transporting nuclear waste while speaking with Utah reporters. 'Oh, you have to travel through states ... I am for Yucca Mountain. I'm for storage facilities. It's a lot better than sitting outside power plants all over America,' he said, then added, 'I don't mean to be sarcastic. I apologize. But I believe we can transport waste safely.'"

But during a campaign stop in Nevada where he continued to reaffirm his support for Yucca -- which is quite unpopular with Nevadans -- McCain also said that he "would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials. It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.”

The Las Vegas Sun's influential columnist Jon Ralston found this a bit disingenuous, writing that "in the past few weeks, McCain has experienced an epiphany and decided there should be some sort of international repository for the fuel that he had so long wanted to come here? This is believable? And such a cockamamie solution, too. We are going to ship nuclear waste overseas?"

The implication is that McCain, looking at the electoral map has realized that he needs Nevada's five electoral votes in order to beat Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois.

Obama for his part opposes Yucca, though his second-biggest campaign contributor is the nation's largest nuclear power operator, Exelon Corp., whose CEO is a big Yucca booster.

- jpt

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

Obama v Obama?

May 29, 2008 9:06 AM

In today's New York Times,  Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, seeks to clarify his views on meeting with hostile foreign dictators.

“I didn’t say that I would meet unconditionally as John McCain maintained, because that would suggest whether it was useful or not, whether it was advancing our interests or not, I would just do it for the sake of doing it,” Obama said. “That’s not a change in position, that’s simply responding to distortions of my position.”

Okay, let's go to the videotape. You can watch the question and answer HERE and read the transcript HERE.

At last Summer's Youtube/CNN debate here's exactly what Obama said.

He was asked the following: "In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

Okay, so let's review:

* A willingness.

* For meetings.

* Anywhere.

* Without preconditions.

* During the first 12 months of the Obama administration.

* With the leaders of Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

* And the goal: bridging the gap that divides the countries.

And Obama's answer?

"I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We’ve been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses."

**

One point of confusion seems to come from this: Obama is distinguishing between holding these meetings without "preconditions" -- as Obama said he would be willing to do during that debate, meaning that the U.S. would not require Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program before agreeing to a meeting -- and holding them "unconditionally," meaning there without any "preparations," which he now says he would not do.

Obama spoke more about this in our interview with him last week.

Can voters be forgiven for not fully understanding Obama's views on this all?

Yesterday, Obama told reporters, "I want to initiate direct talks, starting at a low level, with Iran, exploring the possibilities of seeing a change in behavior in Iran.  And hopefully over time, changing the nature of the relationship."

But the dispute isn't over low-level talks, it's over presidential-level meetings.

The initial Youtube question was about whether Obama would meet with the "leaders" of those hostile countries, not specifically Ahmadinejad.

And Obama yesterday told reporters "there is no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know that he is actually in power. He is not the most powerful person in Iran.”

But in a press conference last September, during the controversy over Ahmadinejad being invited to speak at Columbia University, Obama gave the distinct impression that he would specifically meet with Ahmadinejad, in this exchange:

QUESTION: “Senator, you’ve said before that you’d meet with President Ahmadinejad, would you still meet with him today?”

OBAMA: “Nothing’s changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries. I find many of President Ahmadinejad’s statements odious and I’ve said that repeatedly. And I think that we have to recognize that there are a lot of rogue nations in the world that don’t have American interests at heart. But what I also believe is that, as John F. Kennedy said, we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate. And by us listening to the views even of those who we violently disagree with – that sends a signal to the world that we are going to turn the page on the failed diplomacy that the Bush Administration has practiced for so long.”

-- jpt

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

McClellan In His Own Words, Clinton and Obama's Parallel Universes

May 29, 2008 8:42 AM

We took a look at the Clinton/Obama Parallel Universes last night on World News with Charles Gibson. Watch HERE.

And this morning on GMA, Scott McClellan…in his own words. Watch HERE.

- jpt

May 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (16) | TrackBack (0)

As Scottie Sowed, So Is He Reaping

May 28, 2008 3:15 PM

Before he wrote his own memoir, White House press secretary Scott McClellan was rather critical of those who did the same.

In fact, some of the same language now being used to trash McClellan he himself used to trash previous administration authors.

On the book critical of the Bush White House written in cooperation with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," McClellan said on January 12, 2004:

McCLELLAN: "It appears to be more about trying to justify personal views and opinions than it does about looking at the results that we are achieving on behalf of the American people."

McClellan also took issue with the book by former Bush White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," on March 22, 2004:

McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book. Certainly let's look at the politics of it. His best buddy is Rand Beers, who is the principal foreign policy advisor to Senator Kerry's campaign. The Kerry campaign went out and immediately put these comments up on their website that Mr. Clarke made. ...

Q: Scott, the whole point of his book is he says that he did raise these concerns and he was not listened to by his superiors.

McCLELLAN: Yes, and that's just flat-out wrong. …When someone uses such charged rhetoric that is just not matched by the facts, it's important that we set the record straight. And that's what we're doing. If you look back at his past comments and his past actions, they contradict his current rhetoric. I talked to you all a little bit about that earlier today. Go back and look at exactly what he has said in the past and compare that with what he is saying today.

**

Ahem.

- jpt

May 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (150) | TrackBack (0)

Rachael Ray's Scarf Arouses Conservative Ire

May 28, 2008 12:23 PM

Dunkin Donuts has canceled a TV ad featuring cutie-pie cook Rachael Ray because in the ad, draped around her neck, is a black and white silk scarf with paisleys that some conservatives objected to because they thought it too closely resembled a keffiyah.

The Boston Globe has more details.

Says Dunkin Donuts: ‘‘In a recent online ad, Rachael Ray is wearing a black-and-white silk scarf with a paisley design. It was selected by her stylist for the advertising shoot. Absolutely no symbolism was intended. However, given the possibility of misperception, we are no longer using the commercial.’’

Weird days.

- jpt

May 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (148) | TrackBack (0)

Gallup Analysis: Clinton Has Swing State Advantage

May 28, 2008 11:51 AM

An analysis by Lydia Saad at Gallup of Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks seems to re-affirm Sen. Hillary Clinton's argument that she is likelier to beat Sen. John McCain than is Sen. Barack Obama.

"Clinton is currently running ahead of McCain in the 20 states where she has prevailed in the popular vote," Saad writes, "while Obama is tied with McCain in those same states. Thus, at this stage in the race (before the general-election campaigns have fully engaged), there is some support for her argument that her primary states indicate she would be stronger than Obama in the general election.

"The same cannot be said for Obama in the 28 states and D.C. where he prevailed in the popular vote. As of now, in those states, he is performing no better than Clinton is in general-election trial heats versus McCain. Thus, the principle of greater primary strength translating into greater general-election strength -- while apparently operative for the states Clinton has won -- does not seem to apply at the moment to states Obama has won."

Are the Democrats about to nominate their weaker candidate? What say you?

- jpt

May 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (332) | TrackBack (0)

McClellan: Media During Run-Up to Iraq Were "Complicit Enablers"

May 28, 2008 11:12 AM

Some excerpts from Scott McClellan's new book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception  that may not get the same wall-to-wall coverage as his comments about his former colleagues at the Bush White House?

His scathing criticism of the media, particularly during the run-up to the war in Iraq.

Writes McClellan:

"In the fall of 2002, Bush and his White house were engaging in a carefully-orchestrated campaign to shape and manipulate sources of public approval to our advantage. We'd done much the same on other issues--tax cuts and education--to great success. But war with Iraq was different. Beyond the irreversible human costs and substantial financial price, the decision to go to war and the way we went about selling it would ultimately lead to increased polarization and intensified partisan warfare. Our lack of candor and honesty in making the case for war would later provoke a partisan response from our opponents that, in its own way, further distorted and obscured a more nuanced reality. Another cycle of deception would cloud the public's ability to see larger, underlying important truths that are critical to understand in order to avoid the same problems in the future.

"And through it all, the media would serve as complicit enablers. Their primary focus would be on covering the campaign to sell the war, rather than aggressively questioning the rationale for war or pursuing the truth behind it… the media would neglect their watchdog role, focusing less on truth and accuracy and more on whether the campaign was succeeding. Was the president winning or losing the argument? How were Democrats responding? What were the electoral implications? What did the polls say? And the truth--about the actual nature of the threat posed by Saddam, the right way to confront it, and the possible risks of military conflict--would get largely left behind…"

McClellan writes that while he thinks most reporters are personally liberal, the "vast majority--including those in the White House press corps--are honest, fair-minded and professional" when it comes to letting their political biases impact their coverage.

"If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq. The collapse of the administration's rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should have never come as such a surprise. The public should have been made much more aware, before the fact, of the uncertainties, doubts, and caveats that underlay the intelligence about the regime of Saddam hussein. The administration did little to convey those nuances to the people, the press should have picked up the slack but largely failed to do so because their focus was elsewhere--on covering the march to war, instead of the necessity of war.

"In this case, the 'liberal media' didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served."

Towards the end of the book, McClellan suggests that network news is stuck in the past and needs to change.

"The network that can find a way to shift from excessively covering controversy, the conventional horse race and image-driven coverage to give a greater emphasis to who is right and who is wrong, who is telling the truth and who is not, and the larger truths about our society and our world might achieve some amazing results in our fast-changing media environment."

- jpt

May 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (40) | TrackBack (0)

Has the General Election Begun?

May 28, 2008 9:32 AM

We took a look at this question today on Good Morning America.

Read it HERE and watch HERE.

Who are you planning on voting for? And why? And to all the Democrats out there, does it bother you at all that Sen. Obama is campaigning as if the nomination -- which he has not yet clinched -- is his?

- jpt

May 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (111) | TrackBack (0)

McClellan On Bush's Version of the Truth: From Cocaine Rumors to Destructive Partisan Warfare

May 28, 2008 8:34 AM

Scott McClellan's new memoir on his White House days is harsh.

The decision to invade Iraq "goes to an important question that critics have raised about the president: Is Bush intellectually incurious or, as some assert, actually stupid?" the former White House press secretary writes. "Bush is plenty smart enough to be president. But as I've noted his leadership style is based more on instinct than deep intellectual debate."

In 1999, at a hotel suite "somewhere in the Midwest," McClellan recalls the Bush mind when dealing with rumors that the then-Texas governor had used cocaine.

Writes McClellan: "'The media won't let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,' I heard Bush say. 'You know, the truth is I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don't remember.'

"I remember thinking to myself, How can that be? How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn't make a lot of sense."

And yet, McClellan concludes, "I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It's the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true, and that, deep down, he knew was not true. And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious — political convenience…"

Bush "has a way of falling back on the hazy memory to protect himself from potential political embarrassment. In other words, being evasive is not the same as lying in Bush's mind...It would not be the last time Bush mishandled potential controversy. But the cases to come would involve the public trust, and the failure to deal with them early, directly and head-on would lead to far greater suspicion and far more destructive partisan warfare."

- jpt

May 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (54) | TrackBack (0)

A Touch of Hyperbole?

May 28, 2008 7:44 AM

In Billings, Montana, Tuesday night, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, said -- per ABC News' Eloise Harper -- “Who is the stronger candidate against John McCain? We have not gone through this exciting unprecedented historical election only to lose. So you have to ask yourself who is the stronger candidate?

"And based on every analysis of every bit of research, and every poll that’s been taken and every state that a Democrat has to win – I am the stronger candidate against John McCain in the fall.”

Every analysis of every bit of research and every poll in every key state?

Really?

- jpt

May 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (142) | TrackBack (0)

Of Gaffes and Perspective

May 27, 2008 9:41 PM

I've never been one to shy away from coverage of a gaffe or flub by any candidate, certainly not Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, But I must confess to finding some of the coverage of this current controversy uncomfortable.

Obama's great uncle helped liberate Buchenwald, not Auschwitz, and Obama got it wrong. (Sunlen Miller and Rick Klein have the details HERE.)  It's unclear as of now whether Obama just mixed up the names, or he got his facts wrong, or through family lore he'd been told the wrong tale.

And now we know the truth-- his great uncle as part of the 89th Infantry Division helped liberate Ohrdruf, a sub-camp at Buchenwald. (You can read an account by one of his fellow soldiers HERE. Two survivors of the camp tell their story HERE.)

For me there's a tonal issue going on here with some of the Republicans pouncing on the issue and some of the blog coverage.

I suspect many members of the Jewish community wouldn't think this mistake that big a deal. Good for his great uncle for having helped liberate a concentration camp.

There's another argument, of course, that the best way to honor those killed in the Holocaust is to know their history, to know that Auschwitz was liberated by the Russians and was in Poland, and that Buchenwald was liberated by the U.S. and was in Germany, that Auschwitz was much larger than Buchenwald.

No matter where you stand, I guess I just don't particularly care to see Concentration Camp survivors on the same page as cartoon Pinnochios, as whoever does graphics for the Washington Post's great fact-checker Michael Dobbs has done HERE.

And do we really need the headline "Where In the World Is Auschwitz?" This isn't a joke.

I am certainly part of the media world that pounces on politicians when they screw-up. As such, I'm often guilty as charged when it comes to not seeing the forest for the trees. In this instance, the forest is the deliberate extermination of 12 million people. And the sacrifices of the brave Americans who risked and gave their lives to save those people victimized by Nazi barbarism. Not to mention our fighting men and women through the generations who have had to deal with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, a conversation about which prompted Obama to mention his great uncle.

Obama deserved to be called out for his mistake. But it's also worth noting that despite all the talk about Obama's problems with the Jewish community, he's never mentioned before that his great uncle helped liberate a concentration camp until it came up in North Las Vegas in a conversation about PTSD.

- jpt

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

Et Tu, Scottie?

May 27, 2008 7:36 PM

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's memoir about his time at the Bush White House turns out to be far more scathing than predicted, Politico's Mike Allen writes.

In his "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception" (Public Affairs, $27.95), McClellan writes about the war in Iraq that President Bush "and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war. … [I]n this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security."

The White House "spent most of the first week in a state of denial" after Hurricane Katrina, McClellan writes. "One of the worst disasters in our nation’s history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush’s presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush’s second term. And the perception of this catastrophe was made worse by previous decisions President Bush had made, including, first and foremost, the failure to be open and forthright on Iraq and rushing to war with inadequate planning and preparation for its aftermath."

He hammers former senior presidential advisers Karl Rove and Scooter Libby for having "at best misled" him about their roles in the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name as retaliation to a negative op-ed against Bush from Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson. "(T)he top White House officials who knew the truth -- including Rove, Libby, and possibly Vice President Cheney -- allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie," McClellan writes. "I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood. It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively. I didn’t learn that what I’d said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later."

Sounds like a remarkably candid book. Guess McClellan won't be invited to the Crawford ranch for that lesbian wedding Jenna Bush told Ellen DeGeneres she could hold there.

- jpt

UPDATE: ABC News' Senior White House correspondent Martha Raddatz reports that the book jacket includes these words from McClellan: "As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided." He also says: "History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided -- that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder...What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary , and the Iraq war was not. Waging an unecessary war is a grave mistake. But in reflecting on all that happened during the Bush administration, I've come to believe