WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Barack Obama rode a wave of voter discontent to an historic White House victory, promising change as the first black U.S. president but facing enormous challenges from a deep economic crisis and two lingering wars.
Obama led Democrats to a sweeping victory that expanded their majorities in both houses of Congress as Americans emphatically rejected Republican President George W. Bush's eight years of leadership.
Raucous street celebrations erupted across the country, but Obama will have little time to enjoy the victory. He was expected to start work on Wednesday, planning his formal takeover on January 20 and assembling a team to tackle the financial crisis and other challenges.
Democrats gained at least five Senate seats and about 25 seats in the House of Representatives, giving them a commanding majority in Congress and strengthening Obama's hand. Four Senate seats remained undecided.
The son of a black father from Kenya and white mother from Kansas, Obama was born when black Americans were still battling segregationist policies in the South. His triumph over Republican rival John McCain on Tuesday is a milestone that could help the United States get beyond its long, brutal history of racism.
"It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, at this defining moment, change has come to America," Obama, 47, told some 240,000 ecstatic supporters gathered in Chicago's Grant Park.
Many world leaders welcomed Obama's victory and some hailed it as an opportunity to restore a tarnished U.S. image.
"Your election has raised enormous hope in France, in Europe and beyond," French President Nicolas Sarkozy said.
Newspaper headlines captured the momentous nature of the result. A New York Times banner headline said simply "OBAMA", while the Washington Post declared "Obama Makes History" and USA Today: "America makes history; Obama wins".
PARIS — Barack Obama's election as America's first black president unleashed a renewed love for the United States after years of dwindling goodwill, and many said Wednesday that U.S. voters had blazed a trail that minorities elsewhere could follow.
People across Africa stayed up all night or woke before dawn to watch U.S. history being made, while the president of Kenya — where Obama's father was born — declared a public holiday.
In Indonesia, where Obama lived as child, hundreds of students at his former elementary school erupted in cheers when he was declared winner and poured into the courtyard where they hugged each other, danced in the rain and chanted "Obama! Obama!"
"Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place," South Africa's first black president, Nelson Mandela, said in a letter of congratulations to Obama.
Many expressed amazement and satisfaction that the United States could overcome centuries of racial strife and elect an African-American as president.
"This is the fall of the Berlin Wall times ten," Rama Yade, France's black junior minister for human rights, told French radio. "America is rebecoming a New World.
"On this morning, we all want to be American so we can take a bite of this dream unfolding before our eyes," she said.
In Britain, The Sun newspaper borrowed from Neil Armstrong's 1969 moon landing in describing Obama's election as "one giant leap for mankind."
Yet celebrations were often tempered by sobering concerns that Obama faces global challenges as momentous as the hopes his campaign inspired — wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the nuclear ambitions of Iran, the elusive hunt for peace in the Middle East and a global economy in turmoil.
The huge weight of responsibilities on Obama's shoulders was also a concern for some. French former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said Obama's biggest challenge would be managing a punishing agenda of various crises in the United States and the world. "He will need to fight on every front," he said.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said he hoped the incoming administration will take steps to improve badly damaged U.S. ties with Russia. Tensions have been driven to a post-Cold War high by Moscow's war with U.S. ally Georgia.
"I stress that we have no problem with the American people, no inborn anti-Americanism. And we hope that our partners, the U.S. administration, will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia," Medvedev said.
Europe, where Obama is overwhelmingly popular, is one region that looked eagerly to an Obama administration for a revival in warm relations after the Bush government's chilly rift with the continent over the Iraq war.
"At a time when we have to confront immense challenges together, your election raises great hopes in France, in Europe and in the rest of the world," French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in a congratulations letter to Obama.
Poland's Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski spoke of "a new America with a new credit of trust in the world."
Skepticism, however, was high in the Muslim world. The Bush administration alienated those in the Middle East by mistreating prisoners at its detention center for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and inmates at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison — human rights violations also condemned worldwide.
Some Iraqis, who have suffered through five years of a war ignited by the United States and its allies, said they would believe positive change when they saw it.
"Obama's victory will do nothing for the Iraqi issue nor for the Palestinian issue," said Muneer Jamal, a Baghdad resident. "I think all the promises Obama made during the campaign will remain mere promises."
In Pakistan, a country vital to the U.S.-led war on the al-Qaida terrorist network and neighbor to Afghanistan, many hoped Obama would bring some respite from rising militant violence that many blame on Bush.
Still, Mohammed Arshad, a 28-year-old schoolteacher in the capital, Islamabad, doubted Obama's ability to change U.S. foreign policy dramatically.
"It is true that Bush gave America a very bad name. He has become a symbol of hate. But I don't think the change of face will suddenly make any big difference," he said.
Obama's victory was greeted with cheers across Latin America, a region that has shifted sharply to the left during the Bush years. From Mexico to Chile, leaders expressed hope for warmer relations based on mutual respect — a quality many felt has been missing from U.S. foreign policy.
Venezuela and Bolivia, which booted out the U.S. ambassadors after accusing the Bush administration of meddling in their internal politics, said they were ready to reestablish diplomatic relations, and Brazil's president was among several leaders urging Obama to be more flexible toward Cuba.
On the streets of Rio de Janeiro, people expressed a mixture of joy, disbelief, and hope for the future.
"It's the beginning of a different era," police officer Emmanuel Miranda said. "The United States is a country to dream about, and for us black Brazilians, it is even easier to do so now."
Many around the world found Obama's international roots — his father was Kenyan, and he lived four years in Indonesia as a child — compelling and attractive.
"What an inspiration. He is the first truly global U.S. president the world has ever had," said Pracha Kanjananont, a 29-year-old Thai sitting at a Starbuck's in Bangkok. "He had an Asian childhood, African parentage and has a Middle Eastern name. He is a truly global president."
I wonder if McCain is feeling a little like the Jimmy Stewart character in Mr. Smith goes to Washington.
I don't no about you but I'm glad this day is finally here and with Obama with the clear lead and the likely winner, I can't wait for the day we all (especially the media) can stop fawning over the man and start holding him accountable for all his promises of change.
3,200 academics around the country have signed a petition in defense of Bill Ayers, saying that those who criticize the unrepentant former domestic terrorist who now teaches at the University of Illinois - Chicago are are trying to "intimidate free thinking and stifle critical dialogue."
Meanwhile, Patrick O'Reilly and Therese Quinn, two members of the UIC Education Alumni Board, wrote a letter in support of Ayers printed in today's Chicago Sun-Times which concludes:
His [Ayers'] unflagging dedication to these goals is an inspiration to College of Education students and alumni. We reject the recent and ongoing derogations of his character in the media and blogosphere, and by politicians, and stand beside Ayers, an advocate for education devoted to human enlightenment and liberation. That goal is also ours.
The ivory tower of academia is one of the only places in America where a radical Marxist who's never expressed any regret for bombing his own country (indeed, he expressed just the opposite as little as 7 years ago) is revered as being "devoted to human elightenment and liberation."
(CNN)– Former President Bill Clinton was hesitant to characterize Barack Obama as a "great man" Sunday, a phrase he had no qualms using last week to describe Obama's rival John McCain.
Clinton told NBC's Tom Brokaw that it was only earlier this month in Harlem that he and Obama had their "first conversation." He said he had spoken with Obama before, but only in passing.
Clinton then explained what he meant in characterizing McCain as a "great man."
"I think his greatness is that he keeps trying to come back to service without ever asking people to cut him any slack or feel sorry for him or any of that stuff because he was a POW," Clinton said of the Republican presidential nominee.
Clinton, who successfully ran his own 1992 presidential campaign on the now commonly used phrase "it's the economy, stupid," said that he believed the current economic crisis "left [Obama] in a position of leadership that he's now in."
Clinton said he thought Obama "saw and imagined" how the economic situation could develop.
"And I think that the rest of us should admire that. That's a big part of leadership, being able to sense, as well as see the future," he said.
Clinton said he and Obama are developing a "really good relationship," and the Democratic nominee has the potential for greatness. Explaining, he said Obama has many personal accomplishments, but none that exemplify his greatness to the country.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter and member of the Democratic National Committee’s Platform Committee, will endorse John McCain for president on Wednesday, her spokesman tells CNN.
The announcement will take place at a news conference on Capitol Hill, just blocks away from the DNC headquarters. Forester will “campaign and help him through the election,” the spokesman said of her plans to help the Republican presidential nominee.
Forester was a major donor for Clinton earning her the title as a Hillraiser for helping to raise at least $100,000 for the New York Democratic senator’s failed presidential bid.
In an interview with CNN this summer, Forester did not hide her distaste for eventual Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.
“This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don't like him,” she said of Obama in an interview with CNN’s Joe Johns. “I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him.”
Forester is the CEO of EL Rothschild, a holding company with businesses around the world. She is married to international banker Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. Forester is a member of the DNC’s Democrats Abroad chapter and splits her time living in London and New York.
SFGate: Politics Blog : Obama Needs a Sister Soulja Moment Democrats are ignoring their own counsel to campaign as if John McCain's running mate is George Bush. While urban sophisticates look in horror at Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as a kind of reality show run amok, John McCain has gained his first lead in the Real Clear Politics electoral college map. Battleground polls are tightening in dangerous places for Barack Obama, like Minnesota, where the latest poll now has the two men tied.
The more Palin is attacked, the higher her currency rises. Call it the Hillary effect, especially among older, independent women. The Obama campaign is rolling out Joe Biden today to accuse Republicans of going into the gutter. They're getting sucked right into the partisan wars that Republicans are so adept at. Gone is Obama's post-partisan image that undergirded his astonishing rise.
Obama needs a Sister Souljah moment to distinguish himself to independent and weak Republican voters who are agreeing with GOP claims that Obama is a classic liberal Democrat, and sliding right into the familiar ground of the culture wars. Obama has a golden opportunity with the U.S. financial system falling apart at the seams.
Congressional Democrats were and remain the leading defenders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, promising to resist efforts to shrink the companies, now under government control, and sell off their assets. Democrats had plenty of help from Republicans, to be sure, but it was mainly conservatives who have been warning for more than a decade that their public risk/private profit model was a disaster waiting to happen.
If Obama were to use the financial crisis to rise again above partisan orthodoxy, he might shake people out of their party ruts that they are fast falling into. He would have to do so in a way that people understand -- borrowing from the master, Bill Clinton. Obama's unwillingness to take on his own party is his weakness and McCain's strength.
And where is Bill? Maybe he'll do whatever he's asked, as he promised last week. Or maybe he's waiting for Obama's public apology for standing by silently as his surrogates painted the "first black president" as a racist.
The last time a non-Southern Democrat won the White House was in 1960. Obama needs to figure out how to connect with voters he has been unable to reach, and do it fast, because they're making up their minds now.
Posted By: Carolyn Lochhead (Email) | September 15 2008 at 07:36 AM
The presidential forum, moderated by PBS' Judy Woodruff and Time managing editor Rick Stengel, drew an estimated 7,500 students and area residents who lined the steps of the library to watch on a JumboTron screen. The actual event took place in Roone Arledge Auditorium, where only 100 students were allowed (via a ticket lottery) to sit in the audience that also included families of September 11 victims, veterans, politicians and celebrities such as Tobey Maguire, Usher and Leonardo DiCaprio.
"We weren't Republicans on September 11. We weren't Democrats. We were Americans," said McCain, who was the first to appear. "This is an opportunity to lead the nation and talk to the American people and reform our government and ask for more service."
The Arizona senator criticized President Bush for not asking Americans to come together as volunteers after the attacks. While praising programs such as the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps, McCain also said the government should be careful not to interfere with volunteer organizations. He also praised Obama's service as a community organizer early in his career, claiming that when Sarah Palin seemed to denigrate the job she was merely defending her own experience.
Michael Hennessy, 29, clapped enthusiastically during McCain's speech. "I appreciate that he's a big proponent of service. His personal history is a testament to government service and to the service of America," he said.
"I felt like he was just saying everything he knew that everyone wants to hear," Sharay Hale, a 19-year-old freshman, offered.
When Obama shook McCain's hand before his turn on the stage, the crowd inside and outside the auditorium erupted in applause. The Illinois senator, an alumnus of Columbia, joked that he had a home-court advantage.
Obama agreed with much of what McCain had said, but but he emphasized the important role the government plays in encouraging change and reiterated his campaign promise to institute an annual $4,000 college-tuition credit for students in exchange for community service.
"We've got to transform Washington, and we've got to do some housecleaning," Obama said. "But what we also want to do is to remind young people that if it weren't for government, then we wouldn't have a Civil Rights Act. If it weren't for government, we would not have the interstate highway system. If it weren't for government, we would not have some of our parks and natural wilderness areas that are so precious to America. And so part of my job, I think, as president, is to make government cool again."
Lisa Michl, a 23-year-old graduate student, said she was excited to see the candidates on campus. "Actually coming to a campus and doing this talk is a great way to get people more involved and inspire people to actually get out there and do something, because it's not a part of your daily conversation."
Not all of the action of the evening went down inside the auditorium. Three students were asked to leave the campus after donning boxing gloves and wearing homemade Obama and McCain cardboard boxes on their heads. Elliot D. (who would only give his last intial), a 21-year-old senior, was "Obama"; Gabe Espinal, a 21-year-old senior, was "McCain," and Jesse Waldman, also a 21-year-old senior, was a character on roller skates labeled "Spectacle." Waldman said that the three of them came to campus early and felt "uncomfortable with the lead-up to the event," so they decided to liven things up.
"We just wanted to get people to think about the political system itself, instead of 'Who are you voting for?' " Elliot D. said.
Thursday's presidential forum kicked off the two-day ServiceNation summit, where hundreds of students, businesses, universities, politicians and foundations will come together to expand national and community service opportunities.
(NEW YORK) Barack Obama and Bill Clinton will have their first opportunity today to show that that tensions that emerged during the primaries have been smoothed over and that the former president is fully supporting the Democratic nominee.
Obama and Clinton will have lunch together in Harlem, in what will be their first formal meeting since Obama secured the nomination in June.
Last night, on an appearance on "The Late Show with David Letterman", Obama said that the 1992 election was very similar to the one taking place now.
“He was new. He was young and people were still trying to figure out whether or not the guy was up to the job,” Obama said adding that Clinton could be a great advocate on his behalf.
However, when Letterman asked Obama if he intends to appoint the former president to a cabinet position, he suggested that he wouldn’t.
“I think if you’re a former President, you don’t take Cabinet positions,” Obama said. “I think your attitude is, you know, sort of been there, done that.”
Bill Clinton will campaign for Obama in Florida on September 29.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday that Republicans at their national convention are attacking him to avoid talking about the sagging economy and housing problems that voters care about.
Rupert Murdoch brokered a “tentative truce” between his Fox News network and Barack Obama at a secret meeting with the Democratic presidential nominee, according to the author of a book on the News Corp chairman.
Fox News is seen by the Obama campaign as among its most hostile critics. Mr Obama initially rebuffed efforts by the Kennedy family to secure a meeting with News Corp executives, Michael Wolff writes in the current issue of Vanity Fair.
However, Mr Obama agreed this summer to meet Mr Murdoch and Roger Ailes, president of the Fox News Channel, at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York.
While the senator for Illinois was “deferential” towards Mr Murdoch, who also owns the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, he “lit into” Mr Ailes, Mr Wolff reports.
“He said that he didn’t want to waste his time talking to Ailes if Fox was just going to continue to abuse him and his wife, that Fox had relentlessly portrayed him as suspicious, foreign, fearsome – just short of a terrorist,” the report states.
Mr Ailes responded that Fox’s coverage might have been more favourable had Mr Obama been more willing to appear on its programmes. The three men agreed upon “a tentative truce”, Mr Wolff writes.
Nick Shapiro, Obama campaign spokesman, said: “They had an open and frank conversation where they got the opportunity to clear the air.”
Fox News has been accused of below-the-belt coverage of Mr Obama this year. One news segment asked whether a fist-bump greeting between Barack and Michelle Obama – a gesture commonly used by American athletes – was a “terrorist fist-jab”. The network also referred to Michelle Obama as Obama’s “baby mama”, slang that refers to a mother who never married her child’s father.
A News Corp spokeswoman would not comment on the report. One person at News Corp challenged its subsequent assertion that Mr Murdoch was becoming “embarrassed” by Fox’s strident rightwing positioning as “going a little far”.
The thought of Democrats "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" was finally put to rest in 2006. Or so we thought. Lately, the snarky liberals around the blogosphere at such classy sites like Daily Kos, are trying to prove they can still give elections away.
All the latest attacks aimed at McCain's VP pick, Sarah Palin , are just serving to galvanize Republicans and I predict you will soon see many independents rallying around her.
Online communities such as Daily Kos, which was once a place where diversity was tolerated and was packed with thoughtful, objective, likable progressives, have become colonies for lewd, self-absorbed, mean-spirited, narcissists. They have adopted the tactics used by right-wing operatives and advocacy groups.
Everybody was happy to see the CNN show "Crossfire" finally put to rest. What we see online is a cyber version of this show. I realize that I have been part of the problem in the past and i vow to be more balanced in the future. I started doing this for myself, to document the abuses of the Bush administration and his cronies. But this hobby or for many, profession, has evolved into what Dick Meyer (Why We Hate Us: American Discontent in the New Millennium) calls a "permanent campaign."
The recent Democratic nomination process has highlighted some ugly facts about my party. Some will say and use the most vile and juvenile tactics to win. They will even attempt to destroy one of their own to get what they want and their friends in the MSM will co-operate (think Olbermann, Shuster, Matthews, Mitchell, Todd, Roland Martin, Brazille, Cooper). This is incredibly disappointing, and I will not support this.
DENVER - Barack Obama claimed his spot in history as the first African-American standard bearer of a major party Thursday night, rallying Democrats with his sharpest-ever assault on Republican leadership.
"Sen. McCain likes to talk about judgement, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush was right more than 90% of the time?" he said of the Republican nominee-to-be.
"I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a 10% chance on change," Obama said in his prime-time speech.
Before a raucous, flag-waving crowd in Denver's 75,000-seat Invesco Field, Obama crafted a message that was both more personal and more pointed as he kicked off his fall campaign.
With Republicans suggesting his improbable run has been long on hype and short on specifics, the Illinois senator used the opportunity of a massive audience - both in the stands and on television - to forcefully lay out the choice ahead.
"Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it," he said.
"Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship our jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.
"I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."
Forty-five years after the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his "I Have a Dream" speech, an electrified throng was on hand to be part of history - to see and hear the man who could be the first black President, and to be part of the largest crowd to witness a convention acceptance speech.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama may be the fresh face in this year's presidential election, but nearly half say they're already tired of hearing about him, a poll says.
With Election Day still three months away, 48 percent said they're hearing too much about the Democratic candidate, according to a poll released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. Just 26 percent said the same about his Republican rival, John McCain.
Obama, the 47-year-old Illinois senator who would become the first black president, has dominated political news coverage much of the year. According to an ongoing Pew study, Obama has appeared in more news stories this year and more people say they have heard more about him than McCain, the longtime Arizona senator who also ran for president in 2000.
Two-thirds of Republicans and about half of independents said they've heard too much about Obama, as did a third of Democrats, a significant number.
At the same time, nearly four in 10 said they've been hearing too little about McCain — about four times the number who said so about Obama. About half of Republicans, four in 10 independents and even a quarter of Democrats said they've not heard enough about the GOP candidate.
The poll was conducted from Aug. 1-4 and involved telephone interviews with 1,004 adults. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
I think the problem is not that we're hearing too much about Obama, it's that we're not hearing enough about the things that matter. From my own personal experience, I have only met a handful of non-activist, regular Obama supporters that can name more than one major accomplishment by Obama since he's become a US Senator. Aside from the usual change and unity rhetoric, they usually can't give you an informed answer. This has always been a problem for me, how we can nominate someone with so little experience, with the public knowing so little about his record.
The chorus of voices suggesting that Barack Obama might be getting ahead of himself and more than a little full of himself is growing louder.
The Washington Post reported that in a closed pep talk session with US House Democrats Tuesday evening, Obama talked about his triumphant visit to Europe and declared, "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."
Democrats are already telling reporters that the comment was taken out of context -- that he was really saying that the campaign was more than about him and that he was a mere symbol. They say Obama prefaced the declaration that is getting so much buzz by saying something along the lines of, "It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It’s about America."
That didn't stop Republicans from forwarding the report as the latest entry in the Obama "audacity watch."
The Republican National Committee just launched a website compiling all the examples it claims shows Obama's arrogance, and said it will update it through the election.
Also, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank weighed in with a piece published this morning that starts: "Barack Obama has long been his party's presumptive nominee. Now he's becoming its presumptuous nominee."
"As he marches toward Inauguration Day (Election Day is but a milestone on that path), Obama's biggest challenger may not be Republican John McCain but rather his own hubris," Milbank writes later.
The Obama campaign disputes portions of the column, including its mention of unconfirmed reports that it was already planning his post-election transition to the White House.
Obama campaigns in Missouri today with Senator Claire McCaskill at his side. She was one of his strongest surrogates during the primaries, and was the subject of some early vice presidential buzz. But she reportedly has not been asked for documents as part of the vetting process.
"Only On The Web": In an exclusive "CBS Evening News" interview, Katie Couric speaks with Barack Obama about his foreign policy objectives and his position on the war in Iraq.
Barack Obama Obama feels like he is carrying the hopes and dreams of people around the world on his shoulders –a burden his aides believe has created unrealistic expectations of what he can achieve if he becomes the first black president.
With Obamamania hitting Britain, Europe and the Middle East when he visits this week, one of his most senior aides told The Sunday Telegraph that the Democratic presidential candidate is very conscious of the rapturous reception that may await him.
Greg Craig, one Mr Obama's inner circle of foreign policy advisers travelling with him, described the scale of infatuation for Mr Obama in Europe, which has seen him compared to John F. Kennedy, as "amazing".
But he added: "He is very conscious of it. He knows he has become a vehicle for peoples' hopes and dreams and expectations and we all fear that such expectations tend to be unrealistic."
WASHINGTON -- On the same day Republican presidential contender Sen. John McCain held a town hall in Warren, Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama pledged to UAW members his support for a second economic stimulus plan with funding for low-interest loans to automakers, saying "America cannot truly prosper unless Michigan prospers."
"By providing tax credits and loan guarantees for our automakers and by expanding consumer tax incentives for ultra-efficient vehicles, I will provide real solutions necessary to help this industry compete and win in the global economy," Obama said in the letter released by his campaign today.
Obama and other Congressional Democrats have said they would push for a second stimulus plan in September that could reach $50 billion, an idea that the Bush administration has not favored so far. McCain opposes the loan program, as his campaign says his proposals -- a $5,000 consumer tax credit for efficient vehicles, a $300 million prize for electric vehicle batteries and strict goals for flex-fuel vehicles -- would accomplish the same goals.
A funny thing happened over on the Barack Obama campaign website in the last few days.
The parts that stressed his opposition to the 2007 troop surge and his statement that more troops would make no difference in a civil war have somehow disappeared. John McCain and Obama have been going at it heavily in recent days over the benefits of the surge.
The Arizona senator, who advocated the surge for years before the Bush administration employed it, says the resulting reduction in violence is proof it worked with progress on 15 of 18 political benchmarks and Obama's plan to withdraw troops by now would have resulted in surrender.
When President Bush ordered the surge in January, 2007, Obama said, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse," a position he maintained throughout 2007. This year he acknowledged progress, but maintained his position that political progress was lacking.
Tuesday, while Obama gave a speech on foreign policy, the New York Daily News was first to notice the removal of parts of Obama's campaign site listing the Iraq troop surge as part of "The Problem." An Obama spokeswoman said it was just part of an "update" to "reflect changes in current events," as our colleague Frank James notes in the Swamp. The update includes a new section on the rise of al-Qaeda violence in Afghanistan.
But some might see the updating as part of Obama's skip to the political center now that he's secured the Democratic nomination. "Today," McCain said Tuesday, "we know Sen. Obama was wrong" to oppose the troop surge.
An old quote of Obama's criticizing the "rash war," which helped him with the left wing of his party and helped differentiate his stand from that of Sen. Hillary Clinton, a primary opponent who voted for the use of force in Iraq, has been replaced on his site by one saying that ending the Iraq war will make America safer. That's more of a general election message.
Washington - Barack Obama is about to embark on high-profile foreign travel that could have a powerful influence on how US voters judge his ability to act as the nation's commander in chief.
The question is, what sort of presumptive Democratic candidate will his domestic audience see? Will it be someone reminiscent of John F. Kennedy – cool, articulate, and the center of cheering foreign crowds?
Or will it be a traveler more like candidate Jimmy Carter – an inexperienced, provincial politician on a learning tour?
For the Illinois senator, the inherent risks in his travel are intensified by the fact that he will visit the Middle East, a place where, for American politicians, every word counts and the smallest misstep can become a huge gaffe.
"For Obama this trip is essential," says Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. "If anything trips him up, other than race, it is going to be his lack of foreign experience."
Next week, Senator Obama is scheduled to travel to Europe, Israel, and the West Bank. Many details of the trip have been kept secret for security reasons, but he is expected to meet with both Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. In Berlin, he will deliver what his aides are billing as a major address on transatlantic relations.
He is also planning to soon take a separate trip to Iraq and Afghanistan as part of a small congressional delegation.
On July 15, Obama reiterated his vow to withdraw US combat troops from Iraq within 16months of becoming president, and said that if he were elected, Al Qaeda and Afghanistan would be his top foreign-policy priorities.
"By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe," said Obama in a speech at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington.
Reporter Peter Grier discusses the role played by foreign policy doctrines in this year's presidential race.
Barack Obama's campaign is condemning as “tasteless and offensive” a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts Obama in a turban, fist-bumping his gun-slinging wife.
An American flag burns in their fireplace.
The New Yorker says it's satire. It certainly will be candy for cable news.
The Obama campaign quickly condemned the rendering. Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."
McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds quickly e-mailed: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.”
The issue, which goes on sale Monday, includes a long piece by Ryan Lizza about Obama’s start in Chicago politics.
The cries of pain came not from Obama or Jackson but from the American political left, from scribes and liberal editorial writers and broadcast analysts and eager bloggers. The true believers who evangelized that Obama would transcend politics as we knew it are suffering a Barackian hangover.
Greedily, they drained the kegs once full of sweet Obama Kool-Aid, drained them to the dregs and mopped up the remains with stale crusts. The inevitable happened—the pain that comes as everything finally becomes clear, in the rosy-fingered light of a terrible dawn.
Obama used them to crush the Clintons, but now the left is finally realizing it's been betrayed, on issue after issue, with Obama changing his positions in order to defeat a tired and disillusioned Republican Party in November.
They're at the dance now and he's the one with the keys and he's the only ride they've got. And they don't like it.
He has flip-flopped again and again, on campaign finance, on government eavesdropping of overseas phone calls, on gun control and even Iraq. Future President Obama now says he'll listen to his generals about when to withdraw. He didn't say he'd listen to the commissars of the blogosphere.
And his cheerleaders are beginning to realize that Obama may not be the Arthurian knight in shining armor, that he may not be Mr. Tumnus, the gentle forest faun of our presidential politics. Months after his inauguration, after he makes Billy Daley the secretary of the treasury and Michael Daley the secretary of zoning and promotes Patrick Fitzgerald to become the attorney general of Mars, the political left may figure out that Obama is a Chicago politician.
"Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential campaign could hold fast to every position, steer clear of the stumbling blocks of nuance and never make a mistake," wrote Bob Herbert in The New York Times. "But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader—more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most. . . . Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He's lurching right when it suits him, and he's zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that's guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash."
This panic of the left—particularly among many political media types—is profoundly instructive to foreigners seeking to understand American character. The American media elite chose to portray Obama as some kind of knight in armor. They're analysts. Yet they were desperate to believe in a political fairy tale from Chicago. Somewhere in this desperate yearning is an answer.
Obama is not their fool. And he's not weak. He got down on one knee to the Chicago Democratic Machine and didn't make any waves and asked that it make him a U.S. senator. He lectured the Africans about political corruption and kept his mouth shut about corruption in Chicago, and the national press ignored the inconsistency and pampered and protected him. He waited and he's ready and now they're worried? Too late, boys and girls.
I don't mean to pick on Mr. Herbert, an elegant writer. His is but one of many voices, stunned on the side of the road, wondering what happened. I felt the same Kool-Aid hangover, and the same whiplash, but from the opposite direction years ago, when I was run down in the middle of a paragraph by a clown car driven by Karl Rove.
The Bush White House became the champion of big government, of big spending, of Jack Abramoff and of perjury under oath. The clowns boiled out of the car and I watched them go, taking the Republican Party with them, dragging it out into the desert, where they'd dug a big hole and stuffed it with Kool-Aid-addled conservatives.
So I have some sympathy for those on the left when it comes to Obama. They feel jilted, and the story was of a growing sense of betrayal, until Rev. Jackson whispered his desire to remove Obama's valuables.
Then the left joined in with the right, and with the viewers of Fox News in the front row—representing those Reagan Democrat votes Obama will need in November—we all pounded Jackson, righteously, in Obama's name.
Oh, what a night! And the hits keep coming for Obama. Hell hath no fury as a media scorned.
BARACK OBAMA has been accused of betraying his most loyal supporters, by voting in favour of an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) he had promised to block. Civil liberties groups say the bill, which aims to make it easier to monitor terrorist suspects, violates the constitution and legitimises government spying on ordinary Americans.
The revised act grants immunity from prosecution to phone companies who assisted the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping programme, something Obama swore to resist as recently as June. Senate majority leader Harry Reid, chief whip Dick Durbin and Hillary Clinton all opposed the bill. Its passage was a significant victory for Dick Cheney.
By far the biggest group at social networking site mybarackobama.com, with more than 23,000 members, is called Senator Obama - Please Vote No On Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right. In defeat, user comments revealed a potentially damaging breach. Justin from Minnesota wrote: "it cost him my vote and I hope it will cost him the votes of many others." Alejandro from Seattle lamented that he "thought the whole point of the Obama campaign was to not be like other politicians".
advertisementGail from New Jersey addressed the candidate directly: "You lost your most ardent supporters, your workers, your donors," she posted. The fundraising model that Obama has used so successfully, tapping 1.5 million supporters for an average of $197 (£99) each, depends on the goodwill of such activists. At an event in New York this week he admitted donations have been "a little slow".
Obama's shift on the surveillance issue was not an isolated incident. He has been steadily creeping towards the centre ground ever since he secured the Democratic nomination, repositioning himself as a moderate with cross-party appeal. To his left-wing base, a key element of his coalition, this is apostasy, a cynical abandonment of principles that calls his entire claim to be a progressive into question.
Obama has endorsed the Supreme Court's decision to overturn a handgun ban in Washington DC on the grounds that "if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe". He has criticised the same judges for limiting capital punishment to murder cases, arguing that child rape sometimes justifies the death penalty.
He has backed off from earlier criticism of free trade agreements, watered down his proposal to alter the tax structure so that the richest pay more, hinted he would introduce stringent mental health checks for women seeking late-term abortions and committed himself to continuing the Republican policy of channelling funding for community services through faith-based programmes.
Wow, they're really turning on him now. I can't say enough that "we told you so." Click here for the rest of this article.
The headline in The Washington Post was intriguing: "Obama's Ideology Proving Difficult to Pinpoint." The article turned out to be a charitable discussion of whether the Democratic nominee is moving away from leftist positions he took during the primaries and toward the political center for the general election.
Of course he is. Enough to produce, as someone put it, whiplash. So let's give the topic a headline that directly addresses the doubts: Just who is Barack Obama?
Is he the inspirational juggernaut of the early primaries, the man who promised "change we can believe in" and a new era in American politics? Or is he one more politician whose actions often contradict his words?
Put another way, what does he believe in?
Damned if I know.
Once upon a time, I thought I did. Obama was the graceful rookie from Illinois who came out of nowhere to become the rock star of '08. His biracial heritage, Harvard Law School education and vast ambition created the perfect image of a post-racial, post-ideological agent of change. He would not be tied to the old ideas or the old ways of doing things.
It was a promise, exquisitely delivered, that allowed him to grab an early delegate lead and hold on to narrowly defeat Hillary (The Invincible) Clinton.
But there were hints Obama was not what he claimed.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright was a big one. By the end of the primaries, Obama was stumbling and on the defensive. And now he has become yet another candidate altogether in the post-primary period.
On defining issues - security wiretapping, gun control, campaign finance, Iran and Iraq - he has done partial or full about-faces. Hardly a day goes by that he doesn't attack John McCain in typical partisan fashion.
And when he denies with a straight face that he's changing anything, Obama gives new meaning to chutzpah.
The changes have been so dramatic that many liberal activists are expressing buyers' remorse. Some are demanding their contributions back and vow not to support Obama until he adopts his old positions.
For me, a centrist Democrat and a hawk on security, most of his new positions are better than those he abandoned. But they're not believable. They create doubts about whether he has core beliefs.
Someone who can shift positions so quickly on so many important issues that will face the next President comes off as a man who doesn't have fixed convictions. Pragmatism has to be guided by principles. A man who believes in everything believes in nothing, and that's a formula for chaos in the White House. Read the rest here.
WASHINGTON -- No matter if you are—or are not — voting for presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Az.), he deserves credit for trying to forge a bipartisan deal on immigration in 2005 and 2006 at great personal political risk, a situation unfamiliar to rival Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)
McCain put his comeback presidential bid in peril because of his leadership role with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) to find a path for millions of illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S.
The Kennedy-McCain legislation stalled in 2006, because the hardline pro- and anti-immigration forces preferred the status quo to a compromise. Another try in 2007 — in a bill backed by McCain and Obama — also failed.
McCain and Obama, wooing Hispanic voters, each has made clear in recent appearances before the National Association of Latino Elected Officials and the League of United Latino American Citizens a few days ago that he would make immigration reform — and legalizing the status of millions of illegal immigrants — a priority if elected president. I expect each to send the same message at the upcoming National Council of La Raza conference in San Diego, where Obama speaks Sunday and McCain on Monday.
In the meantime, Obama on the campaign trail inflates his leadership role — casting himself as someone who could figure out how to get something done. Obama “did not absolutely stand out in any way,’’ said Margaret Sands Orchowski, the author of “Immigration and the American Dream: Battling the Political Hype and Hysteria,” and a close follower of the legislation.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a McCain ally and a key player on immigration, said Obama was around for only a “handful” of meetings and helped destroy a 2007 compromise when he voted for making guest worker visa programs temporary. A permanent guest worker program was to be a trade for a legalization program to cover many illegal immigrants.
“When it came time to putting that bill together, he was more of a problem than he was a help. And when it came time to try to get the bill passed, he, in my opinion, broke the agreement we had. He was in the photo op, but he could not execute the hard part of the deal,” Graham said,” Graham said.
Newsweek turned heads with a poll two weeks ago touting a massive 15-point lead for Obama. Their newest survey has heads turning in the other direction, showing Obama's lead dwindling to just 3 points over McCain:
Obama 44 (-7) McCain 41 (+5) Undecided 15 (+2)
In the Newsweek poll, Obama's support among Republicans and Democrats was basically unchanged, but his support among Independents dropped 14 points, to 34% from 48% two weeks ago.
McCain increased his support among Republicans by five points (to 83% from 78%) and among Independents by five points (to 41% from 36%).
Slicing the data by race and gender, Obama lost nine points among white voters (dropping from 45% to 36%) and nine points among women (dropping from 54% two weeks ago to 45% in the most recent poll).
Many of the liberal blogs who touted the Illinois Democrat early on have blasted Obama for changing his position.
One post on the blog DailyKos.com called Obama's decisions to vote for the bill a "sellout" and a "tactical blunder."
And on "getfisaright.com," a self-described group of 23,000 Obama supporters has posted an open letter to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, saying that "it is disheartening that you decided to support this bill, which does immense damage to the rule of law and our most fundamental democratic institutions.
"Even though we are disappointed, most of us continue to support you as a candidate," the group wrote. "But as a candidate you have work to do repairing our trust in you and in government."
Here's Keith Olbermann last week, with another Murrow impersonation, urging Obama to take advantage of a "second chance" on FISA. Since Obama didn't take his advice, I wonder what he's going to say now. What possible defense can Obama's no. 1 cheerleader come up with now? I'll have to wait for another clip since his show is banned in my house.
Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Obama, Clinton Split on FISA Vote So much for unity? New York Sen. Hillary Clinton split with former rival Sen. Barack Obama today, voting against a controversial surveillance measure the expected Democratic nominee supported.
Obama has taken considerable flack from liberal activists since announcing a couple weeks ago that he would support the measure, which expands government surveillance powers in the United States.
Obama said he would work to eliminate a provision to grant conditional immunity to phone companies alleged to have participated in the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program, but amendments attempting to pare back or strip immunity from the surveillance bill were defeated Wednesday, as expected.
Obama won the nomination, in part, by running to Clinton’s left, but he has been tacking right since clinching the nomination in early June–which today landed him to Clinton’s right on the spy bill, which overhauled the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Obama’s own campaign Web site has become a hotbed of debate over his support for the compromise bill, spawning four groups in which opponents of Obama’s position vastly outnumber supporters—22,957 to 38. The “Get FISA Right” group blog on MyBarackObama.com was flooded with disappointed supporters after Wednesday’s vote, with more than 60 writing in within 90 minutes of the vote.
(07-08) 18:39 PDT Washington - -- Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has called on his Democratic rival Barack Obama to meet him face to face in town hall-style debates across the country. It was easy to see why today after the two gave competing speeches to crowd of prominent Latinos.
McCain, a four-term Arizona senator well known and respected by Hispanics, gave a stock economic speech repeated word for word from the day before. He won only polite applause.
Obama, largely an unknown among Latino votes only months ago, drew a standing ovation after delivering a rousing populist speech aimed directly at their core concerns - immigration, education and health care.
Lidia Pope, a Cuban American who lives in Virginia and works for the federal government, said she was leaning toward McCain before hearing Obama address the League of United Latin American Citizens. She said she would be listening to Obama very carefully, looking for specific plans and ideas. "This is not any old election," she said. "People are worried."
After hearing Obama, Pope was more than impressed. "He was so energetic," she said. "I think he understands the issues."
McCain finds himself pinched between his sponsorship of a major immigration overhaul that failed last year in the Senate and his need to disown his own immigration bill that was loathed in his party.
The legislation would have offered a path to citizenship for the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. When the bill came up for a vote, McCain largely left the fight to others as he devoted his time to running for president. He finally said in a Republican debate this year that he would not vote for his own bill now but would work on border security first.
That left him today with a three-paragraph addendum to his speech, seemingly tacked on for his audience, where he addressed his admiration for the "patriotism, industry and decency" of the nation's Hispanic citizens and read over a line where he promised "to honor their contributions as long as I live."
Obama, who struggled to win Hispanics during the primaries and played a minor role in the immigration debates, said he had "reached across the aisle in the Senate to fight for comprehensive immigration reform." In fact, while Obama sponsored some amendments, he was not a key negotiator and mainly stuck to the party line. If anything, his amendments and others he supported undermined the fragile bipartisan coalition backing the bill.
His claim that he was deeply involved sends Republicans who were there into apoplexy. "Obama was consistently, absolutely AWOL" during negotiations over the bill, said Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a Florida Republican, on a McCain campaign conference call.
A recent Gallup survey showed Obama making huge inroads into the Latino electorate, which gave an estimated 40 percent of its vote to President Bush in 2004. Republicans have long argued that their party has a natural appeal to Hispanics, the nation's largest and fastest growing minority group, who are mostly Catholic and culturally conservative with a strong entrepreneurial streak. McCain's outspoken support of citizenship for illegal workers and intimate familiarity with border issues in Arizona gave him a strong base to build on. Yet as of July 2, Obama was leading McCain 59 percent to 29 percent among Hispanic registered voters.
Obama promised to enact immigration reform by the end of his first term, and reminded the crowd today that he had backed controversial positions on immigration during the Democratic debates, referring to his support for giving drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants "when it was uncomfortable" to do so. Calling Hispanics an "aspirational community," he said there is no conflict between "excellence and diversity," touting his youthful work among poor minority groups in Chicago.
The election, he said, is "about making sure our government knows that when there's a Hispanic girl stuck in a crumbling school who graduates without learning to read or doesn't graduate at all, that isn't just a Hispanic-American problem. That's an American problem."
Minor point but, Obama did support giving drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants but, you all may remember his tortured response to Wolf Blitzer's question during a 2007 CNN debate:
Each will speak today at a convention of the nation's oldest Latino advocacy organization. Changes to immigration policy will be a topic for both candidates.
POWDER SPRINGS, GA. -- Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama will speak today at a convention of the nation's oldest Latino advocacy organization as each eyes a key voting group in the November general election.
The pair will speak at different times before the League of United Latino American Citizens in Washington. Both will speak about the need for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and the need for secure borders.
McCain angered many fellow Republicans by helping lead efforts to pass a bill that opponents derided as amnesty for as many as 12 million illegal immigrants. In recent weeks, McCain has stressed the need for secure borders, a nod to his hard-line critics on immigration issues.
According to an advance copy of his speech provided by the campaign, McCain plans to tell the Latino advocacy group that the nation must secure its borders "while respecting the dignity and rights of citizens and legal residents of the United States."
The Obama campaign is hoping that the Latino vote will help him, especially in the Southwest, which backed President Bush in 2004.
Obama began his day in Georgia, whose 15 electoral also votes went to Bush in 2004. With a boost from a large turnout of African American voters in the state, the Obama campaign is hoping to switch that outcome. Click here to read more.
Obama's Voting Record Complicates His Shift to Center
Bloomberg.com: Politics July 8 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is trying to claim the political center, following in the footsteps of previous nominees including Republican Ronald Reagan in 1980. Yet the Illinois senator has a higher hurdle than most: a consistently liberal voting record.
In recent weeks, Obama said he supports gun-ownership rights, backs legislation giving immunity to telephone companies that participated in an anti-terrorism surveillance program and would consider cutting corporate taxes. On July 3, he said he would ``continue to refine my policies'' on the Iraq War.
Obama built his candidacy on the support of his party's liberal base, which favors restrictions on guns and wiretapping, raising taxes for companies, and pulling U.S. forces from Iraq. As an Illinois state legislator, he voted against a law carving out self-defense exceptions to local handgun bans; as a U.S. senator, he opposed business tax cuts and extending warrantless eavesdropping, and backed tougher gun laws. On Iraq, he has long focused on ending the war and withdrawing troops.
The candidate is now trying to fend off Arizona Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, who needs to try to ``unmask Obama as an old-style liberal in a flashy new costume,'' said Trent Duffy, a former aide to President George W. Bush and a partner at the Washington communications firm HDMK.
`Seeming Authenticity'
At the same time, changing positions may present risks by endangering one of Obama's biggest assets, his ``seeming authenticity,'' said Mark Corallo, a strategist who worked on Republican Fred Thompson's presidential bid.
Obama, 46, rejects the notion that he is trying to move to the center.
``I get tagged as being on the left and when I simply describe what have been my positions consistently, then suddenly people act surprised,'' Obama told reporters in Ohio on July 1. There haven't ``been substantial shifts,'' he said.
Gun control emerged as an issue last month after the Supreme Court struck down Washington's handgun ban. McCain, 71, quickly praised the decision.
Obama was on the defensive because of past support for more restrictive laws. In addition to the 2004 state vote on the self- defense bill, which critics said might eviscerate local handgun bans, Obama in 2005 voted as a U.S. senator to expand the types of banned ammunition and against a measure protecting gun makers and sellers from lawsuits.
Hillary Clinton won a hefty 1,600 convention delegates in six months of primaries. A big question now is whether to let them vote at the Democratic convention.
High on the list of matters that Sen. Clinton and likely Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama are negotiating as her campaign closes down is whether and how her name is put into nomination at the August convention in Denver, said party activists in both camps.
A full roll-call vote that reminds everyone how close she came to being the nominee could reveal party rifts going into the fall campaign, they said. But keeping her name off the roll call could anger her supporters.
It is a "bone of contention" in the negotiations between the Clinton and Obama camps, said Democratic consultant Donna Brazile.
The Obama campaign said Monday that the Illinois senator would accept the nomination at the 76,000-seat stadium where the Denver Broncos football team plays so that thousands of nondelegates could attend. But the campaign hasn't settled other key questions about the convention, including whether Sen. Clinton's name will be put into nomination, said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.
Sen. Clinton's campaign office didn't answer emails seeking comment.
Under party rules, Sen. Clinton's huge delegate count gives her the right to put her name into nomination. "But do you do it?" asked Ms. Brazile. "Politically, does it heighten tensions?"
It's incredible that Brazille has so much say in the party; and sad that if Barack wins, her influence will only grow. However, I could see where Obama would not want a roll-call vote. This would undermine the "coronation" of Prince Barack.
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Virginia Senator Jim Webb, a gruff marine veteran and military expert with blue collar appeal, on Monday definitively ruled out serving as Barack Obama's Democratic vice presidential running mate.
Webb, who could have brought national security heft to Obama's ticket, and may have been able to help deliver his home swing-state to the Illinois Democrat's column, said he owed it to his constituents to stay put.
"Last week I communicated to Senator Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country," Webb said in a statement.
"Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for Vice President," he said, though vowed to proudly campaign for Obama who is gearing up to take on Republican John McCain in the general election.
The plain-spoken Webb was seen as one of the favorites for the vice presidential nod, in that he would have balanced Obama's comparative inexperience and is an expert on military affairs and national security.
Other possible Democratic running mates include Obama's vanquished party rival Hillary Clinton, Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.
In an unprecedented attempt to put out a fire in his own house, Senator Barack Obama yesterday issued a response to supporters who had been protesting his position on government surveillance. The release was followed by an 90 minute interchange on MyBarackObama.com between campaign officials and supporters (though as far as I could tell, the campaign officials made no comments themselves but just read the comments being made, leaving it unclear who was actually reading and for how long)..
Unfortunately, there was nothing in Obama's response that addressed the harsh criticism some of his supporters have voiced. I could go into detail on why the statement stinks, but since this is the Internet I don't have to, since I can instead direct you to the excellent point-by-point analysis offered by Glenn Greenwald. My focus here will be the novel political dynamic unleashed by the Obama campaign's social networking site, MyBarackObama.com.
These are uncharted waters we are dealing with here. Yesterday I asked the question whether 18,000 people protesting on the campaign's own web site (out of hundreds of thousands) were a lot or a little. Apparently they were enough to get the attention of the campaign and the candidate.
The comments were a mix of people who were star-struck that Obama had noticed them and written a reply, people who felt any criticism on the site was inappropriate, people who just spouted typical Internet invective at each other, but then an awful lot of extremely informed and thoughtful people who did not back down an inch.
Some defending Obama's position questioned whether the protestors were really from the Obama camp or were Republicans who had logged on to wreak havoc. However, since MyBarackObama.com is a full-fledged social networking site, one can check the profile of each commenter, see how long they have been active on the site, what action groups they are part of, and so on. It appeared that many angry critics were people who had put a lot of time and money into the campaign.
The whole episode raised more questions than it answered. Certainly what is going on here is something new. There are going to be many more controversial issues. A presidential candidate can't always be having to log on to the Internet to defend himself from his own supporters. I am reminded The Obama campaign promised to give its supporters new Internet tools to empower them to make the campaign their own. Now that it as done so, the leadership has to be wondering if it was a good idea. of the musicians who have figured out how to make modest livelihoods marketing their music directly to fans over MySpace, only to discover that doing requires spending hours every day maintaining the sort of direct relationship fans on social networking sites expect.
On the other hand, overall this has to be considered a victory for, and an extension of, democracy. This is a clear-cut case of a candidate promising one thing and doing another. Turns out that in the age of the online campaign there will be a higher price for this time-honored activity.
Got the following in my inbox yesterday from Justin Krebs of Drinking Liberally. Sounds like Justin is not very happy with either candidate.
Conventional wisdom says that Obama caved on FISA & talked up faith-based programs because he's appealing to "Independents."
Who knew independents oppose the Constitution?
Obama HAD to disavow Wes Clark's comments -- though Clark only questioned his experience as leader & specifically honored his courage and will -- since "dishonoring" McCain would turn off independents.
Who knew independents are so ill-informed?
And McCain keeps saying he's a "maverick" as he continues his "Straight Talk Express" because these words appeal to independents.
Who knew independents liked slogans so much?!
If "independent" voters read only the spin, & don't read the Constitution or the news, maybe we shouldn't ask them to decide elections.
Or maybe "independent" really means something else.
And maybe "independent" candidates who shy away from principled stands aren't what we're looking for either.
It's time we take strong positions, stop listening to the media's darling tales, and Declare our Independence...from "Independents."
Celebrate the holiday in the most American way: sharing an evening of spirited discussion as you share a few pitchers of liberal libations at your local progressive social club.
After putting up with Rachel Maddow tag teaming with Eugene Robinson and Olbermann to fawn over Obama for over a year, it gives me great pleasure to see her get beat up by three conservatives here. I only hope there's more to come, but I only know from clips like these since I don't watch the network any longer.
I and many others tried to warn the Obamabots that he was just a typical politician and they wouldn't believe it. "No, he's different...he's going to change everything. Hillary is a political machine." Well, at least Hillary was upfront about her centrist positions.
(CNN) — Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who remains a popular figure among Democrats and Republicans, recently sat down with both presidential candidates, CNN has confirmed.
The Hotline first reported the meeting earlier Tuesday.
According to an associate of Powell's, the former Bush administration member and onetime chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had "pleasant, private conversations" recently with both Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain. An Obama campaign source confirms the Illinois senator recently met with Powell. McCain's campaign has not returned a request for comment.
Powell has long praised Obama's candidacy and he told reporters recently in Vancouver he "would listen carefully to what both [candidates] have to say" before deciding whom to support.
(CNN) — With the dust having finally settled after the prolonged Democratic presidential primary, a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama locked in a statistical dead heat in the race for the White House.
With just over four months remaining until voters weigh in at the polls, the new survey out Tuesday indicates Obama holds a narrow 5-point advantage among registered voters nationwide over the Arizona senator, 50 percent to 45 percent. That represents little change from a similar poll one month ago, when the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee held a 46-43 percent edge over McCain.
CNN Polling Director Keating Holland notes Tuesday's survey confirms what a string of national polls released this month have shown: Obama holds a slight advantage over McCain, though not a big enough one to constitute a statistical lead.
"Every standard telephone poll taken in June has shown Obama ahead of McCain, with nearly all of them showing Obama's margin somewhere between three and six points," Holland said. "In most of them, that margin is not enough to give him a lead in a statistical sense, but it appears that June has been a good month for Obama."
But the new CNN/ORC polls shows the race gets even tighter when the two most prominent third-party presidential candidates are considered. In a four way match-up that includes independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, Obama's lead over McCain dwindles to 3 percentage points, 46 percent to 43 percent. (Nader registers 6 percent while Barr gets 3 percent.)
You would think Obama would have a huge lead by now considering his overwhelming money advantage, the flurry of endorsements, support from almost the entire blogosphere and a very generous main stram media.
When former Sen. John Edwards dropped out of the presidential race, the progressive Netroots took their affections to Barack Obama, defending him against attack from Hillary Rodham Clinton and others.
But with his support of a government surveillance bill that offers retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies — a bill that he vowed last year to filibuster — the honeymoon has ended.
Disappointed over his position on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the online activists feel jilted and betrayed and have taken to questioning his progressive credentials. One prominent blogger, Atrios, has even given him the moniker “Wanker of the Day.”
“He broke faith,” said Matt Stoller, a political consultant and blogger at OpenLeft.com. “Obama pledged to filibuster, and he is part of that old politics, in this case, that he said he wasn’t. It will spur us to challenge him.”
The FISA debate marks the presumptive Democratic nominee’s first serious break from the liberal Netroots in the general election. He is still their candidate, but the FISA issue has reignited skepticism among major bloggers, who had largely pushed aside doubts about Obama when Edwards, their favored candidate, ended his bid in February.
Obama’s post-partisan persona hasn’t always meshed so well with the noisy and contentious Netroots, and his rise to prominence has come without their full-throated support. He told reporters in February that he doesn’t read blogs and has long been viewed as cool to the Netroots — a notion that the candidate’s new media director, Joe Rospars, disputed this week at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York, saying Obama was a favorite of the readers of the major bloggers.
Either way, the Netroots eventually took Obama’s side against Clinton, and some came to view him as a champion of progressive causes.
His stance on the FISA bill, however, has brought Obama back down to earth, in part because the liberal blogosphere cares more about civil liberties than many of the other traditional issues that have long dominated the Democratic agenda. While the mainstream media fixated on Obama’s decision to opt out of the public financing system — and newspaper editorial boards eviscerated him — the Netroots commended Obama for showing political savvy. After all, the readers of liberal blogs are many of the small donors who gave Obama reason to reject public financing.
FISA, however, was different. Many of the most popular progressive blogs built their following by mining anger toward President Bush, the Iraq war and what bloggers view as his disregard of the Constitution and the civil liberties guaranteed by it. By granting immunity to telecom companies, civil courts will likely dismiss lawsuits that might unearth details about the administration’s activities, eliminating an opportunity to hold Bush accountable.
“It angers the blogosphere to its core,” said Jane Hamsher, founder of the popular blog Firedoglake.com. “We want to be able to know: What did you do? If we can get that information, we can make sure they don’t do that again. We can get the public engaged.”
Obama’s decision to support the bill with the immunity provision was not surprising, she said. Republicans frame critics of such security measures as soft on terrorism, and the presumptive Democratic nominee probably does not want it used against him.
“[A] lot of people tried to convince themselves that he was a progressive hero, and I think they were disappointed,” Hamsher said. “You can feel a real shift in the zeitgeist online.”
Still, the disillusionment goes only so far. The liberal blogosphere’s most recognizable name, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of Daily Kos, said Monday on MSNBC’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann”: “Let’s be honest, it is either Obama or John McCain. So we really don’t have much of a choice.”
Of course, the choice could have been between Clinton and Obama, but the idiots above did everything they could to destroy that opportunity. I think the words "I told you so" or "buyer's remorse" seem to be appropriate here.
It was no surprise when Barack Obama flipped on public financing last week. When it suited his goals last year, he pledged, "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." When it didn't suit his goals, he ditched the pledge. And get this: Apparently he did it because the Republicans made him do it.
Obama has raised an impressive $296 million to date - dwarfing John McCain's $122 million. He stands to raise a lot of money - certainly more than the $84 million he would have received from the federal presidential public financing system - for the nine weeks following the Democratic convention. So forget "change we can believe in."
I cannot get as indignant as some critics seem to be. After all, public financing never was about reforming politics. It always was about helping Democrats get into the White House - which is why so many alleged reformers have not only accepted Obama's flip-flop, but praised it. Even the goo-goo Center for Responsive Politics Web site featured an opinion piece that suggested that the $1.2 million per day of public financing "just might not be enough" for a presidential candidate.
In a video e-mailed to supporters last week, Obama floated the argument that his huge war chest was akin to public financing because of all the $5, $10 and $20 checks his team has cashed. But, as the New York Times reported, Obama already "has collected more money in contributions of $1,000 or more than even Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's once-vaunted team of bundlers of donations." This week, Obama is trolling for big checks from Clinton fat cats.
Team Obama set up fightthesmears.com ostensibly to fight misinformation. Site visitors are invited to send viral e-mail that charges, "Rush Limbaugh and his fellow right-wing attack dogs have been spreading baseless rumors about a nonexistent video tape showing Michelle Obama using a racial epithet." It was a vile, baseless rumor.
You could applaud Team Obama for setting the record straight, if it did not gloss over the starring role of Larry C. Johnson, identified simply as a "blogger," not a supporter of Hillary Clinton, as David Weigel reported in the American Prospect online. Instead, it targeted Limbaugh for saying "a tape exists of Michelle Obama using the word 'whitey' from the pulpit of Trinity United."
Thing is, Limbaugh stipulated, "There's a rumor that there's a tape" - two weeks after Johnson's first blog alleging that Republicans were hoarding a "whitey" tape. (Limbaugh should not have repeated the rumor, but he did so as many political editors and reporters were grappling over whether to report the unsubstantiated but widely trafficked Internet rumor, or just ignore it.)
Then, Obama pulled the race card. At a fundraiser - where else? - Obama told supporters that he had to turn down public financing so that he can raise enough money to fight GOP 527s. As the New York Times reported, he said, "They're going to try to make you afraid of me. 'He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?' "
Who does Obama think he is kidding? He has raised buckets of cash - but rather than be up front about opting out of public financing because of the math, he stooped to blaming other people for his decision to cash in. He also blamed the system and played the race card.
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Barack Obama's presidential campaign has recently increased its efforts to reach Latino voters by appointing two veteran operatives to key outreach positions.
During the Democratic Party primary, rival Hillary Clinton attracted more than two-thirds of the Latino, or Hispanic, vote, making it brutally clear that Obama has problems winning over the community.
After Obama's crushing defeat in the June 1 primary in Puerto Rico, Clinton's campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe told reporters the results "shows that he (Obama) has a problem with the Latino community," the Politico website reported.
The Hispanic community -- 45 million people, or 15 percent of the US population -- is the largest racial minority group in the country. Many live in states expected to be hotly contested in the November 4 presidential election.
In a bid to reach Hispanic voters, Obama on Monday appointed Patti Solis Doyle, a Chicagoan of Mexican descent, to be chief of staff to his still-to-be-named vice presidential choice.
Solis managed Clinton's campaign until she was ousted in February amid a wave of acrimony following the New York senator's less-than-stellar showing on February 5, Super Tuesday primary night.
In a less visible but equally important move, Obama appointed Cuauthemoc Figueroa, a California-born former union organizer and the son of Mexican farmworkers, as the point man in his effort to attract Hispanic votes.
Obama's campaign "has been moving the pieces in a positive way over the last weeks" in an effort to attract Hispanic voters, said Sergio Bendixen, a former Clinton campaign adviser on Hispanic issues.
"In the primaries, Obama spent a lot of money campaigning for Hispanic votes, but he had little experience with the community," Bendixen told AFP.
"No offense, but his Latino outreach team was a bit limited. Now however the indications are that this is going to change," he said.
Millions of Hispanic voters live in the key battleground states of New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Florida, as well as Republican John McCain's home state of Arizona.
Whoever gains their support could carry the state, said Daniel Restrepo from the Center for American Progress, a think-tank with close ties to the Democrats.
"The Latino vote will be especially important, mainly in the southeastern states," said Restrepo.
Historically, the large Cuban-American community in Florida has voted for Republican candidates, while Hispanics in New York and California have voted Democrat. Hispanics in the southwest are mixed, with strong regional Democratic pockets.
Between Patti Solis Doyle and Bill "Judas" Richardson, I can't help but notice that the Obama camp is not exactly stacked with the most loyal people in the world. Just wondering how much trouble Obama has to be in before they turn on him. Or maybe some hotshot will come out of nowhere in 4 years and challenge Obama, if he's in fact the president. Let's stay tuned to see how quick they jump ship.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will apparently appear together for the first time since she conceded the Democratic nomination at an event next week with big donors.
The New York Daily News is reporting online today that Clinton's national finance director Jonathan Mantz sent top donors an email invitation today:
"As we move forward, we invite you to join us for a National Finance Committee meeting with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on Thursday, June 26th in Washington, D.C., to discuss how we can work together to support Barack Obama and the Democratic Party."
"Hillary ran for President because she wants to put this country on the right track," the invitation says. "She continues to fight and stand strong for our values and priorities and will do everything she can to unify the party and to elect Barack Obama the next President of the United States."
The Clinton campaign is encouraging its supporters to contribute the maximum $2,300 to Obama's campaign.
But since she suspended her campaign and fully endorsed Obama on June 7, one of the lingering questions has been whether Obama's donors will help Clinton pay off her campaign debt. At the end of April, she owed $19.5 million, including $10 million she loaned herself.
Meanwhile, Obama addressed the boos that greeted the mentions of Clinton at his rally in Detroit Monday night when he was formally endorsed by former Vice President Al Gore.
Obama chided the crowd then, and told reporters on his campaign plane today, "When I got out there I shut that down, and made very clear that Senator Clinton deserves respect. She ran a great race and we are moving forward because we want to win in November. You know I think people were still in primary mindset, and we're moving into general election mindset."
WASHNGTON (AP) — Barack Obama's campaign named new senior advisers on Monday, including former Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle as chief of staff to the presidential candidate's yet-to-be-chosen running mate.
Also heading the list of new top aides are Jim Messina, former chief of staff to Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana who will be Obama's chief of staff, and Stephanie Cutter, communications director to Sen. John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign who will be a senior adviser to Obama and chief of staff to Obama's wife, Michelle.
The campaign is beefing up as it anticipates the needs of a general election. Other posts being filled include a national field director, a post that will be occupied by Jon Carson, who was director of voter contact during the primaries. Another post — battleground states director — will be filled by Jen O'Malley, who directed John Edwards' Iowa operation.
Doyle, who stepped down as Clinton's campaign manager in February, is the only former high profile Clinton staffer to join the Obama camp so far. Clinton replaced Solis Doyle with longtime aide Maggie Williams after she and Obama essentially split the 22-state Super Tuesday contests on Feb. 5.
Her role in the Obama campaign did not come as a surprise. Last month, she and Obama strategist David Axelrod confirmed they had had informal conversations about how she might help the Illinois senator if he secured the presidential nomination.
San Diego usually is a fine place to be under any circumstances, but for a couple of days this July the political world will flock there for clues about one of the crucial questions in the John McCain-Barack Obama matchup: Whither the Latino vote?
The National Council of La Raza, a leading Latino civil rights and advocacy organization, announced today that both presidential contenders have accepted invitations to speak at its July 12-15 convention in San Diego. No details yet on when each will speak, but their appearances likely will be among the most important they make during the month.
For Obama, the mission is straightforward: Woo an ethnic group that is absolutely essential to his hopes of carrying several key states in November but which heavily supported his rival, Hillary Clinton, during the just-completed Democratic primary season.
Presumably his campaign already will be hard at work on this task before the La Raza get-together, but his speech will offer him a golden opportunity to try to connect with a voting bloc that so far has generally resisted his appeals.
McCain will face more of a balancing act when he takes center stage ...
... at the convention.
As an Arizonan who last year was one of the few prominent Republicans on Capitol Hill pushing for controversial legislation that would have created a path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants in the nation, McCain is primed to build upon the inroads President Bush made four years ago in attracting Latino votes to the GOP banner.
But many conservatives who strongly opposed the 2007 immigration bill -- and whose turnout McCain needs on his behalf this fall -- will be listening carefully to his remarks. And it won't take much for them to renew their criticism of him on the immigration issue (witness this recent Michelle Malkin post).
BRISTOL, Va. — Senator Barack Obama moved forcefully into the general election on Thursday, placing his stamp on the Democratic Party apparatus and holding a private nighttime meeting with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in an effort to unify Democrats.
A day after her campaign said she would end her quest for the presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton disavowed an effort by her supporters to pressure Mr. Obama into choosing her as his running mate. She said that they were acting on their own and that the decision was “Senator Obama’s and his alone.”
The meeting between the two former rivals in Washington was initiated by Mrs. Clinton after Mr. Obama spent the day in Virginia, a state symbolic of his efforts to expand the Democratic reach.
The senators instructed their aides not to disclose details of the meeting. They issued an unusual joint statement late Thursday, saying, “Senator Clinton and Senator Obama met tonight and had a productive discussion about the important work that needs to be done to succeed in November.”
CNN) — Oprah Winfrey is ecstatic over Barack Obama’s apparent victory in this year’s Democratic presidential race.
"I'm euphoric, I've been doing the happy dance all day,” she said in a statement released Wednesday I'm so proud of Barack and Michelle and what this means for all of us, the new possibilities for our country.”
The talk show host, who campaigned for Obama in several key early primary states, added: “And if he wants me to, I'm ready to go door to door."
ATLANTA (Reuters) - Black Americans savored Barack Obama's unprecedented victory in the Democratic race for U.S. president, but said on Wednesday the higher stakes raised the prospect of deep disappointment in November.
The knowledge that Obama will be the first black American to lead a major party in a U.S. presidential election as he faces Republican John McCain in November provoked a flood of reflection from black voters at Atlanta's "K&K Soul Food" restaurant.
"It's great. We finally have a 'brother' nominated to be president. It's the best thing I've ever seen," said Alan Stephens, 46, who had parked the truck he uses for his welding business directly outside the big side window.
"But it will be even better when he is president," he said, adding that Obama's victory should be put in the context of other milestones in African American history, a popular view among a U.S. minority with a keen sense that discrimination and the struggle to overcome it has defined its identity.
In winning the nomination, Obama has left many African Americans elated but at the same time fearful that their own preoccupations might derail the candidate in a general election, said William Jelani Cobb, author of books about contemporary black culture.
"Black Americans are treading on thin ice, moving very delicately. This (Obama's) opportunity is frail and fragile (and many say) let's make sure that nothing happens to ruin it," said Cobb, a professor of history at Atlanta's Spelman College.
Get used to saying it because the Democrats have just chosen the wrong nominee. Obama will not win in November. Not unless him and his supporters do some major damage control with Clinton supporters, which would mean reaching out to them in a way they seem incapable of.
The Obama supporters who think Clinton played dirty, haven't seen anything yet. Obama's empty record will finally be in the spotlight. He will have to be much clearer on how he intends to bring change, especially to the voters in middle and rural America. He will now have to puth forth credible, detailed plans rather than rely on lofty themes and buzz words. Good plans, what a concept!
There are already millions of Clinton supporters who have vowed not to vote for Obama. Some of them will not vote for him even if Hillary is on the ticket. There has been too much damage done by his surrogates, his supporters, the media and himself. Obama has a lot of work to do to win over Clinton's army. Whatever he does now will probably be received as disingenuous and way too late.
McCain has some work to do as well. If he can recapture the same spirit of his 2000 campaign then it will be no contest. This is doubtful. He's alligned himself to Bush way too many times since then. However, if he can win over many of Clinton's supporters and enough of the more conservative independents, he will be our next president.
If Hillary is picked as Obama's running mate, then it's hard to see how he loses. However, I hope to God she doesn't choose to go this route if she is offered the spot. I think there are better opportunities ahead for her, and she would be far more effective in a different role.
So for all the pundits and Obama supporters trashing Hillary for not conceding tonight, I say, fuck off already and get used to saying it, "President McCain."
WASHINGTON--Likely Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told reporters on Monday he told Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) that "once the dust settled" he wants to meet with her "at a time and place of her choosing." He also personally apologized to her for the "offensive remarks" of his long-time friend, Father Michael Pfleger.
(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama said Saturday that he has resigned from the church where controversial sermons by his former pastor and other ministers created repeated political headaches for the Democratic frontrunner.
"We don't want to have to answer for everything that's stated in the church," Obama told reporters. "We also don't want the church subjected to the scrutiny that a presidential campaign legitimately undergoes."
Obama said he was resigning "with some sadness."
"This is not a decision I come to lightly," he said.
The resignation comes days after the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a visiting Catholic priest, mocked Obama's Democratic rival during a sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois.
In the video, Pfleger wipes his eyes with a handkerchief and suggests that Sen. Hillary Clinton wept because she thought that as a white person and the wife of a former president, she was entitled to the presidency.
"And then, out of nowhere, came 'Hey, I'm Barack Obama,' " Pfleger said "And [Clinton] said, 'Oh, damn, where did you come from? I'm white! I'm entitled! There's a black man stealing my show!' "
Pfleger is a Catholic priest at St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church on Chicago's southwest side. He is also a friend of Trinity's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, from whom Obama distanced himself in April.
"Why is it that of all the wonderful Catholic priests in the Chicago Archdiocese, Obama long ago chose Pfleger to hang with?" Catholic League President Bill Donohue said in a statement. "Truth be known, Pfleger has a very troubling history."
“Senator Obama says he wants to bring people together. Then why does he choose as his clerical friends people like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger?" Donohue also said. "They are two peas in a pod, both equally divisive, separated only by the color of their skin.”
Texas Democratic Party Vice Chairwoman Roy LaVerne Brooks is a superdelegate who endorsed Barack Obama in March.
The longtime party activist from Fort Worth is also running to unseat current state party Chairman Boyd Richie.
Imagine her surprise Tuesday when she received a disturbing phone call from a national Obama operative who is part of a group that parachuted into Texas to work on this weekend's state party convention.
Roy says the operative, Rudy Shank, told her that unless she drops her candidacy to unseat Richie at the state convention she will not be going to the national convention as a superdelegate.
A deal is offered She said Shank politely told her that "if there was any way I could not run, it would be appreciated because they would like a convention without hurt feelings."
Shank told her he could make a deal with her. He said Glen Maxey, the former Austin state representative whom the Obama campaign hired as its convention director, told him that if Brooks gave up her vice chairmanship to run against Richie, she would lose her status as superdelegate if she lost.
State chairs and vice chairs are automatically members of the Democratic National Committee, which makes them superdelegates. Brooks' term as vice chair ends this weekend.
A quiet rule change Brooks said that was news to her. About 20 years ago, then-Chairman Bob Slagle put in a rule saying that while the election for vice chair would take place at the state convention in June, the term would extend until the end of the national convention. The idea was that the vice chair should be rewarded with a national convention at the end of his or her term, not at the beginning of it.
Houstonian Carl Davis, who served as vice chairman from 1998 to 2000, went as a delegate to the convention in Los Angeles that nominated Al Gore.
"I remember seeing the rule in writing," he said.
But apparently the rule has been quietly changed in recent years.
Slagle says he recently learned of the change, though he didn't recall whether the rule was a written one or a "handshake agreement."
Under the new rule, Brooks would lose her superdelegate status if she fails to unseat Richie. But if she backs out, Richie could name her to one of three "add-on" superdelegate slots.
He is required to nominate at least two people for each of the three seats, to be approved by the nominations committee and then ratified by the convention. Traditionally, the nominations committee approves the chairman's first choice of delegates.
There are ironies in the request by an Obama operative that Brooks back off the chairman's race.
One is that she is an African-American. The state Democratic chairman has traditionally been a white male, with an occasional white female slipping in.
Another is that Brooks is casting herself as a "change" from the good ol' boy system, and Obama's campaign is all about changing the good ol' boy system. Brooks' chances of unseating Richie are enhanced by several thousand change-oriented newcomers who will swell the convention to about triple its normal size.
Brooks said she told Shank she would stay in the race.
"I made the comment that I may need to jump over to Hillary's side because I'm not going to be treated like a dish rag," she said.
I asked if she was serious.
"I'm very serious if they keep trying to get me out of the race and I learn that Obama is behind it," she said.
The job of uniting the Democratic Party after a long and divisive primary season just got tougher, thanks to yet another Chicago Christian leader who's a longtime friend and associate of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has rejected the comments of another controversial pastor who sharply mocked his Democratic nomination rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. (Reuters/Getty Images)Precisely at the time when Obama's camp needs to be building bridges to supporters of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, who's known Obama for about 20 years, took to the pulpit of Obama's church Sunday and ridiculed Clinton, using racially divisive language.
The timing could not be worse.
The Democratic National Committee's rules and bylaws committee will meet Saturday to hash out how to deal with the delegations of Florida and Michigan, which are going to be punished for ignoring party rules and holding early primaries.
Clinton supporters plan on staging protests, insisting that the committee count the votes as cast, even though no candidate campaigned in either state and Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan.
But hanging over the Saturday meeting will be the mocking comments made by Pfleger from the same Chicago pulpit that Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, used racially inflammatory language about America to Obama's regret.
Obama was forced to say Thursday he was "deeply disappointed" by Pfleger's pulpit performance in which he mocked Clinton by pretending to bawl after saying she was "entitled" to the nomination because she was white and Bill Clinton's wife.
"There's a black man stealing my show," Pfleger wailed in his mock Clinton voice.
Pfleger quickly followed Obama's statement with his own apology, but the Clinton camp was not mollified.
"This is going to hurt Obama's efforts right now to bring the party together coming out of the primaries Tuesday," ABC's chief political correspondent George Stephanopoulos said today on "Good Morning America."
"The feelings between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters are rubbed very, very raw. This makes that worse," Stephanopoulos said.
But by delivering his remarks, Father Pfleger seems to have officially submitted his entry to the What Else Can We At Trinity Do to Further Assure that the United States Does Not Have Its First African-American President Any Time Soon? video competition. And this application has “Finalist” marked all over it.
It achieves this status because Father Pfleger has more than a passing acquaintance with the person who stands on the verge of winning the Democratic Party’s nomination.
His precise relation to Senator Obama is presently being pieced together and rehearsed in articles across the internet (such as this one, and this one). As of now, it seems fair to say that Pfleger (who has suddenly disappeared from the candidate’s website) and Obama have known and liked one another for a long time. The former appears to have financially contributed to previous campaigns and to have worked for the present one prior to the Iowa Caucus.
According to widely circulated reports (although I have not been able to track down the original source in the few hours since this story broke) Obama once referred to Pfleger as a “spiritual adviser” in a 2004 Chicago Sun-Times article.
After watching -- slackjawed -- Father Michael Pfleger’s remarks about Hillary Clinton and White privilege I have queries. First, what is it about that particular pulpit that brings out the inner Chris Rock in assorted Men of God?
Second, are there any guys on the face of the earth having more fun than the four fellows in robes whooping it up directly behind Father Pfleger? Third, are we going to be told by Obama operatives that the remarks were taken out of context? Fourth, and most importantly, what will be the fallout for the Obama campaign?
In a general election a presidential candidate typically moves to the center. It is now going to be even harder for Obama to do that since America keeps seeing footage of his friends who stand to the left of Fidel Castro.
But that's not all. The Senator from Illinois has his share of difficulties with White Blue Collar voters. I have observed elsewhere that this group loathes this type of rhetoric (unless it comes from Chris Rock).
There's more to be concerned about. Obama has demonstrated some weakness with Catholic voters. The fact that he finds himself receiving glowing praise from a priest who has been in a running, public feud with his local Cardinal might aggravate the problem.
Let's not forget Senator Clinton. She surely will chime in on this controversy later today. It will deflect attention from her own recent gaffes. And it will strengthen her supporters’ conviction that the racial hang-ups of Obama’s inner circle will accrue to John McCain’s greater glory. Too, there is more than a touch of misogyny in the priest's oratory and (as the Male Space Invader Rick Lazio learned the hard way) many women voters rally to Hillary when they feel a gendered slight.
I don’t doubt that the Senator’s aforementioned words of regret are sincere. I don’t doubt that he truly deplores this type of rhetoric. But how many more radical Left- wing confidantes from the South Side can undecided voters withstand before they start questioning the man's claims about being a unifier who is above Red States and Blue States, Republican and Democrat, Conservative and Liberal?
While Mr. Obama has said he would depart from the Bush administration policy of refusing to meet with certain nations unless they meet preconditions, he has also said he would reserve the right to choose which leaders he would meet, should he choose to meet with them at all.
The issue presents one of Mr. Obama’s biggest political and policy tests yet as he appears headed toward a general-election contest against Senator John McCain of Arizona: How to continue to add nuance to a policy argument that he views as a winning one, without playing into a fierce round of accusations that he is either shifting positions or appeasing the enemy.
Already the McCain campaign was accusing Mr. Obama of “backtracking,” particularly in the case of whether he would talk with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.
Mr. McCain, who has almost daily raised Mr. Obama’s stated willingness to meet with the Iranians, hit the theme again Wednesday, asking a crowd in Reno, Nev., “Why is it that Senator Obama wants to sit down with the president of Iran, but hasn’t yet sat down with General Petraeus, the leader of our troops?”
Later, Mr. Obama dismissed the critique, saying: “This is a typical sarcastic comment that doesn’t have anything to do with the substance and is patently untrue, since I just saw General Petraeus when he was testifying in Washington.”
I think somebody needs to teach Mr. Obama the meaning of "sit down."
This week, Mr. Obama said that he was still considering meeting with Iranian leaders, though he would not necessarily guarantee a direct meeting with Mr. Ahmadinejad.
“There is no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know that he is actually in power,” Mr. Obama told reporters. “He is not the most powerful person in Iran.”
Last week, Mr. Obama offered a similarly nuanced explanation about meeting with President Raúl Castro of Cuba, saying he would do so only “at a time and place of my choosing.”
The caveats belie the simple answer Mr. Obama gave during a debate last summer, when the issue was first raised in a major public forum. Without hesitation or qualification, Mr. Obama said he would hold direct talks with America’s enemies, drawing strong and immediate criticism from his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
“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?” asked Stephen Sixta, a video producer who submitted the question for the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate.
Mr. Obama, the first candidate to respond, answered, “I would.”
Several aides immediately thought it was a mistake and sought to dial back his answer. But on a conference call the morning after the debate, Mr. Obama told his advisers that he had meant what he said and thought the answer crystallized how he differed from his rivals.
“I think that it is an example of how stunted our foreign policy debates have become over the last eight years that this is an issue that political opponents try to seize on,” Mr. Obama said in an interview on Wednesday. “It is actually a pretty conventional view of how diplomacy should work traditionally that has fallen into disrepute in Republican circles and in Washington.”
Even after Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton called his position naïve, Mr. Obama refused to shy away from it, at times speaking explicitly in terms of a potential meeting with Mr. Ahmadinejad.
But in the last few weeks Mr. McCain and the Republican National Committee have attacked Mr. Obama on his position more fiercely and consistently than his Democratic rivals ever did, with an especially acute focus on Mr. Ahmadinejad, who recently called Israel “a stinking corpse.”
And Mr. Obama and his advisers have responded with more policy details and a more stringent defense. They have, for instance, said that Mr. Obama’s opponents had used his comments that he would be willing to meet with the Iranian leadership — who they do not necessarily define as Mr. Ahmadinejad — to assert incorrectly that he had definite plans to do so.
They have also drawn a distinction between “preconditions” and “preparations” for such talks. In saying he would not impose preconditions on discussions, Mr. Obama said he was referring, for instance, to a Bush administration policy of making high-level meetings contingent upon Iran’s agreement to suspend its uranium enrichment program. Mr. Obama said he viewed its suspension as a goal of any talks, not a starting point for them.
But, he said, he would order lower-level preparatory talks to determine Iran’s motives before agreeing to higher-level meetings.
In the interview Wednesday, Mr. Obama conceded that he might need to do a better job explaining his policy.
I'm looking at my Google page and this is about the only story on the page that is not bashing Hillary and actually takes the time to put things in their proper perspective.
I'm looking at a tvr'd "Meet the Press" right now and the Hillary bashing continues with a panel basically dedicating this episode as a "How Hillary Lost" show. There's Maureen Dowd telling us that the calls of sexism by the Hillary side are "poppycock;" Doris Kearns Goodwin ending a thought with "or God forbid what this thought suggested." The only moderate voice seemed to come from Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post who said she "would differ a little bit from some of the people around the table who thought this was intentional."
If you go to the page of the TPM YouTube video, you will see the most hateful, vitriolic, vile comments against Hillary to date. It's so obvious that the Obama side, who is fixated on thrusting the final dagger in the Clinton campaign, is not interested in anything the Clinton supporters have to bring to party. They really feel they can win without us. For me, this weekend is the final straw. I've finally decided that I will not be voting for Obama if he is the nominee. I've been on the fence for quite a while on what to to if he was the nominee, but the Obama side and the media have, just pushed me over. I'm still not sure if I can find myself voting for a Republican but I will either be staying home or writing in Hillary's name if she is not the nominee.
The consequences could be stark if McCain wins. However, in the case Hillary is not the nominee, I think it would be better to lose the presidency than to lend legitimacy to the wing of this party that finds it OK to disenfranchise millions of voters to win, and finds it OK to use a sexist, biased media as a weapon against a fellow Dem. They apparently are OK with swift-boating fellow Dems and the left-wing blogs like Daily Kos, with their juvenile, vile community, is OK with not only lifting their preferred candidate but destroying the opposing Democrat. The left-wing blogoshere, which has spent the last eight years complaining about right-wing tactics, is guilty of behaving in the same manner. For those of you who will no doubt point to NO QUARTER, I say that this is just one site who is just reacting to these tactics and their resentment stems from, to a large degree, the lack of substance from Obama and the vitriolic attacks of his supporters toward Sen. Clinton and her supporters. Most of this is defensive as opposed to what Obama supporters have managed to do, destroy the the original "inevitable" candidate.
I'm not OK with being forced to follow the "it" crowd; a fashion statement. I'd rather lose and pick my battles with McCain than be told to follow a candidate or face "race riots" as Michelle Bernard said on MSNBC on 5/19/08. I'm not OK with being told I'm a racist because I'm not following the "black candidate" after it took months for that community to even consider him black.
I'm not OK with the media choosing our candidate. I'm not OK with Donna Brazile asking me for money on behalf of the party, when she's done her best to promote her candidate with her "undeclared" support, while also, doing her best to "send a message" and make sure Florida voters pay the maximum price for what Florida Republican politicians created.
This party, which started this campaign with an embarrassment of riches, has exposed their sores and is now infected.
CBSNews.com: The Democratic presidential race is now winding down--and yet, Senator Clinton still won a 35 point victory in Kentucky this week, another massive win among white working class voters. How serious is Senator Obama's problem with that group? And does he actually have to win them in a general election?
Doug Schoen: Well, he's got to win them somewhere in the general election. And it is a serious problem. I mean, he’s probably not going to win West Virginia. He's got to win Pennsylvania, Ohio, He’ll probably lose Florida and try to make up for that in the West and Mountain States. But the answer simply is it is a real, ongoing problem for him.
CBSNews.com: And has he shown any serious signs of recognizing the problem, or doing something to confront it?
Doug Schoen: I think he recognizes it. I'm not sure he's done anything yet to directly confront it.
CBSNews.com: What do you think he should do?
Doug Schoen: Well, I think that he needs, first, to develop a program that reaches out to working class white voters. Second, I think he should consider someone like Senator Clinton or New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg as a running mate, to speak directly to the economic concerns of working class voters. And third, I think he needs to start focusing his campaign where he both has done badly and needs to win.
CBSNews.com: And what kind of an economic program does that need to be?
Doug Schoen: I think he needs to lay out a comprehensive economic message of what he's going to do to revitalize the economy, deal with the sub-prime crisis, and create good paying jobs for working people.
CBSNews.com: Now Obama’s campaign points out that he won whites in Oregon and Virginia and Wisconsin, and he won them in Iowa--where he spoke this week to declare that he has a majority of the pledged delegates. So how do you explain the difference between his performance in those states versus Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Texas?
Doug Schoen: I think the states that he has done well in are either states that have a more liberal tradition, a more progressive tradition, particularly for Democratic primary voters--or states where the white electorate tends to be, in a Democratic primary, somewhat further to the left.
But mainstream working class voters in states like--you can go across the board--Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Florida, all prove to be problematic for him. So I think he's got a problem. And he's got a couple a states he's done okay in. But they do not, to me, suggest that the problem is solved.
CBSNews.com: And to what extent do you think there are some white voters who will never vote for an African-American for President? Or do you think that the racial component of this is overstated?
Doug Schoen: I think the racial component is overstated. I think people have doubts about Barack. I think they have doubts about his program. And I think they have some doubts about people like Reverend Wright. And I don't think that is necessarily racially motivated, though I would suggest that black liberation theology and some of the outrageous things that Reverend Wright has said certainly raise the specter of concern about race--separate and apart from Barack Obama--with working class voters who might be very, very concerned with the message.
(CNN) — A new series of Quinnipiac polls out of Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania appear to bolster Hillary Clinton's argument that she is better positioned than Barack Obama to beat John McCain in the crucial swing states.
According to the polls released Thursday, Hillary Clinton would beat John McCain in all three states by wide margins while Barack Obama would lose to the Arizona senator in Ohio and Florida and narrowly beat McCain in Pennsylvania.
CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said the poll could be a potential "early-warning sign."
Specifically, the poll found Clinton tops McCain in Florida by 7 points (48 percent to 41 percent), in Ohio by 7 points (48 percent to 41 percent) and in Pennsylvania by 13 percent (50 percent to 37 percent).
Meanwhile the poll finds McCain would beat Obama by 4 points in Florida (45-41 percent) and by 4 points in Ohio (44 percent to 40 percent). Obama beats McCain in Pennsylvania, but by a narrower margin than Clinton does — he beats McCain by 6 points there, 46 percent to 40 percent.
According to Quinnipiac, the difference between Clinton and Obama's performances in the state can be traced to the fact that several Clinton supporters and white working class voters there say they will support McCain over Obama if the Illinois senator is the party's nominee.
Soon after the 2004 election, after spending so much time, energy and money supporting John Kerry's failed bid, I remember being outraged by some remarks made by the the founder and CEO of the DLC, Al From. From, who is infamous for his centrist and hawkish policies, said in March 2005, “You’ve got to reject Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd.” From added “rank-and-file Democrats ‘are more like us than MoveOn,’ which [Al] From called a group of ‘elites, people who sit in their basements all the time and play on their computers.’” (NBC’s “First Read,” 3/1/05)
I myself was a MoveOn member, and I guess I still am, although I haven't participated in any of their events in quite a while. So at the time, I took great offense to these remarks, and it seemed he was suggesting that the party needed to move toward the right if it ever wanted to win an election again.
I can't help but think that From's remarks have come to mind several times during the current Democratic campaign. Now I'm not saying that From was correct, but the vigorous support and vitriol shown by Obama supporters and the media which seems to now be overtly gushing over the junior senator from IL, have made things a little clearer. It's quite obvious that there is a rift in the party.
Obama supporters on blogs like Daily Kos, 527's like MoveOn and his supporters throughout the media would have you believe that Clinton supporters are all dumb, white racists and/or feminists. The many Clinton supporters I've met while campaigning are far from being dumb or racist. In fact, many of her supporters admire the work she's done over the years on civil and human rights and her collaborations with African-American and Latino leaders. Many of her supporters didn't even start out this campaign against Obama. They just felt he wasn't ready for the job and that Clinton was ready and much more experienced. After all, if Obama does become president, America will have chosen somebody who's last complete term was as a state senator.
Some of Hillary's supporters didn't start out supporting her. As their preferred candidates finally left the race, they were faced with a decision. I for one started out as an Edwards supporter. One thing that stuck in my mind from the beginning was how Hillary performed during the debates. She just seemed so much more experienced, so much more in control and her answers were always very detailed. It also became very obvious that the media was in Obama's corner. When the piling on started with pundits like Keith Olbermann making it a mission to bring Hillary down, then seeing the ugly diaries and comments at sites that claim to be for all Dems, and when Edwards finally decided to leave the race, the choice became clear for me.
Clinton supporters are passionate for sure. As they began to express their support online, in forums and blogs, they were met with a ferocious wave of disdain from fellow Democrats. The Obama supporters were so furious that many Clinton supporters found it necessary to seek out other places they would be welcome.
So if there is a Clinton wing of the party, I would say they range from being liberal to more moderate, just left-of-center Dems. Clinton liberals can be those with traditional progressive values who feel she is the best person to champion causes like universal health care, the rights of labor, immigrants, gays and despite her 2002 vote, they feel she is the best person to get us out of the war in Iraq. Clinton moderates feel she would be the strongest leader and be the best person on issues like national defense, the fight on terrorism and the security of the nation.
On the other hand, although I don't agree with From's past statements, there is an element in the party that sees itself as entitled. They are ultra-partisan and don't feel the party should be tolerant of any part of the country that is even a fraction to the right of them. They realize that there will be more conservative Dems, in areas where there are a majority of Republicans and will even campaign for them, but they won't let them into their conversations or clubs; they won't let them speak for the party. If they had their way there would only be one party and everybody would be as vile, snarky and liberal as they are. Sounds like a mirror-image of right-wing republicans.
So here lies the danger. If Obama wins, this wing of the party will surely dominate. How will Obama unite the country as he says he can, when his supporters are unwilling to compromise and are not even tolerant of the more moderate views within their own party? And before you reply with comments about how divisive Hillary is and polls showing her supporters are unwilling to support Obama if he's the nominee, remember that she didn't start the attacks. She was very civil and withstood constant attacks from the other candidates early in the race. In fact, I remember one line vividly from the Las Vegas debate: “They're not attacking me because I'm a woman,” she said. “They're attacking me because I'm ahead.” This is from Politico's coverage (which hasn't always been friendly to Sen. Clinton) of that debate:
LAS VEGAS – New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton responded to weeks of increasing criticism from her rivals at a debate here Thursday night with a rhetorical show of force of her own.
She accused former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards of “throwing mud” and said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is being too modest in his plans for health care and too aggressive in aiming to raise Social Security taxes.
Clinton was cheered — and her rivals' criticisms were, at times, booed — by an unusually raucous crowd made up of students, labor union members and Democratic activists at the University of Nevada Las Vegas.
Clinton supporters have to stay relevant. We have to show the blogs and the pundits that we do count and that bias and sexism will never be tolerated. The most obvious way to do this would be to not support Obama. Without us, he may never get his hands on the prize. However, to be able to make this statement, is it really worth the alternative outcome? I'm not sure that McCain doesn't keep us in the war and maybe start a new one. Universal health care will be out the window. So how will I vote if Obama is the nominee? I'm still not sure. For me, the choice will not be as relevant as I will be voting in NJ this year. I can't see either Dem losing here. But for many of you, a tough decision is pending. I also know for others I've spoken to, the decision will be very easy because you've already decided that there is no way you will vote for Obama, and as long as it's not based of race, I respect that decision.
There is another way we can show our unity and strength. We should start looking toward local races where we can make a difference. We should seek out candidates that share Sen. Clinton's values and show our support. For me, one candidate in particular comes to mind. His name is Steve Harrison from New York's 13th congressional district. I'm sure many of you have heard of the recent troubles of the incumbent Republican Vito Fossella, NYC's only Republican Congressperson.
This seat is clearly up for grabs. My good friend Steve Harrison ran against Fossella in 2006 and received an unprecedented 43% even though he was heavily under-funded and outspent 13:1. Despite promises from the DCCC that they would step in, they never did. This year could be different. He has already received endorsements from DFNYC, the NY Times, Progressive Democrats of America and National Peace Action. "We found that Mr. Harrison would bring to Congress an intelligent and educated approach to the real security of this country based on international cooperation, respect for human rights, and diplomacy," said Peace Action NY State Chair, Sally Jones. "Among the positions taken by Mr. Harrison that garnered him the support of Peace Action is his opposition to the Bush war policy that is destroying the American economy and driving down living standards."
Harrison wants the country to approach our energy problems with the same vigor and national resolve as we did putting a man on the moon. He feels that in a decade we should be free from foreign and domestic fossil fuel dependance.
Steve is also for single-payer universal medical coverage for all Americans. He opposes the war in Iraq and calls for the immediate withdrawal of forces, consistent with our troops' safety. As of the 2006 election, Fossella had voted with Bush administration policies an incredible 91% of the time.
Hillary played a big part in Steve's campaign in 2006, including robocalls from her and Bill. However, the help came too late in the race. With more name recognition this year and more support from people like us, we can get Steve to DC.
I know everybody is tapped out from helping Hillary, but a nominee will be chosen soon. Whether or not it's the person we want is a different matter. However, it would be great to show we can keep this coalition together and actually make a difference. We can send a strong message to the media by supporting candidates that share Hillary's vision and values. This will also help put her in a much stronger position if she decides to run again in four years. Think how many more superdelegates she can win if we are the ones to help put them in that position (unless they become like Bill "Judas" Richardson, kidding).
So whether you can spare $5 now or later on after the convention, I urge you to my ActBlue page and show a little love.
If you can't give anything right now, I would love for you to go to Steve's site at SteveHarrisonforcongress.com and let him know that Marc from Blue Spot sent you and that Hillary supporters have his back.
Senator Barack Obama's favorite campaign rallying cry is, "Fired up! Ready to go!" But when the Democratic Party's leading presidential hopeful visits Florida this week, he's likely to hear a grouchier refrain, something along the lines of, "It's about time!"
The less than passionate reception shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has followed the Sunshine State's latest election saga — least of all Obama, who hasn't visited the crucial battleground all year. Because the state's presidential primary was moved up to January 29, in violation of party rules, the Democratic National Committee effectively nullified the vote in advance and refused to seat any of Florida's Democratic delegates at this summer's convention (the Republicans, by contrast, only cut their delegate counts in half). Democratic rivals Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton also signed pledges not to campaign in Florida until after its primary. But once Clinton's 17-point victory was announced that night, she immediately appeared in Ft. Lauderdale to tell voters she would fight to get Florida's delegates seated.
Obama, by contrast, was nowhere to be found and still hasn't visited the state since. Many Florida Democrats consider him AWOL and even indifferent to their efforts to get the DNC to reinstate their delegates and make their January votes count. Obama "has repair work to do," says Democratic state Senator Nan Rich, a South Florida Clinton backer. "Rank-and-file Democrats here are frankly distressed by the fact that he appears disconnected from the state."
By Matthew Mosk PORTLAND, Ore. -- Sen. Barack Obama showed every sign of confidence that he has secured the Democratic nomination during a high-dollar fundraiser at a posh club here last night.
Obama predicted a victory in Oregon, and said he believed the resulting delegate haul would "put us over the top."
"We will be able to say we have won a majority," he said. "But we have a lot of work to do ahead of us."
For the past several days, Obama has been moving closer to declaring himself the party's nominee, even as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been campaigning aggressively to soak up delegates in the few remaining primaries. At an event in the timber-country town of Roseburg, Ore., he twice slipped into past tense when referring to Clinton's bid and the primaries.
Already, top fundraisers for Clinton and Obama have begun private talks aimed at merging the two candidates' teams.
At the fundraiser, he told a boisterous crowd of about 300 supporters that a win in November would require a unified Democratic Party, adding: "That means all of you have to be nice to Clinton supporters."
Is he kidding? We've put up with months of abuse and his surrogates say we're insignificant. We warned his supporters they would eventually need us. I may not vote for McCain, but it's going to take a lot more than this to get my vote.
Both South Dakotans lavished all sorts of praise on Obama, according to reporters present, including The Times Nicholas Riccardi. As the large, enthusiastic crowd of some 7,000 supporters roared and waved "We can do it" signs and Bruce Springsteen's "The Rising" blared, Obama bounded onto stage, grabbed the microphone and said, "Thank you, Sioux City!"
Trouble is, Obama was in Sioux Falls.
So was the crowd, which suddenly fell silent. Where are those Southwest Airlines get-away flights when you need them?
"I'm sorry," Obama quickly caught himself. "Sioux Falls. I've been in Iowa too long." Now, that line may not go over too well in the Hawkeye State, which gave him his first big caucus win way back in January.
Obama went on to give yet another rousing stump speech, seeking support in the state's primary June 3, the last one along with Montana. The Dakota crowd was enthusiastic. And the freshman Illinois senator threw in several extra references to South Dakota for good measure.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former presidential contender John Edwards said on Friday he would not be Democratic front-runner Barack Obama's running mate, but did not rule out taking a role in an Obama administration.
"Won't happen," Edwards told NBC's "Today" program when asked if he would be Obama's vice presidential pick. "This is not something I'm interested in."
Edwards, the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, dropped out of the presidential race in January after failing to win any early primaries. On Wednesday, he gave his coveted endorsement to Obama over rival Hillary Clinton.
Asked if he had spoken Obama about a role in his administration if he beat Republican John McCain in November, Edwards said, "Only in the most abstract way."
Edwards said Obama had told him, "I want you on my team. I want to help you both in the campaign and with the work we want to do when I'm the president."
His endorsement of Obama, who would be the first black U.S. president, came the day after Clinton won a landslide victory in West Virginia that renewed doubts about Obama's ability to draw white low-income voters.
Edwards denied his endorsement had been deliberately timed to take the wind out of her victory.
Before al the hugs & kisses, they were political rivals. Here's a great clip that shows Edwards asking Obama a question that to this day he has not adequately answered: Why did you vote 'present' 100 times?
On last night's Hardball, Chris Matthews, with a little help from his tag-team partner, Andrea Mitchell, continued the latest meme that people not voting for Obama are dumb racists. Buchanan does his best to call him out on it. Later in the discussion, Matthews' "white guilt" becomes very visible. He tries to come back with a lame excuse when asked why West Virginians are considered racists for not voting for Obama but no such claims are made of blacks who have been voting for Obama at about 90%. According to Matthews there is a difference between "negative voting and positive voting." So is that supposed to mean if we vote for Obama, that's positive but if we vote for Hillary that's negative? The fawning is so blantant, it's disgusting.
The Campaign Spot on National Review Online So now that Obama sees the finish line, the media is lining up right behind him trying to push him forward. As if winning the nomination will automatically get him in the White House. Why even bother with a general election in November? The media has already determined the winner.
...you would think their readers might deserve to know what prompted McCain's campaign to suggest that Obama is the candidate of Hamas, i.e., top Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef saying the terrorist group supports Obama’s foreign-policy vision and hopes he wins:
“We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,” Yousef said in response to a question about the group’s willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidates.
I mean, seriously, one of his advisers, Rob Malley, was holding meetings with Hamas, and Obama's promised to hold unconditional face-to-face presidential summits with the guy who's funding and encouraging Hamas.
I don't usually find myself agreeing with Leslie Sanchez, but tonight she made some sense. Here she is taking on 2 Dems on how Obama has benefitted from a very generous press. TNR's Michael Crowley, regurgitates the usual Obama talking points. Dem strategist Keith Boykins is his tag-team partner here.
Elizabeth Edwards likes Hillary Clinton's plan for universal health insurance. Husband John Edwards doesn't much care for Clinton's "old politics."
So goes the his-and-her debate in the Edwards household (their kitchen, to be specific), as they spoke exclusively to PEOPLE Monday on the eve of primary voting in their homestate of North Carolina – the latest must-win state in this year's protracted Democratic presidental nomination fight between Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.
In their first joint interview since John, the Democratic former senator and 2004 vice presidential nominee, dropped out of the race in January, the couple named what they liked and disliked about each of the remaining Democrats – and Mrs. Edwards didn't hesitate: "I like Hillary's health care plan."
What doesn't she like about the senator from New York and former first lady? "The lobbyist money," she adds.
On Obama, she says: "The fact that he has motivated so many young people to be involved, I think is fantastic."
But, she adds: "I don't like his health care plan or his advertising on health care, which I think is misleading."
But is Hanks still supporting Hillary? I went to Open Secrets and discovered that as recently as Saturday, Hanks gave $2300 to Hillary. Hmmm...I guess if I'm Hillary, I'd gladly take the money. I haven't seen his video yet so I'm not really sure what's up with this. I'll have to wait until tonight as the job is blocking videos from being viewed. Really curious though. *UPDATE: OK, so I read the Open Secrets page wrong. He actually gave to Hillary last year. This is what happens when you try to rush posts while working. Sorry!
Barack Obama's national standing has been significantly damaged by the controversy over his former pastor, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, raising questions for some voters about the Illinois senator's values, credibility and electability.
The erosion of support among Democrats and independents raises the stakes in Tuesday's Indiana and North Carolina primaries, which represent a chance for Obama to reassert his claim to a Democratic nomination that seems nearly in his grasp. A defeat in Indiana and a close finish in North Carolina, where he's favored, could fuel unease about his ability to win in November. Such results also could help propel Hillary Rodham Clinton's uphill campaign all the way to the Democratic convention in August.
In the USA TODAY survey, taken Thursday through Saturday, Clinton leads Obama among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents by 7 percentage points, the first time in three months she has been ahead. Two weeks ago, before the controversy over comments by Jeremiah Wright reignited, Obama led by 10 points.
In February, Democrats and Democratic leaners by 33 points said Obama had a better shot at beating Republican John McCain in November. Clinton is now seen as the stronger candidate by 5 points.
Insider Advantage has released new polls in Indiana and North Carolina, with less than stellar results for Obama. However, in a poll released earlier this week, I.A. actually had Clinton leading in North Carolina -- Obama's now regained the lead there.
Indiana
Clinton 47 Obama 40
Clinton leads by 6.2 points in the RCP Average for Indiana
North Carolina
Obama 49 (+7 vs. last poll, April 29) Clinton 44 (nc)
Obama leads by 8.2 points in the RCP Average for North Carolina
Senator Obama's break with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. – who officiated at his wedding and baptized his two daughters – could turn off some poorer and older, civil rights-era blacks who may already wonder about Obama's ability to identify with their lives, say experts in black politics and some black voters.
But younger and more affluent blacks say that whether or not they agree with Mr. Wright, they see the rupture as a political necessity for a man seeking to become the first African-American president.
"I felt like what he did today, he had to do," Timothy Perry, a project manager at Reliant Energy in Houston who is an Obama supporter, said Tuesday in a phone interview. "You have a limb that's rotting and you've got to cut it off."
But Michael Durrah, a third-shift security guard at a Washington hotel, says Obama has more explaining to do.
"Your pastor is your No. 1 man in the neighborhood," says Mr. Durrah, a Democrat who says neither Obama nor Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton had inspired him enough to vote in the District of Columbia primary.
Is there anybody on TV right now, more biased toward Obama than Rachel Maddow? Now, I know Keith Olbermann is Obama's biggest mouth piece, but Maddow's reaction toward negative Obama stories is so visceral and over the top, it makes you wonder if she's a pundit or an Obama campaign operative.
Here's an exchange from yesterday's "Race For The White House":
SHUSTER: Rachel Maddow, Jay Carney says he wasn‘t angry enough. I thought he was exceptionally angry, especially when he talked about how Reverend Wright has taken up three or four consecutive days in the middle of this major debate. Was he not angry enough for you.
MADDOW: I thought he seemed angry. As I said before, so far Barack Obama has said—and I‘ve made notes of it as he‘s done it—he vehemently disagrees with him. He strongly condemns him. He categorically denounces him. He rejects him outright. Today we got that he‘s appalled by him, that he‘s outraged by him.
I find it incredible that we‘re all sitting here going, why won‘t the Jeremiah Wright controversy go away. You know what, today, John McCain unveiled his health care plan. We got three different statements, three different policies on gas prices. We got the president of the United States making a huge economic speech and speaking to reporters for 40 minutes. We have got four U.S. soldiers who are announced to have been killed in Iraq yesterday.
What else has to happen in the news to push Jeremiah Wright out of the headlines before we do it for six straight headlines on every politics show in the country? This is all we‘re capable of talking about.
I've never seen her have this kind of reaction when the negative stories were about Hillary. She's actually counting the news cycles here. Unbelievable!
(CBS/AP) Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday he was outraged and appalled by the latest comments from his former pastor, who asserted that criticism of his fiery sermons is an attack on the black church and the U.S. government was responsible for the creation of the AIDS virus.
The presidential candidate is seeking to tamp down the growing fury over Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his incendiary remarks that threaten to undermine his campaign.
"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday," Obama told reporters at a news conference.
"Obama's decision to address Wright's recent comments after several days of trying to stay away signals concern over the damage that was being done to his candidacy," said CBSNews.com senior political editor Vaughn Ververs. "His strong denunciation of Wright's remarks, particularly those made yesterday at the National Press Club, was aimed at voters in the upcoming primaries, a national audience and the Democratic superdelegates who hold so much power in the nominating process. It may bring even more attention to the issue but Obama clearly felt he needed to make a very clear and public break with his former pastor."
Promising on-air fireworks, the spokesman said that Obama "is going on their Sunday show to take Fox on."
Instead, Obama was decidedly non-combative, and calmly addressed all of the issues thrown his way by the show's host. He even highlighted some of his differences with liberal blogs, singling out Daily Kos by name while discussing John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court.
"Although I voted against him, I strongly defended some of my colleagues who had voted for him on the Daily Kos, and was fiercely attacked as somebody who is, you know, caving in to Republicans on these fights," Obama told Wallace.
The reaction from the blogosphere was quick, and largely critical.
"To be clear, Obama wasn't obliged to go after Fox," wrote TPM's Greg Sargent. "But a senior adviser said Obama would, as a way of quieting criticism of him. And he didn't.
"This will likely further dismay liberal bloggers who had worked very hard to get Dems to boycott Fox as a way of delegitimizing the network and who already criticized Obama for agreeing to appear in the first place," Sargent continued.
"If you don't like that Obama steps on you, speak out," agreed Matt Stoller of OpenLeft.com."It was a mistake for us to endorse Obama, just as it was a mistake for us to do nothing against Clinton after she accused Moveon of intimating her supporters at caucuses."
"By going on Fox News, Obama made the right-wing press legitimate," wrote Daily Kos diarist "Bonddad" Sunday morning. "Simply put, I cannot vote or support anyone who participates in this medium."
Some liberal bloggers, though, didn't find fault with Obama's placid approach. "Well, I can't speak for all liberal bloggers, but this one quickly came to peace with Obama's decision," wrote the anonymous blogger behind the Jed Report. "This all is just another reason I'm looking forward to the primary ending -- there's a much bigger fish to fry."
Blogger Jerome Armstrong at MyDD thinks Obama may have highlighted his disagreements with liberal bloggers in order "to make room for the pivot to 'the center,'" and to erase the perception that he's an angry, combative, netroots-endorsed, left-of-left political candidate.
In context, though, Obama's Fox News appearance seems part of a wider plan to cultivate a conciliatory tone, as he faces an ongoing controversy over pastor Jeremiah Wright's combative sermons.
History suggests that's a wise course. Howard Dean lost the presidential nomination in 2004 because of his perceived rage. Voters, it turns out, are turned off by anger, even if bloggers are craving a little ire from their candidate.
emphasis added above This has got to be the funniest story I've heard all day. It looks like the honeymoon is over. Or at least in trouble. We've been trying to tell those starry-eyed, pinheads over at Kos and the rest of the Obamabots that he was just a politician, like any other politician, and not some divine gift to politics. In the end he will do what is best for him politically. Hey, remember what happened to LaMont in 2006 when he tried to distance himself from the extreme-left netroots. The Daily Kos diarist mentioned above has the whole community in a frenzy with a diary titled, "Obama Lost My Vote By Going on Fox." He's closing in on 400 comments and many of them negative as you can imagine. It's just hilarious to view that whole community in such disarray as soon as one of them says something off script. It's like seeing the Borg trying to re-assimilate Seven of Nine on Star Trek. Check it out for a good laugh.
Is this Obama's idea of "respectable" and "mainstream" political thinking? If so, doesn't that tell us something about his judgment and standards?
In Chicago the other day, radio producer Guy Benson discovered video recordings of Ayers and Dohrn speaking at a reunion of antiwar radicals in November 2007. To live in the United States, Dohrn told the group, is to be "inside the heart of the monster" that is such a "purveyor of violence in the world." Ayers denounced America as an imperial warmonger steeped in "jingoistic patriotism, unprecedented and unapologetic military expansion, white supremacy . . . attacks on women and girls, violent attacks, growing surveillance in every sphere of our lives, on and on and on."
Even if Obama doesn't personally believe these things, is it really "tired tripe" to ask why he seems so comfortable in the company of people who do? Is it really "extremely stupid politics" to wonder whether such people might play a role in an Obama administration? Rather than slam the few journalists who raise such questions, might it not behoove others in the media to follow suit?
Pennsylvania was Sen. Barack Obama's chance to salt away his lead, answer the demographic questions about his candidacy -- and put the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in his rearview mirror.
It was a nice thought. Make that oh-for-3 -- and objects in that mirror are now uncomfortably close.
Pennsylvania's wake has left Obama arguing that he's still ahead (and doing so on the side of not counting votes in two key states), explaining why he can't close the deal (despite the fact that it's not clear Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton can even make a deal work) -- and coping with the sudden, very public reemergence of that pastor he wished would spend the next six months in East Paraguay.
The candidate who burst onto the national stage promising to bring red and blue states together is suddenly looking quite blue.
Sen. Barack Obama's second consecutive lopsided loss in a critical swing state has exposed soft spots in the support he's been able to secure.
The Illinois senator's had persistent problems in winning working-class, less-educated whites and Pennsylvania accentuated his seeming inability to connect with those voters.
Key Losses Fuel Doubts
While Obama remains the prohibitive front-runner -- with an effectively insurmountable lead in elected delegates -- those potential weaknesses among key demographic groups are fueling a fierce argument inside the Democratic Party over Obama's ability to win a general election.
PRINCETON, NJ -- A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.
This is amazing. Remember when Barack smugly declared "I wil get the people who voted for her".
This ABC report points out the latest Gallup poll that has Clinton back on top by 1 point nationally. The first time in a month since she's been ahead.
It’s rather amusing watching the liberal media launch a full-scale attack on George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson, with General Tom Shales of the Washington Post leading the charge. ABC’s Stephanopoulos and Gibson had the audacity to ask Obama some tough questions during the Democratic debate Tuesday night. Challenge Obama with well-informed questions on tax policy and politics? Wound the media favorite? How dare they?
The fallout is fascinating. With members of the mainstream liberal media lunging at each others throats, it’s kind of like watching Hillary and Obama go at it.
But here’s the deal: During the debate, Obama bungled his answers on tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my liberal friends in the media, all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.
First off, you don’t raise taxes during a recession. That’s a no-brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That’s what history shows.
The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore points out that in 2005, almost half of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000, while more than three-quarters came from households earning less than $100,000.
Obama also proposed uncapping the payroll tax, another blunder that will hit people up and down the income ladder. While Obama pledges tax hikes only for folks earning more that $200,000 a year, his tax hike on payrolls would actually slam middle-income earners. The cap on wages subject to the payroll tax is presently $102,000. By eliminating that cap Obama will be soaking veteran firemen, cops, teachers, and health-service workers, along with a variety of other occupations.
In Florida, Alex Halberstein, who serves on AIPAC's executive board, is among those who predict that Democrats will lose Jewish votes in the Sunshine State if Obama is the nominee. "We just don't know very much about him," says Halberstein, who supported President Clinton and contributed to and voted for Bush in 2004. He said that Obama's lack of a long track record on Middle East issues, as well as Wright's anti-American comments and praise of Farrakhan, remain ongoing concerns among many Jewish voters. The concerns linger, he says, even with the senator's denunciation of his former pastor's comments. Obama's friendship in Chicago with Palestinian intellectual and Israel critic Rashid Khalidi, now a professor at Columbia University, also requires more explanation for hard-line voters, says Morton Klein, who heads the conservative Zionist Organization of America.
Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new — an unconventional leader who would confront unpleasant truths, embrace novel policies and unify the country. If he had knocked Hillary Clinton out in New Hampshire and entered general-election mode early, this enormously thoughtful man would have become that.
But he did not knock her out, and the aura around Obama has changed. Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.
He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs, evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn’t on a questionnaire about gun control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously condemned the practice of lifting other candidates’ words out of context, but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over his 100 years in Iraq comment.
Obama also made a pair of grand and cynical promises that are the sign of someone who is thinking more about campaigning than governing.
He made a sweeping read-my-lips pledge never to raise taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 to $250,000 a year. That will make it impossible to address entitlement reform any time in an Obama presidency. It will also make it much harder to afford the vast array of middle-class tax breaks, health care reforms and energy policy Manhattan Projects that he promises to deliver.
Then he made an iron vow to get American troops out of Iraq within 16 months. Neither Obama nor anyone else has any clue what the conditions will be like when the next president takes office. He could have responsibly said that he aims to bring the troops home but will make a judgment at the time. Instead, he rigidly locked himself into a policy that will not be fully implemented for another three years.
If Obama is elected, he will either go back on this pledge — in which case he would destroy his credibility — or he will risk genocide in the region and a viciously polarizing political war at home.
Then there are the cultural issues. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News are taking a lot of heat for spending so much time asking about Jeremiah Wright and the “bitter” comments. But the fact is that voters want a president who basically shares their values and life experiences. Fairly or not, they look at symbols like Michael Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry’s windsurfing or John Edwards’s haircut as clues about shared values.
When Obama began this ride, he seemed like a transcendent figure who could understand a wide variety of life experiences. But over the past months, things have happened that make him seem more like my old neighbors in Hyde Park in Chicago.
Some of us love Hyde Park for its diversity and quirkiness, as there are those who love Cambridge and Berkeley. But it is among the more academic and liberal places around. When Obama goes to a church infused with James Cone-style liberation theology, when he makes ill-informed comments about working-class voters, when he bowls a 37 for crying out loud, voters are going to wonder if he’s one of them. Obama has to address those doubts, and he has done so poorly up to now.
It was inevitable that the period of “Yes We Can!” deification would come to an end. It was not inevitable that Obama would now look so vulnerable. He’ll win the nomination, but in a matchup against John McCain, he is behind in Florida, Missouri and Ohio, and merely tied in must-win states like Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A generic Democrat now beats a generic Republican by 13 points, but Obama is trailing his own party. One in five Democrats say they would vote for McCain over Obama.
General election voters are different from primary voters. Among them, Obama is lagging among seniors and men. Instead of winning over white high school-educated voters who are tired of Bush and conventional politics, he does worse than previous nominees. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira have estimated a Democrat has to win 45 percent of such voters to take the White House. I’ve asked several of the most skillful Democratic politicians over the past few weeks, and they all think that’s going to be hard.
A few months ago, Obama was riding his talents. Clinton has ground him down, and we are now facing an interesting phenomenon. Republicans have long assumed they would lose because of the economy and the sad state of their party. Now, Democrats are deeply worried their nominee will lose in November.
I was a little reluctant to put this up. Especially since the publisher's name is "DemocratsHateTheUS". However, despite what Obamabots seem to think, I believe character is still an important requisite for the presidency. They're running on the notion that Obama has better judgment. That's their whole campaign. Time after time, he's showing through his militant connections, that he lacks the judgment necessary for the job. I wonder if he wasn't under such a spotlight now, whether he would've approved Carter's meeting with Hamas, or whether he would've met with them himself.
If the criticism is aimed at Hillary, it's called a character or credibility issue. If the criticism is aimed at Obama, or if it's about something he doesn't care about, it's called nitpicking or a wedge issue.
Lou Dobbs is citing a poll that has Hillary up 20 points in PA, post-Obama remarks. Also, he gets into a discussion about the definition of elitism after Keith Richburg of the Washington Post breaks out the typical Obama defense that Hillary is the one who is an elitist because she makes more money. Dobbs astutely responds by bringing up Obama surrogates, and very rich Kennedy family.
Friday's breaking coverage on Lou Dobbs of Sen. Obama's latest remarks which even Obama supporter Mayhill Fowler, the lady who broke the story on the Huffingtonpost.com, found offensive. She's interviewed here.
Yet another example of why Obama can't win a general election contest.
Larry Johnson over at NO QUARTER has a story of a verbal tirade by prominent Obama supporter and L.A religious leader, Eric Lee, launched at Jews and aimed in particular at Daphna Ziman who was supposedly being honored at this event sponsored by the national African-American fraternity Kappa Alpha Psi on April 4th 2008. Ms Ziman was being honored for her work with Children Uniting Nations and African-American children who are living out of home care. There's a clip there of an interview with Ms. Ziman by Roger L. Simon.
Video courtesy of CBS News. Wow, can't believe the Secret Service let this guy even get that close to Obama. Where are the Kossacks when you really need 'em?
JOHNSTOWN, Pa.—Barack Obama rejected suggestions from his allies that rival Hillary Clinton should end her presidential campaign, saying Saturday that she should "stay in as long as she wants."
The Illinois senator told reporters that fears that the prolonged primary battle is dividing the party are "somewhat overstated."
Even so, Obama argued that the party must quickly settle on a nominee after the final primary votes are cast on June 3 so Democrats can quickly shift to the general election campaign that presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona already has begun.
"At that point there are no more contests. And I think it is important to pivot as completely as possible, for the superdelegates or others, to make a decision as quickly as possible so that we can settle on a nominee," Obama said at a brief news conference after a campaign appearance in Johnstown, Pa.
For those who forget that Obama is a politician, this is a reminder. An obvious attempt here to soften the many Hillary supporters who say they won't be voting for him if he's the nominee. Could this also be a way to distract people from the disenfranchisement of millions of voters in MI and FL? Hmmm!
WASHINGTON - The passport files of the three presidential candidates — Sens. Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain — have been breached, the State Department said Friday.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the breaches of McCain and Clinton's passport files were not discovered until Friday, after officials were made aware of the privacy violation regarding Obama's records and a separate search was conducted.
McCormack said the individual who accessed Obama's files also reviewed McCain's file earlier this year. This contract employee has been reprimanded, but not fired. The individual no longer has access to passport records, he said.
"We are reviewing our options with respect to that person and his employment status," McCormack said.
In Clinton's case, an individual last summer accessed her file as part of a training session involving another State Department worker. McCormack said the one-time violation was immediately recognized and the person was admonished.
On three occasions since January, Sen. Barack Obama's passport file was looked at by three different contract workers, said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.
Sen. Barack Obama's passport file was breached three times since January, the State Department said.
The contractors accessed information in the file in an unauthorized way, he said. Two contractors were fired and one was disciplined by the contractor's company, McCormack said. He said the contractors are not linked.
The State Department hires contractors to design, build and maintain their systems and help employees with searches. McCormack said two of the contractors in the Obama case were "low-level" personnel and the other was in a mid-level position with no management role.
posted by Marc1A at 11/05/2008 11:59:00 PM
|
0 comments
links to this post
calls a "permanent campaign." 
