"
If we want real change, we need leaders in Washington who say what they mean and mean what they say. I don’t want to just tell everyone what they want to hear, I’ll tell people what they need to know. Because real change isn’t about changing your position to fit the politics of the moment. And that’s the choice in this election.
Real change isn’t calling NAFTA a victory and saying how good it was for America until you decide to run for President, like Senator Clinton did. I won’t stand here and tell you that we can stop every job from disappearing because of trade, but I will tell you that when I am President, we will end the tax breaks for corporations who ship our jobs overseas and give them to companies who create good jobs right here in America. That’s real change.
Real change isn’t saying that you’ll stand up to lobbyists and special interests when you’ve taken more money from Washington lobbyists than any Democrat or Republican running for President, like my opponent has. I’m the only one in this race who’s actually passed laws to take power away from lobbyists, they haven’t funded my campaign, and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am President. That’s real change.
Real change isn’t voting for a bankruptcy bill that makes it harder for working families to climb out of debt and then saying that you’re glad it didn’t pass once you start running for President. One of the first things I did when I got to the Senate was fight against the credit card industry’s bankruptcy bill, and when I am President, we’ll reform our bankruptcy laws so that CEOs can’t dump your pension with one hand while collecting their bonus with another. That’s real change.
And real change isn’t voting for George Bush’s war in Iraq and then telling the American people it was actually a vote for more diplomacy when you start running for President. The title of the bill was “A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.” What else were you voting for? I knew what it was, and that’s why I opposed this war from the start, and why I will bring our troops home when I am President. That’s real change.
You know, I am reminded every day, if not by events than by my wife, that I am not a perfect man. And I will not be a perfect President. But I promise you this – I will always tell you what I think and where I stand. I will be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, even when we disagree. And I will wake up every day in that White House thinking and working and fighting to make your lives a little bit better. That’s real change, and that’s the change we’ll have when I am President."
March 1, 2008
In Celebration of Women's History Month - A Tapestry of Women for Obama
For my daughters ...
Women's History Month isn't just a chance to celebrate women's history; it's a chance to honor the extraordinary role women have played in shaping American history. From midnight journeys on the Underground Railroad to marches for women's suffrage and civil rights, from the bomber assembly lines of World War II to the boardrooms of today, women have always shown us what we can achieve when we refuse to settle for the world as it is and choose to remake the world as it should be.
But despite the achievements we honor this month, we know we still have challenges to overcome. We need to build an America where women earn the same pay as men for the same work, and have time off to care for a loved one who's sick; where women have control over the health care decisions that affect their lives, and don't have to choose between their kids and their careers. It's not enough to have a holiday that honors women if we don't also make sure our laws value women.
This holiday is particularly meaningful to me because I would not be the person I am without the women in my life. I was raised by a single mother across two continents, and by a grandmother who instilled in me her own Midwestern values. And my wife Michelle - a woman who's overcome a number of challenges as a lawyer and hospital executive - continues to make me a better man.
Every night I'm home, Michelle and I tuck two little girls into bed. And we want to make sure that they have the same opportunities as every little boy in this country. That's the dream that women have fought for throughout our nation's history, and that's the dream I'll fight to make real as President of the United States.
Barack Obama
Women's History Month isn't just a chance to celebrate women's history; it's a chance to honor the extraordinary role women have played in shaping American history. From midnight journeys on the Underground Railroad to marches for women's suffrage and civil rights, from the bomber assembly lines of World War II to the boardrooms of today, women have always shown us what we can achieve when we refuse to settle for the world as it is and choose to remake the world as it should be.
But despite the achievements we honor this month, we know we still have challenges to overcome. We need to build an America where women earn the same pay as men for the same work, and have time off to care for a loved one who's sick; where women have control over the health care decisions that affect their lives, and don't have to choose between their kids and their careers. It's not enough to have a holiday that honors women if we don't also make sure our laws value women.
This holiday is particularly meaningful to me because I would not be the person I am without the women in my life. I was raised by a single mother across two continents, and by a grandmother who instilled in me her own Midwestern values. And my wife Michelle - a woman who's overcome a number of challenges as a lawyer and hospital executive - continues to make me a better man.
Every night I'm home, Michelle and I tuck two little girls into bed. And we want to make sure that they have the same opportunities as every little boy in this country. That's the dream that women have fought for throughout our nation's history, and that's the dream I'll fight to make real as President of the United States.
Barack Obama
Cincinnati Enquirer Endorses Obama 'Illinois senator offers energy, rich experiences, fresh ideas'
Despite all of the jokes and misplaced campaign rhetoric, it is the experiences of Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that have set them apart - set them above - the crowded Democratic field that started the race for their party's nomination so many months ago.Clinton's experience as first lady often is derided as "secondhand," or somehow invalid. Actually, it gave her a perspective on the possibilities and limitations of the presidency that no other candidate for the office ever has had.
Beyond that, she has been a senator for the past eight years, carving out her own political niche on the national scene. Her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee has involved her intimately in the details of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, subjects the next commander in chief will need to come to terms with immediately.
Obama was born to an American mother and Kenyan father, raised in a multicultural environment, graduated with an Ivy League education and worked as a community organizer on the streets of Chicago before becoming a civil rights lawyer. His life and experiences reflect the diversity of America in ways no other presidential candidate has experienced.
He points to the richness of these experiences as the reason he has earned a reputation of uniting people around what he describes on his Web site as the "politics of purpose" - getting people to work beyond their partisan differences to achieve common goals.
These are both extraordinarily talented candidates, but it is Obama's ability to reach beyond the partisan divide and gather in support that prompts The Enquirer to give him our endorsement for the Democratic nomination.
The true differences on policy between Obama and Clinton - on Iraq, on trade and a host of other issues, are narrow.
On health care, we prefer his approach of lowering costs rather than mandating participation.
Obama and Clinton both say ending the war in Iraq, while preserving U.S. security, would be their top priority upon taking office. Both say they would consult with the military experts and withdraw American forces and quickly as prudently possible. This will be a clear point of debate in the general election with John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee.
Clinton has shown herself to be an able senator, with an impressive grasp of details. But she remains for many in this country a polarizing figure.
Much of that dislike undoubtedly is residual disapproval of her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and his policies and performance in office. That may be unfair to her, but it remains a fact of political life.
But her own style has opened her to criticism as well. Her major public policy involvement during her husband's administration was the failed attempt to come up with a universal health care policy.
Critics remember her closed-door, high-handed and uncompromising approach, which drew opposition from many Democrats as well as Republicans and doomed the initiative.
She says she has learned from those mistakes, yet her style often seems abrasive and superior when criticized.
A president must be able to make hard decisions but must also be able to face - even welcome - dissenting views and understand that there can be validity in the opposition.
Obama has been on the national stage for a relatively short time, but in that time he has demonstrated an ability and a willingness to work with others. He does not waste time demonizing those with different views.
One obvious example is his work with Sen. Dick Lugar, R-Ind., on a new non-proliferation effort with Russia designed to keep nuclear weapons from falling into terrorist hands. He also lists the need for coming up with a workable, bipartisan national energy policy as one of the first things he would tackle in office.
But perhaps Obama's most impressive achievement so far is the excitement he has engendered in the political process itself.
He is a gifted public speaker, and the energy he brings to his campaign seems to have brought many people, including many young people, into the political process for the first time.
Obama has an undeniable appeal that is attracting people of divergent backgrounds. He seems able to find ways to work even with people who don't share his views.
We believe that of the two, he has the better chance at quickly creating the working coalitions that would allow for the progress a new administration will need in dealing with the issues at hand.
February 29, 2008
Hillary Finds a Strange Way to Honor Women's History Month
After Senator Clinton's recent self-righteous posturing during the Ohio debate in reference to 'rejecting' or 'denouncing' inappropriate support, I find this following story both disturbing and amusing - zjm
Sen. Clinton accepts donations from troubled firm
Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.
The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults,” “degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions."
In a 2001 lawsuit full of lurid details, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that 103 women employees at IPA were victimized for years. The civil case is ongoing, and IPA vigorously denies the allegations.
"This is by far, hands down, the worst case I've ever experienced," said Diane Smason, one of the EEOC lawyers handling the lawsuit. "Every woman there experienced sex harassment, they were part of a hostile work environment of sex harassment. And this occurred from the top down."
Sen. Clinton’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court. "With regard to the pending harassment suit, as a general matter, the campaign assesses findings of fact in deciding whether to return contributions," Wolfson said.
Allegations:
Adrienne Slick, who worked at IPA for seven months in 2000 and 2001 as a business coordinator and is now part of the EEOC suit, told NBC News in an interview that the sexual harassment was oppressive. “I had multiple managers come at me, press themselves up against me ... ask me to go home with them, and to a hotel room so they could fulfill their fantasies," she said.
The EEOC lawyers say the man at the top of the firm - IPA founder and Managing Director John R. Burgess - was among the worst offenders. The EEOC lawsuit claims, “The harassment emanated from the top: the owner and Managing Director, John Burgess, is accused of sexual harassment by at least 10 different women.”
Burgess has a criminal record, too. The former lawyer pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny in 1987 and was disbarred in New York, court documents show. Burgess also pleaded guilty to “patronizing a prostitute” in 1984, according to Erie County, N.Y., court records.
Still, none of that has stopped powerful politicians in both parties from being courted by Burgess and IPA. Since 2000, IPA officials and their family members have given Sen. Clinton at least $170,000 for her Senate and presidential campaigns, federal campaign records show. Senator Clinton also spoke at a company event and rode on an IPA jet in 2004.
In May 2006, the New York Times brought Burgess's criminal history, and the allegations against IPA, to Sen. Clinton's attention. The May 7, 2006, article was titled “Rubbing Shoulders with Trouble, and Presidents.” In the article, a spokeswoman for Sen. Clinton was quoted as saying the Senator was not aware of Burgess’s criminal past and "will be reviewing" the contributions.
Almost two years later, federal records indicate that Sen. Clinton still has not returned the IPA money. Howard Wolfson, her communications director, did not dispute the $170,000 figure in an email to NBC News. He said Senator Clinton was not aware of Burgess’s past legal problems when she first accepted the donations. "In 2000 and 2003 when Sen. Clinton's campaign accepted money from Burgess, it was not aware of his legal problems from the 1980s," he said.
However, there were public reports of allegations against Burgess as early as 2000. That’s the year that Inc. Magazine first reported that Burgess had patronized a prostitute and had pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny. And Senator Clinton’s campaign has accepted other contributions from other senior IPA officials as recently as last year, the campaign records show.
Many other politicians have been quick to distance themselves from IPA, and have returned donations. In 2002 in New York, Andrew Cuomo, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate at the time, returned $20,000 from Burgess. Cuomo’s office said the donations were returned after a New York newspaper reported on Burgess’s past legal problems and on the EEOC sexual-harassment allegations.
Other prominent Democrats also have returned IPA's donations including Sen. Ted Kennedy and then-Senate candidate Claire McCaskill. On the same day in 2006, Sen. Barack Obama received $4,000 in campaign donations from a senior IPA official and his wife. Obama quickly returned $2,000 from the senior IPA official, campaign records show. But the campaign has held onto the matching $2,000 donation from the IPA official’s wife, the Obama campaign confirms.
Some political analysts say it is surprising that the first viable female candidate for president would not be more sensitive to allegations of sexual harassment.
"The fact that Hillary Clinton at this point is holding onto money from a contributor who has been charged with sexual harassment can only be perceived as insensitive to women's issues and women," says Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, Senior Scholar at the School of Policy, Planning and Development at the University of Southern California. "I don't think that fits the definition of feminism, at least the last time I looked."
Adrienne Slick, the former IPA employee, says she's disappointed in any politician who would take or keep money from IPA. "This is not something that should be taken lightly, and to accept those funds makes a statement," she told NBC.
The EEOC lawyers would not comment on any aspect of the political donations, and confined their remarks solely to the lawsuit.
Clinton Campaign Response:
Wolfson dismissed the notion that keeping IPA money reflected a lack of concern about sexual harassment. "Sen. Clinton is proud of her long record of championing women's causes," he said. "When the EEOC rules on the allegations involving Burgess, we will consider that outcome in assessing if there is any reason to return his contribution." Of the $170,000 total in donations from all IPA officials and employees, Burgess and his family members personally contributed $16,000 to Sen. Clinton, campaign records show.
IPA Reaction:
For its part, IPA vigorously denies any wrongdoing and said it has been fighting the EEOC lawsuit for more than six years. "Since a lawsuit was filed in June 2001, IPA has continually and consistently denied the allegations," IPA spokeswoman Jennifer Cumbee wrote in an email to NBC News. "At IPA, we have zero tolerance approach when it comes to sexual harassment."
Cumbee added: "This involves primarily claims by persons who worked a short time in the mid- to late 90s (although there are some persons who worked after that). Immediately after the lawsuit was filed and by early 2001, IPA in an abundance of caution had its sexual harassment policy completely revised by competent outside professionals."
She says, "IPA has had no unresolved claim of harassment for several years now and any one of its 2,000 employees who violate the policy, after investigation, is dealt with swiftly." She would not comment directly on Slick’s claims, citing employee confidentiality. She said that the EEOC already has dropped some claimants from the suit. “All employee claims have been contested as many have no witnesses or records or current complaints,” Cumbee said.
The IPA spokeswoman did not dispute that Burgess had a criminal record from his days in New York. "All that you have asked, in regards to John Burgess, is a matter of public record," she wrote. “Mr. Burgess is not a felon and was never convicted or pled to a felony.” She said that it would be unfair to judge Burgess on two-decade-old crimes, and pointed out that Burgess and IPA are solid employers who donate generously to charities.
Sen. Clinton accepts donations from troubled firm Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 3:50 PM PT By Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin, NBC News
Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.
The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults,” “degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions."
In a 2001 lawsuit full of lurid details, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that 103 women employees at IPA were victimized for years. The civil case is ongoing, and IPA vigorously denies the allegations.
"This is by far, hands down, the worst case I've ever experienced," said Diane Smason, one of the EEOC lawyers handling the lawsuit. "Every woman there experienced sex harassment, they were part of a hostile work environment of sex harassment. And this occurred from the top down."
Sen. Clinton’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court. "With regard to the pending harassment suit, as a general matter, the campaign assesses findings of fact in deciding whether to return contributions," Wolfson said.
Allegations:
Adrienne Slick, who worked at IPA for seven months in 2000 and 2001 as a business coordinator and is now part of the EEOC suit, told NBC News in an interview that the sexual harassment was oppressive. “I had multiple managers come at me, press themselves up against me ... ask me to go home with them, and to a hotel room so they could fulfill their fantasies," she said.
The EEOC lawyers say the man at the top of the firm - IPA founder and Managing Director John R. Burgess - was among the worst offenders. The EEOC lawsuit claims, “The harassment emanated from the top: the owner and Managing Director, John Burgess, is accused of sexual harassment by at least 10 different women.”
Burgess has a criminal record, too. The former lawyer pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny in 1987 and was disbarred in New York, court documents show. Burgess also pleaded guilty to “patronizing a prostitute” in 1984, according to Erie County, N.Y., court records.
Still, none of that has stopped powerful politicians in both parties from being courted by Burgess and IPA. Since 2000, IPA officials and their family members have given Sen. Clinton at least $170,000 for her Senate and presidential campaigns, federal campaign records show. Senator Clinton also spoke at a company event and rode on an IPA jet in 2004.
In May 2006, the New York Times brought Burgess's criminal history, and the allegations against IPA, to Sen. Clinton's attention. The May 7, 2006, article was titled “Rubbing Shoulders with Trouble, and Presidents.” In the article, a spokeswoman for Sen. Clinton was quoted as saying the Senator was not aware of Burgess’s criminal past and "will be reviewing" the contributions.
Almost two years later, federal records indicate that Sen. Clinton still has not returned the IPA money. Howard Wolfson, her communications director, did not dispute the $170,000 figure in an email to NBC News. He said Senator Clinton was not aware of Burgess’s past legal problems when she first accepted the donations. "In 2000 and 2003 when Sen. Clinton's campaign accepted money from Burgess, it was not aware of his legal problems from the 1980s," he said.
However, there were public reports of allegations against Burgess as early as 2000. That’s the year that Inc. Magazine first reported that Burgess had patronized a prostitute and had pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny. And Senator Clinton’s campaign has accepted other contributions from other senior IPA officials as recently as last year, the campaign records show.
Many other politicians have been quick to distance themselves from IPA, and have returned donations. In 2002 in New York, Andrew Cuomo, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate at the time, returned $20,000 from Burgess. Cuomo’s office said the donations were returned after a New York newspaper reported on Burgess’s past legal problems and on the EEOC sexual-harassment allegations.
Other prominent Democrats also have returned IPA's donations including Sen. Ted Kennedy and then-Senate candidate Claire McCaskill. On the same day in 2006, Sen. Barack Obama received $4,000 in campaign donations from a senior IPA official and his wife. Obama quickly returned $2,000 from the senior IPA official, campaign records show. But the campaign has held onto the matching $2,000 donation from the IPA official’s wife, the Obama campaign confirms.
Some political analysts say it is surprising that the first viable female candidate for president would not be more sensitive to allegations of sexual harassment.
"The fact that Hillary Clinton at this point is holding onto money from a contributor who has been charged with sexual harassment can only be perceived as insensitive to women's issues and women," says Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, Senior Scholar at the School of Policy, Planning and Development at the University of Southern California. "I don't think that fits the definition of feminism, at least the last time I looked."
Adrienne Slick, the former IPA employee, says she's disappointed in any politician who would take or keep money from IPA. "This is not something that should be taken lightly, and to accept those funds makes a statement," she told NBC.
The EEOC lawyers would not comment on any aspect of the political donations, and confined their remarks solely to the lawsuit.
Clinton Campaign Response:
Wolfson dismissed the notion that keeping IPA money reflected a lack of concern about sexual harassment. "Sen. Clinton is proud of her long record of championing women's causes," he said. "When the EEOC rules on the allegations involving Burgess, we will consider that outcome in assessing if there is any reason to return his contribution." Of the $170,000 total in donations from all IPA officials and employees, Burgess and his family members personally contributed $16,000 to Sen. Clinton, campaign records show.
IPA Reaction:
For its part, IPA vigorously denies any wrongdoing and said it has been fighting the EEOC lawsuit for more than six years. "Since a lawsuit was filed in June 2001, IPA has continually and consistently denied the allegations," IPA spokeswoman Jennifer Cumbee wrote in an email to NBC News. "At IPA, we have zero tolerance approach when it comes to sexual harassment."
Cumbee added: "This involves primarily claims by persons who worked a short time in the mid- to late 90s (although there are some persons who worked after that). Immediately after the lawsuit was filed and by early 2001, IPA in an abundance of caution had its sexual harassment policy completely revised by competent outside professionals."
She says, "IPA has had no unresolved claim of harassment for several years now and any one of its 2,000 employees who violate the policy, after investigation, is dealt with swiftly." She would not comment directly on Slick’s claims, citing employee confidentiality. She said that the EEOC already has dropped some claimants from the suit. “All employee claims have been contested as many have no witnesses or records or current complaints,” Cumbee said.
The IPA spokeswoman did not dispute that Burgess had a criminal record from his days in New York. "All that you have asked, in regards to John Burgess, is a matter of public record," she wrote. “Mr. Burgess is not a felon and was never convicted or pled to a felony.” She said that it would be unfair to judge Burgess on two-decade-old crimes, and pointed out that Burgess and IPA are solid employers who donate generously to charities.
Pay attention folks: Like McCain, Hillary talks of more war, not less -
February 29, 2008, 8:50 pm from The Caucus The New York Times Politics Blog Clinton Talks About Stepping Up Effort in Afghanistan
WACO, Tex. — Here’s something that got lost today in all the coverage of Senator Hillary Clinton’s rally here, where she further questioned Senator Barack Obama's readiness to serve as commander in chief: She also suggested she wanted to step up action in Afghanistan.
She did not specify military action, but that was the strong implication.
Her audience of about 1,200 people had applauded her every time she took a swipe at Mr. Obama. But they seemed decidedly cool toward the idea of deeper involvement in Afghanistan. When she mentioned it, the applause meter dropped.
“I will also be a commander in chief who refocuses on winning the war in Afghanistan,” she said. “I will do everything in my power to reverse our declining position in Afghanistan,” she said, vowing to make it clear to allies in NATO “that this is their war too.”
In one, (interview) with WTVG, the ABC affiliate in Toledo, she reaffirmed the task in Afghanistan: “When you hire a president you are really hiring someone for that job and in this case it is someone who manages two wars, a war to end in Iraq and a war to win in Afghanistan.”
Jay Rockefeller, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Endorses Obama - 'Barack Obama is the most qualified person to lead'
(from the Boston Globe) Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor February 29, 2008 02:54 PMBarack Obama, fighting back against a new TV ad that questions his standing as commander in chief, announced this afternoon that he has the endorsement of Senator Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Rockefeller, of West Virginia, cited Obama's opposition to the Iraq war and warnings about how it would distract the country from the war on terror in Afghanistan. Like Hillary Clinton, Rockefeller voted in 2002 to authorize the war and has since said he regrets it.
As Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am all too aware that the threats we face are unconventional. They are sophisticated. They are constantly changing and adapting. And they are very serious," Rockefeller said in a statement issued by the Obama campaign. "What matters most in the Oval Office is sound judgment and decisive action. It's about getting it right on crucial national security questions the first time -- and every time."The indisputable fact is Barack Obama was right about Iraq when many of us were wrong," added Rockefeller. "It was a tough call and the single greatest national security question, and mistake, of our time. Today, we remain a country at war, and countless mistakes over the last six-and-a-half years have made us less safe. The stakes have never been higher, and that is why we must take a stand."
(more of Senator Rockefeller's statement from www.barackobama.com)
CHICAGO, IL – Senator Rockefeller said, “Today, I’m proud to lend my support and strong endorsement to Barack Obama and his candidacy for President of the United States. Barack Obama is the most qualified person – Democrat or Republican – to lead our country in the face of enormous challenges – the very real threat of terrorism, economic uncertainty, and instability at home and abroad.
“I am not just supporting Barack Obama because of his strength on national security. I am equally proud of his commitment to rebuild America – so that we’re a country of equality and prosperity – where no segment of society is left behind. I know Barack Obama will fight and win the battle for health care, good paying jobs, and energy security.
“Barack Obama is a uniquely gifted, brilliant and strategic thinker, who genuinely understands the hopes and desires of the American people. There is nothing sheltered about his life; he’s always had to work hard, and he’s always fought to make his community and his country better.
“A leader like Barack Obama just doesn’t come along very often, and as voters who care passionately about the future of our country, we cannot afford to squander this opportunity.”
Senator Obama said, “Senator Rockefeller’s leadership in the Senate has strengthened our national security and advanced economic opportunity, and I am honored to have his support. Nobody understands the unconventional threats of the 21st century better than Jay Rockefeller, and I look forward to partnering with him as President to strengthen our intelligence community and protect our homeland. Together, we will work to reclaim the American Dream for working families at home, and to restore our security and standing abroad.”
Come on John - Time to Step Up to the Plate!
Edwards Can Put Obama Over the Top February 29, 2008 01:13 PM ET | John Mashek | Permanent Link
Former Sen. John Edwards can end any real suspense over next Tuesday's Democratic primaries in Ohio and Texas by backing Barack Obama.
In the wake of 11 straight losses in primaries and caucuses by Hillary Clinton and defections by some key superdelegates, Edwards could settle the outcome.
The former presidential candidate and vice presidential nominee in 2004, Edwards has won only 50 delegates or so. He probably can't deliver all of them. But his endorsement of Obama would weigh on labor voters in union-heavy Ohio.
Clinton needs more than a simple victory next Tuesday. She needs decisive wins, and the latest polls, especially in Texas, are not encouraging.
When he was a candidate, the populist Edwards went after Clinton in several debates. His main point was that change was needed in Washington and Clinton represented the past.
Obama is decidedly the new player this year, and his constant theme has been the need for change. It is a compelling reason for Edwards to make his choice.
In backing Obama, Edwards would be following the lead of Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, another candidate who spoke well but managed little support. Dodd announced his support of Obama earlier this week.
And it would help, too, if Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware would step in and back Obama. Biden showed a lot of common sense in the earlier debates and shied away from any angry words at Clinton. In my book, he would be an excellent secretary of state in an Obama administration.
The hour grows late for Clinton. No one doubts her smarts and grasp of the issues—especially healthcare, where she is stronger than Obama. However, the verdict is almost in on the race. And John Edwards could very likely decide it so Democrats can move on. Unity will be needed to defeat John McCain, who has the legacy of George W. Bush to defend in the fall. Some legacy.
University of Maine Professor, Sharon Tisher: Give Obama 'super' support
By Bangor Daily News Staff
Gov. John Baldacci and Maine’s other Democratic superdelegates should respect the popular Maine vote and cast their support to Barack Obama. The people who attended the Maine caucuses have spent months watching these candidates in debates and talking with their friends and neighbors about the extraordinary choices in the next presidential election. They, rather than those in Augusta or Washington, have the best collective judgment on the ultimate question — who is best equipped to win in November and to lead the country in the post-Bush recovery? Personal loyalties are important, but they do not trump democracy.
Gov. John Baldacci and Maine’s other Democratic superdelegates should respect the popular Maine vote and cast their support to Barack Obama. The people who attended the Maine caucuses have spent months watching these candidates in debates and talking with their friends and neighbors about the extraordinary choices in the next presidential election. They, rather than those in Augusta or Washington, have the best collective judgment on the ultimate question — who is best equipped to win in November and to lead the country in the post-Bush recovery? Personal loyalties are important, but they do not trump democracy. I did not take my decision to support Obama over Sen. Hillary Clinton lightly. The deciding evidence for me was an article in the New York Times Magazine last summer, "Hillary’s War" by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta (June 3, 2007). This was a thoroughly researched article for which Clinton declined to be interviewed. According to the article, on Oct. 8, 2002, two days before the fateful Senate vote to authorize an invasion of Iraq, the Senate Democrats held a luncheon caucus to discuss the resolution. Florida Sen. Bob Graham, then chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, "forcefully," in his words, urged his colleagues to read the 90-page National Intelligence Estimate which had been made available on Oct. 1 to the senators. Graham advised that this report was the deciding factor in his decision to vote "no." The report, released to the public in 2004 , was in 2002 so highly classified that Clinton could not send her staff to read the report and brief her on it. She had to go herself to one of two secure locations in the Capitol complex to read it. This she declined to do, according to the Times piece. The report, had Clinton read it, would have revealed the tenuous basis for the trumped-up allegations of weapons of mass destruction that were being used to justify the invasion. Hence Clinton’s campaign claims about her 2002 vote, "probably the hardest decision I have ever made" based on the "facts and assurances that I had at the time," are misleading. More disturbingly, it is my conclusion that she based her vote on a Machiavellian calculation that in order to be elected in 2008, she had to appear "strong on defense" (although the vote was authorizing an offensive, not defense). To that end, she was not merely a passive follower of President Bush’s leadership on the war, but one of the most outspoken among Senate Democrats fueling fears of Saddam Hussein’s weapons arsenal. That calculus trumped her better judgment and the best interests of the nation, especially those men and women who have lost their lives or their health in Iraq. Clinton has increasingly emphasized the value of her "experience." Experience played an unfortunate role in her vote to authorize the invasion. In explaining her vote on the Senate floor, Clinton noted, "Perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, in the White House, watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation." As the Gerth and Van Natta article noted, "Bill Clinton served as her main counsel on the Iraq war vote." President Clinton had, in 1998, authorized more than 400 cruise missiles and 650 air attacks against suspected WMD sites in Iraq. He was on record in asserting that Hussein had WMDs and would deploy them. He was wrong, but it is easy to see that his feelings would have had a powerful influence on Clinton. I perceive Obama as one who is truer to his own principles, highly qualified to lead the nation, and who has crossover appeal to Republicans, independents and Democrats alike. Choosing Clinton by superdelegate vote in defiance of the popular primary and caucus vote would be disastrous for the Democratic Party. It would be enough for me, a dyed-in-the-wool Nader Blamer for the Bush debacle, to consider voting for a third-party candidate. In the end I would not, because I know Clinton is capable and far better than the alternative. However, there just might be enough disaffected Democrats and independents out there to, once again, tip a very delicate balance against a Democratic victory in November. Sharon Tisher is an adjunct assistant professor at the University of Maine.
Though Florida Does Not and Should Not Count, a Couple of Interesting Items are in the Sarasota Herald Tribune
Switching from Clinton to Obama
Published Friday, Feb. 29, 2008 at 4:30 a.m.
Sarasota — I voted for Hillary Clinton in the Jan. 29 primary. She has an in-depth knowledge of all the issues and would be an excellent Democratic nominee and president.
I closely observed Barack Obama in the subsequent weeks. He also has an in-depth knowledge of all the issues. His approach to problem solving is solid. He has inspired voters from all segments of the electorate to participate in the primary process. These voters will enable the Democrats to expand their pluralities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This will ensure that an Obama presidency can effectively implement the programs for which he is campaigning.
On Saturday, I will be voting for an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention.
It's over for Clinton, expert says
Published Thursday, Feb. 28, 2008 at 9:34 a.m.
SARASOTA — It is "nearly impossible" for Sen. Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic Party's nomination for president, one of the nation's best-known political scientists told an audience here Wednesday.
Even if Clinton wins critical votes in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday, Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said she would have to win by such large margins to catch up to Sen. barack Obama that it is hard to imagine.
While Clinton leads in Ohio in most public polling, she and Obama are nearly tied in Texas opinion polls.
Overall, Obama has 159 more pledged delegates than Clinton and leads the overall popular vote by 925,000 over Clinton, not counting Florida and Michigan, where candidates were banned from campaigning. Catching Obama in delegates would require Clinton to win more than 60 percent of the vote in all the states with primaries remaining, Sabato said.
Even when she was the clear favorite, Sabato said, he was convinced that Clinton would not win the nomination because of "Clinton fatigue." He said that in President Clinton's last year in office in 2000, polls showed his approval rating to be very low. People were fed up with the Clintons, he said.
When Bill Clinton became a big player in his wife's campaign, it only rekindled what people did not like about the Clintons, Sabato said.
"He overdid it," Sabato told about 200 people at the Ritz-Carlton.
The event was sponsored by the Gulf Coast Community Foundation of Venice, the Collins Center for Public Policy and the Institute for Public Policy and Leadership at The University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee.
Sabato also predicted that Democrats would easily hold both the House and the Senate in the 2008 elections, and said he expects Democrats to add to their majorities in both chambers.
Sabato is the author of "A More Perfect Constitution." The book explores ways to update and change the Constitution, which he argues is what the founders wanted. He quoted Thomas Jefferson and George Washington on the need for continued reassessment of the document.
"They expected us to have regular constitutional conventions," Sabato said.
Jeremy Wallace can be reached at 361-4966 or jeremy.wallace@ heraldtribune.com.
February 28, 2008
The Boss Delivers Quote of the Day
"I always look at my work as trying to measure the distance between American promise and American reality," Springsteen says. "And I think (Obama's) inspired a lot of people with that idea: How do you make that distance shorter? How do we create a more humane society? We've lived through such ugly times that people want to have a romance with the idea of America again, and I think they need to. "The hard realities and how things get done are important, too, but if you can effectively convince people that it's possible to make things better, they get excited."
From Barack Obama - a message to John McCain and George Bush
With their words today, George Bush and John McCain called for staying the course with an endless war in Iraq and a failed policy of not talking to leaders we don’t like, but Americans of all political persuasions are calling for change. The American people aren’t looking for tough talk about fighting for 100 years in Iraq, because they know we need to end this war, finish the job in Afghanistan, and take the fight to al Qaeda. The American people aren’t looking for more of a do-nothing Cuba policy that has failed to secure the release of dissidents, failed to bring democracy to the island, and failed to advance freedom for fifty years, because they know we need to pursue new opportunities to achieve liberty for the Cuban people. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will offer the clearest contrast to John McCain’s call for four more years of George Bush’s policies, because I want to fundamentally change our foreign policy to secure the American people and restore our standing in the world.
Georgia Congressman John Barrow endorses Obama
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 02/28/08 WASHINGTON — Another top Georgia Democrat will announce today that he's backing Sen. Barack Obama in the Democrat presidential race.
Rep. John Barrow of Savannah, who represents a toss-up district and who had one of the toughest re-elections battles in the country in 2006, picked Obama over Sen. Hillary Clinton, saying Obama's already proven his willingness and ability to work in a bipartisan manner.
"He's the one who has shown in his work that he's able to work with all sides," Barrow said.
Obama now has the backing of all five of the Democratic congressmen from Georgia who have announced a preference. Clinton now has no public support from the state's congressional super delegates to the Democratic national convention this summer.
Barrow said Obama's bipartisanship more than makes up for his relatively short experience in Washington.
"The best indicator of what a person's going to do in the future is what they've done in the past," he said.
Barrows' announcement comes a day after Rep. John Lewis, an Atlanta Democrat, announced that he's switching his support from Clinton to Obama.
Down by the river in San Marcos, Texas, thousands cheer Obama
By Molly Bloom , W. Gardner Selby AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Thursday, February 28, 2008
SAN MARCOS — Thousands of Hays County residents, who have seen more national political figures in the past week than in the previous 40 years, roared for Barack Obama on Wednesday night at a spotlighted rally straddling both banks of the San Marcos River.
Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts stumped for the Illinois U.S. senator last Thursday. On Monday, Chelsea Clinton stumped for her mother, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. Then came Obama, who started a three-day return tour of Texas earlier Wednesday in Duncanville and was introduced in San Marcos by Lyndon Nugent, former President Johnson's grandson. Obama thanked Nugent for his support "and everything that his family has done for this country."
Looking over the crowd — estimated at about 12,000 by Texas State University Police Chief Ralph Meyer — Obama said, "Y'all do it big in Texas." Then he launched into his speech, which was briefly interrupted by someone calling out their love, and Obama replying, as he does often, "I love you back."
Obama, whose platform includes proposals to roll back tax cuts given to the wealthy and to make health insurance and college more affordable, drew a big cheer by reminding the crowd that President Bush won't be on November's ballot, though the cheers turned to boos when he added: "Now, that's the good news. Keep in mind that he is coming back to Texas.
"The American people tell me they are ready for a new direction," Obama told supporters
Steady Stream of Superdelegates Move to Obama
Clinton loses longtime allies to ObamaProminent supporters of Hillary Clinton have begun to defect or go wobbly just as she faces crucial primaries next week in Texas and Ohio, where the former first lady is counting on big victories to reverse Barack Obama's winning streak.
State Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, a superdelegate, switched from Clinton to Obama, the Obama campaign confirmed late Wednesday. Her defection came on the heels of the announcement by Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, also a superdelegate, that he, too, was leaving Clinton for Obama.
Earlier this week, a popular San Antonio elected official, Tax Assessor-Collector Sylvia Romo, abandoned Clinton and threw her support to Obama.
"Initially, I identified a lot with Hillary. But I was sort of disappointed, at least here in Texas, with their lack of organization," Romo said in an interview.
Former Land Commissioner Garry Mauro, a top Texas Clinton adviser, said he is disappointed Romo jumped ship but predicted Clinton would win Texas and Ohio.
Clinton is counting on other longtime Texas friends to help put her over the top in the biggest state left on the electoral calendar. She has far more endorsements among top Hispanic leaders, and a new Texas A&M/Latino Decisions poll shows her leading Obama 62-22, with 13 percent undecided in the key demographic group.
But Obama has made inroads with Hispanic leaders, picking up support in recent weeks from Mexican-American leaders in the state Legislature. Meanwhile, supporters in Clinton's South Texas stronghold, were stunned to see Laredo native Frederico Pena, a former Clinton administration cabinet member, campaigning for Obama along the border. Pena endorsed Obama last year.
"I question where the loyalty might have gone," said state Sen. Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville, a Clinton supporter.
Lucio has even seen a split in his own family. His son, state Rep. Eddie Lucio III, has become one of Obama's most prominent supporters. While Clinton can tap into a large network of former White House allies, not all of them have joined her campaign.
President Clinton's 1992 campaign manager, David Wilhelm, endorsed Obama earlier this month. Other Clintonites supporting Obama include former Commerce Secretary William Daley, former Assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice and Clinton lawyer Greg Craig.
Support for Clinton has also eroded among the nearly 800 superdelegates, Democratic party leaders who play a role in selecting the nominee no matter what the voters do.
But not everybody is picking sides. Houston Mayor Bill White, who served in President Clinton's Energy Department, is one of the biggest Democratic fish in Texas who remains neutral -- even though Clinton and Obama have called him personally to try to reel him in.
"He'll stay in the pond, unhooked," said the mayor's spokesman, Frank Michel.
Toledo Blade Endorses Obama
THE Blade has a long-established principle of seldom endorsing a candidate in any primary election. It's easy to see, however, that this isn't a typical year. For the first time in history, the outcome of the Ohio primary may well determine the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.We are not yet ready to say who we will endorse in November. But we wholeheartedly agree with something our editorial board heard on Sunday: 'We have to have a government that works for ordinary people. We've got to be able to bring the country together so we have a working majority for change. We have to break down some of the ideologically driven polarization that prevents us from taking practical steps to make the country more competitive and to get opportunity to people.'
We urge Ohio Democrats to vote on Tuesday for the man who spoke those words, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. It has become clear during the year-long primary campaign that he eclipses Sen. Hillary Clinton as the strongest possible candidate to run in the general election against the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain.
Mr. Obama offers a breath of fresh air and new hope at a depressing time in the life of this nation. His selection would send an unmistakable signal to the world that America really may be living up to its promise of a just and truly pluralistic society.
The offspring of a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas, young Obama grew up partly in Hawaii, partly in Indonesia. Were he to become president, we have no doubt that he would be seen — more than any previous occupant of the White House — as someone who is comfortably at home in the wider world. Yet his is the quintessential American story, that of the self-made man.
Those who object that he is too young overlook that he would, at 47, be a year older than Bill Clinton was when he was elected, and four years older than John F. Kennedy. Those who say that he is inexperienced in international affairs overlook that he sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The last two Democratic presidents, Mr. Clinton and Jimmy Carter, didn't have a day's service in Congress, much less foreign policy, before they took office, and it certainly hurt them.
Additionally, Mr. Obama, a younger and more physically vigorous man, will be in a far better position to push Americans into solving one of the biggest problems we face: that of an unhealthy, morbidly obese generation of young people, a health crisis that is costing the nation billions. We applaud the fact that, urged by his talented wife, Michelle, he has quit smoking. That alone should be an inspiration to millions.
There are those who resent Mr. Obama's relatively rapid rise on the national scene and link his growing support to ingrained bias against putting a woman in the Oval Office. Certainly there may be some misguided prejudice against women. But that isn't what is going on this year. We agree the nation is more than ready for a female president. But Hillary Clinton is handicapped by her own baggage, and it has to do with her character, not her gender.
Voters during this primary process have come to know the real Hillary Clinton, and many have not liked what they've seen. Try as she might to project a warm personal image, she has come across mostly as a coldly calculating individual.
Moreover, her candidacy reminds voters of how the Clintons in effect looted the White House of expensive china, furniture, and other items when they left in January, 2001. And, if that weren't enough, they set up a gift registry to furnish their new home in New York. In contrast to such political royalism, Mr. Obama, his wife, and their two daughters live much closer to the reality of ordinary people.
America is badly in need of something new. We need this election to mark, at last, the end of the Vietnam period. Hillary Clinton is a product of that era and is, in a sense, still fighting its battles.
Barack Obama would be, figuratively if not literally, the first president of the 21st Century, much as John F. Kennedy was the first president born in the 20th century — each necessary to his time, and each able to see the world with a fresh, clear view.
Again, this endorsement does not mark our final verdict for November. John McCain, the all-but-certain GOP nominee, is a far more admirable figure than George W. Bush, although his policies on the war and the economy merely mimic those of the incumbent.
We will be scrutinizing the candidates very carefully as the general election campaign progresses. But at this point we feel free to break with tradition and enthusiastically recommend that on Tuesday, Ohio Democrats cast their primary ballots for Barack Obama.
February 27, 2008
Obama speaks to 8,000 in Columbus: "John McCain says he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but all he's done is follow George Bush"
COLUMBUS Marvin T. Fete was moved to tears when he met Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama today following a rally at Ohio State University.Fete, a New Philadelphia attorney who was one of 10 people to win a phone-calling contest, presented Obama with a picture of his cousin Marine Pvt. Heath Douglas Warner, who was killed in Iraq in 2006.
"He put his arm around me and gave me a little bit of a hug," said Fete, a Republican. "He said he was sorry for our loss and appreciated the sacrifice our family made. He was very kind. He asked how Heath's mother was doing."
Fete was one of about 8,000 Obama supporters who came to OSU's St. John Arena to hear the Illinois senator fresh from Tuesday's night debate with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., in Cleveland.
Sounding as if he was the Democratic Party nominee, Obama did not mention Clinton, but attacked presumptive Republican nominee and U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
"John McCain says he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but all he's done is follow George Bush," he said.
Obama said McCain's policies are those of the past, while his are those of the future.
Superdelegate Update From MSNBC
Obama has now reached 200 superdelegates. He has cut what was once a 90-delegate advantage for Clinton to what is now 56 since Super Tuesday, Feb. 5th. Since Feb. 5, Obama has gained 30 publicly declared superdelegates, and Clinton has lost a net of four.
North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan Endorses Obama
Associated Press - 02/27/2008WASHINGTON — Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota endorsed presidential candidate Barack Obama today, citing his record on trade.
“Senator Obama has never felt ... that NAFTA was good for America,” Dorgan said in a campaign conference call with reporters. “He’s always been a supporter on key trade issues.”
NAFTA, the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, is unpopular with blue-collar workers whose votes are critical in the Democratic primary Tuesday in Ohio.
Obama has won 11 straight primaries and caucuses since Super Tuesday, increased his advantage in the all-important delegate count and has attracted the support of his congressional colleagues. On Tuesday, he secured the endorsement of one-time presidential candidate Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut.
Dorgan was an ally of former President Clinton and a vocal critic of President Bush. As chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee, he has led hearings on government accountability issues related to the Iraq war and hurricanes on the Gulf Coast.
Dorgan has built a reputation for championing populist farm programs, criticizing Republican free-trade policies and assailing big business. He made headlines in 2005 when he called for a windfall profits tax on major oil companies.
February 27, 2008, 2:29 pm
Dorgan Likes Obama’s Trade Stance
Nick Timiraos reports on the presidential race.
North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan endorsed Barack Obama today, adding his name to the list of Democrats from red states that have endorsed the Illinois senator.
Dorgan said he joined colleagues such as Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius who are “really anxious to have a candidate on the top of the ticket who isn’t going to give up on a state before it begins.”
North Dakota voted for President Bush by a 63% to 36% margin over Sen. John Kerry in 2004, and Dorgan noted how his state had voted for a Democratic president just twice in the last century — for Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson.
Dorgan credited Obama, who won 62% of the state’s caucus vote, with turning out twice as many Democrats as Republicans in the state’s Feb. 5 caucuses. “There’s something unusual happening here,” he said. Dorgan, who as a senator is also a superdelegate, said that he waited until after his state’s Feb. 5 primary to endorse a candidate in order to “watch the developments.”
Obama picked up the endorsement of Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd Tuesday, giving him back-to-back endorsements from Democratic heavyweights. Clinton has been endorsed by 13 of her Senate colleagues compared with 10 for Obama.
Dorgan is close friends with former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle, one of Obama’s earliest backers, and has been one of the fiercest Senate critics of free trade, including the North American Free Trade Agreement. He said the fact that Obama “has always opposed Nafta” was a major factor in his endorsement.
Obama has sparred with rival Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York as they race for blue-collar voters in Ohio, where Nafta remains unpopular, and Obama has tried to portray his Senate colleague as someone who supported Nafta after her husband signed the landmark free trade agreement into law in 1993 but opposed it once she decided to run for president.
In a conference call today, Dorgan blamed Nafta for turning a “very small trade surplus with Mexico into a huge trade deficit.” He pointed to Nabisco Corp.’s decision to move production of its Fig Newton cookies to Monterrey, Mexico, from New Jersey, saying it must have been cheaper to “shovel fig paste” in Mexico. Dorgan pushed last year to block funding of a pilot program by the Department of Transportation allow long-haul Mexican trucks on U.S. roads.
Civil Rights Hero John Lewis Endorses Obama!
WASHINGTON — Hoping to put an end to a month of confusion and dismay, Rep. John Lewis on Wednesday said he's switching his support from Sen. Hillary Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Lewis cited the overwhelming preference for Obama in his district as a reason for his change of heart, but he also talked about Obama's campaign as transformational for the nation.
"Something's happening in America, something some of us did not see coming," Lewis said. "Barack Obama has tapped into something that is extraordinary.
Former Texas Governor Mark White Endorses Obama "He will be America's President"
By W. Gardner Selby | Tuesday, February 26, 2008, 09:13 AM Houston lawyer Mark White, one of the two surviving Democratic governors of Texas, says he’s endorsing Barack Obama for president today because he’s “essentially become America’s candidate. You see people from all walks of life, rich and poor, every color reflected, every ethnicity. There’s enthusiasm, hope. He will not only be nominated, he will be elected president. He will be America’s president.”
White, whose commitment to Obama was circulated early Tuesday by Obama’s campaign, had earlier supported New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who dropped his bid after poor showings in Iowa and New Hampshire.
White said: “My sister, who is much smarter than I, had been an Obama supporter for many months. She finally got irritated with me” and his doubts that Obama had a chance.
“Oh Bubba,” White quoted his sister, retired schoolteacher Betty Gerlach, as saying. “That was the same thing they said about you getting elected governor (in 1982), that you had no chance.” She persuaded him to give Obama serious consideration, leading White to conclude, he said, that “the better the no-chance you are, the better chance that you have.”
33% Hillary ClintonTIM RUSSERT AMPLIFIES "ANTI-ISRAEL" SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST OBAMA
Posted by Ari Berman at 02/27/2008 @ 11:22am | Email This PostRUSSERT AMPLIFIES "ANTI-ISRAEL" SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST OBAMA ...
In her 2000 race for the US Senate, Hillary Clinton was repeatedly smeared for a 1999 trip to Ramallah, where she kissed Palestinian First Lady Suha Arafat and listened as Arafat denounced Israel. Pictures of "the kiss" were repeatedly slapped across the cover of the New York Post, in TV ads and invoked by the campaigns of Rudy Giuliani and Rick Lazio. The flap almost derailed Clinton's campaign.This time around, Barack Obama has been a victim of an even dirtier smear campaign, with conservative Jews and conservative Christians, rival campaign operatives and fringe conspiracy theorists in the gutter press, like Free Republic, WorldNetDaily and NewsMax, circulating blatantly false emails and articles portraying Obama as a radical Black Israel-hating, terrorist-loving Muslim.
In last night's Democratic debate, Tim Russert amplified the smear campaign by asking Obama about his "endorsement" by Louis Farrakhan, which Obama didn't ask for and who he has repeatedly denounced.
"I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments," Obama said last night. But Russert wouldn't let the issue die, repeatedly pressing Obama to "reject" Farrakhan. Russert then invoked Obama's pastor and asked, "What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?"
Obama never suggested any such thing. "Tim, I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago and in this presidential campaign," Obama said. "And the reason that I have such strong support is because they know that not only would I not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form, but also because of the fact that what I want to do is rebuild what I consider to be a historic relationship between the African-American community and the Jewish community."
At the end of Obama's answer, Clinton said "I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000 in New York." I thought Clinton would use the opportunity to defend Obama, noting the parallels of their smear campaigns. But she did precisely the opposite, bragging about how she denounced the New York Independence Party back in 2000, when it was led by Pat Buchanan and accused of anti-semitism. In his book, "Hillary's Turn," journalist Mike Tomasky called Clinton's denunciation of the Independence Party "a courage born of convenience."
RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?
CLINTON: No. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting.
OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.
It was a smart response by Obama, although these smears will continue to linger and grow louder if he becomes the Democratic nominee. But it was undoubtedly a low point for Russert, and a moment when Clinton chose convenience over courage
February 26, 2008
South Dakota U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin Endorses Obama
Citing hope for "a new direction in American politics and a positive change in Washington," U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-South Dakota, at-large) today endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for President of the United States. "Senator Obama is the right candidate for rural America. He has demonstrated a deep understanding of the tremendous opportunities that come with a transition to a clean energy economy powered by homegrown renewable energy. His policy priorities as well as his bipartisan and inclusive approach convince me that he is the best candidate to lead the country forward," said Herseth Sandlin.Senator Obama stated, "I'm proud to have the support of Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin. Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin is a recognized leader in the House on renewable energy and rural issues. And I look forward to working with her to refocus our energy policy in a way that reduces our dependence on foreign oil, enhances our national security, and creates jobs in South Dakota and across rural America."
Herseth Sandlin indicated that after speaking with Senator Obama, she became convinced that his vision and ideas will inspire action that is good for South Dakota and good for the country: "From his commitment to wind energy development to investing in new, groundbreaking technology for cellulosic ethanol, I am convinced that Senator Obama will be a president who capitalizes on what South Dakota's communities, families and entrepreneurs have to offer."
Herseth Sandlin added, "Like many Americans and many South Dakotans, I have been inspired by Senator Obama's commitment to finding common ground, and his ability to generate a groundswell of hope and optimism among people of all ages, and of all political stripes. The challenges we face in our country demand a leader willing to put partisanship aside in order to get things done. I'm proud to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama."
Senator Christopher Dodd Endorses Obama "It goes beyond just the issues," Dodd said, citing Obama's "ability to reach and touch the hearts and souls"
Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd today became the first 2008 presidential race dropout to endorse Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential primary.At a press conference with Obama this morning at Cleveland's Intercontinental Hotel, Dodd cited increased strife between the campaigns of Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton as a factor that precipitated his endorsement.
"This is a moment for Democrats and Independents and others to come together, to get behind this candidacy," said Dodd, who argued a divisive campaign between Democrats would be "devastating in the longer term when it comes to ... uniting people and making a difference."
Dodd compared Obama's capacity to attract GOP voters with former Republican President Ronald Reagan's appeal to Democrats.
"It goes beyond just the issues," Dodd said, citing Obama's "ability to reach and touch the hearts and souls of Americans."
Experience does matter - Why former Clinton administration official John Holum is in Obama's corner
John Holum -- who served for eight years under the Clinton administration, first as Director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and then as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International SecurityAs a long time friend of the Clintons and a member of President Clinton's foreign policy team, I naturally assumed I'd be firmly in Senator Clinton's camp in 2008. Instead, by last fall I'd become an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama. Why?
There are two good reasons: The first comes from who Barack Obama is.
It will take at least a generation to repair the damage to U.S. international interests inflicted by George Bush and the far-right ideologues whose pet theories became his lodestars. After the debacle in Iraq, hawked through exaggerated intelligence and minimized dangers, we'll have to struggle uphill just to regain American credibility, so other nations and institutions will at least trust what we say. Then we'll need to rebuild alliances fractured by Bush's arrogant go-it-alone mentality, and forge new friendships and coalitions effectively to address challenges as diverse as climate change and radical Islam, which even the world's strongest nation can't resolve by itself. In short, we'll have to re-connect with the world, through means other than arms and bluster.
The election of Barack Obama will, in and of itself, jump-start those endeavors. His heritage and extraordinary life story will capture the imagination of people all over the world, and be seen as a confirmation, more powerful than any words, that America has returned to our best ideals. In one stroke, it will propel us out of the hole Bush has dug for us and onto the high ground, where we can engage from strength and respect.
The second reason for supporting Obama is change -- a word lately so widely cribbed and overused as to be nearly drained of meaning. But in Obama's case it carries profound content -- indeed, on some of the very issues on which he's been assailed, he's shown a way of looking at foreign and national security policy that breaks through tired old talking points and opens up new avenues for progress. Some examples:
When Senator Obama said in a debate he'd be prepared to talk directly with the heads of rogue states such as Iran, North Korea and Cuba, it was widely described as a mis-step. Senator Clinton, instinctively lining up with settled precepts, called him naïve, a charge recently echoed by the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain. Obama is the only one prepared to look at things in a new way.
When Obama suggested he wouldn't brandish nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden, Senator Clinton chastised him again, declaring that we shouldn't signal the circumstances in which nuclear weapons might be used. That's the old formula, all right, but to adhere to it blindly in this case is both unrealistic and foolish, conveying the message that we place no value on the tens of thousands of other lives that would be extinguished if we decided to "nuke" one despicable person.
There was more tut-tutting when Senator Obama said if we knew where bin Laden was hiding and Pakistan's leader wouldn't allow us to go after him, the U.S. would act on its own. Then the bipartisan co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean, said the same thing, and soon the other Democratic candidates were following suit -- although Senator McCain still thinks otherwise.
On the spread of nuclear weapons, Senator Obama has grasped the core truth that to enforce the global agreement against proliferation, the U.S. must live up to our side of the bargain and move toward a world entirely free of such weapons. That, too, challenges much orthodoxy, and it's a pledge Senator Clinton has not yet made. But it's where a wise President must lead if we are to avert an even more dangerous world.
On each of these issues the other candidates and foreign policy experts have become increasingly receptive to Senator Obama's views. But as with his 2002 opposition to the Iraq war, it has been Barack Obama demonstrating the judgment, foresight and courage to lead the way.
In sum, because of both who he is and what he believes, Senator Obama offers the hope of a rapid recovery from the Bush years, and a liberation from the foreign policy conformity that too often holds us back. He is our best hope for not just the terminology of "change," but the reality -- and embodies an opportunity America cannot afford to pass by.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
