Your turn. This is an Open Thread.
Good post from Matt Stoller.
Make a new account
LINK
Does anyone know if these two unions were Obama backers before, or if they were for Clinton? It's hard to keep unions straight these days.
Also, Axelrod and Wolfson threw down this morning. Wolfson got in some good questions about releasing documents related to Rezko. The NY Times has a nice story about the case as well...
Ohio State Building and Construction Trades Council endorsed Ted Strickland. Parent
First: Obama completes purchase of house June 2005.
Second
show that the lot purchase occurred as he was being pursued by creditors seeking more than $10 million, deepening the mystery of why he would plunge into a real estate investment whose biggest beneficiary appears to have been Mr. Obama.
When the transactions were first reported, Mr. Obama said only that he had asked Mr. Rezko, as a developer, whether he thought the house was worth buying. But last month, Mr. Obama's campaign staff said the senator also recalled walking around the house and the adjacent lot with Mr. Rezko.
4.
Some critics say that given Mr. Obama's longtime emphasis on ethics, it is puzzling that he would have been so involved with the Rezkos on the house and lot deals after questions had begun to crop up about Mr. Rezko's political and business activities. For at least two years before the property purchases, news articles had raised questions about Mr. Rezko's influence over state appointments and contracts. There had also been reports that the F.B.I. was investigating accusations of a shakedown scheme involving a state hospital board to which Mr. Rezko had suggested appointments. Also, Chicago officials had announced that they were investigating whether a company partly owned by Mr. Rezko had won public contracts by posing as a minority business.
For at least two years before the property purchases, news articles had raised questions about Mr. Rezko's influence over state appointments and contracts. There had also been reports that the F.B.I. was investigating accusations of a shakedown scheme involving a state hospital board to which Mr. Rezko had suggested appointments. Also, Chicago officials had announced that they were investigating whether a company partly owned by Mr. Rezko had won public contracts by posing as a minority business.
Also, Chicago officials had announced that they were investigating whether a company partly owned by Mr. Rezko had won public contracts by posing as a minority business
Also, to my knowledge, Rezko was not a single-family home developer. He did huge projects. Unless he planned on putting up a skyscraper by Obama's house, there was no reason for him to buy the land.
And, lastly, as the article points out, where did Mrs Rezko get the money? And doesn't anyone think it's a bit strange that the cash down payment she made is almost exactly the same amount of cash that Obama paid her a while later for the strip of land? Further, how did someone only making 37K a year qualify for a bank loan of half a million dollars? And how did she explain to the bank the fact that she had the down payment in the first place? Parent
Here's a link to the diary.
Let me know what you all think, especially why it's nonsense.
Good for her.
Very impressive ;-) Parent
His campaign gave out the usual response that he'd have to "evaluate" the groups before he made a decision.
boy, talk about what a president would do on day one...apparently, Obama is going to be doing lots of "evaluating."
On Timmeh's MSNBC show today (repeats I think), he said he deliberately made it a jump ball to see how they would handle a foreign policy question. He added Hillary was correct and only had trouble pronouncing the Putin protege's name.
Dee Dee Myers said that if Hillary had pronounced the name spot on correctly it would have sealed the deal on her owning the foreign policy issues--but since she didn't have it down pat, it made Obama's "what Hillary said" reply make them look like equals. !!!!
So, even when a debate shows how well the two do on a particular question, there seem to be Clinton Rules which mean Hillary has to be perfect to be the clear winner! Gee, where have we seen that attitude before.... Oh, yeah, about women in the workplace and any new arena. Parent
Go to Vanity Fair and search for Dee Dee if interested.
Don't know what she was up to on Russert's show.... Parent
I'm having a tough time keeping any interest in this primary, it's both discouraging and upsetting to watch this disconnect between the internet space I've worked on for four years and reality itself get worse. When I offer obvious points, for instance, that Obama may not be progressive, since he has in fact spoken repeatedly of his lack of ideology, I get ridiculous pushback from his supporters denying what he himself has said. There's no discussion of Iraq, just conversations about irrelevant ads that talk about 3am phone calls between fear-mongering politicians who agree with each other. It's so unbelievably dumb it's hard to deal with.
There's no discussion of Iraq, just conversations about irrelevant ads that talk about 3am phone calls between fear-mongering politicians who agree with each other. It's so unbelievably dumb it's hard to deal with.
Maybe we're not all so crazy here, huh?
Well, that's OK then. Parent
On AUMF:
Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution? During the 2002-2003 timeframe, he was a minor local official uninvolved in the national debate on the war so we can only judge from his own statements prior to the 2008 campaign. Obama repeated these points in a whole host of interviews prior to announcing his candidacy. On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." In his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, he wrote, "...on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." And, in 2006, he clearly said, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices." I was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless war and I profoundly resent Obama's distortion of George Bush's folly into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was in the middle of the debate in Washington. Obama wasn't there. I remember what was said and done. In fact, the administration lied in order to secure support for its war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization. Senator Clinton's position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice.
I was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless war and I profoundly resent Obama's distortion of George Bush's folly into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was in the middle of the debate in Washington. Obama wasn't there. I remember what was said and done. In fact, the administration lied in order to secure support for its war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization. Senator Clinton's position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice.
And on Iran:
On Iran and the question of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the junior senator from Illinois was not quite so clever at avoiding taking a position. He first co-sponsored the "Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which contained explicit language identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. He subsequently claimed to oppose the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate resolution proposing the same thing. Obama's accountability problem here is that he didn't show up for the vote on that resolution -- a vote that would have put him on record. Then he declined to sign on to a letter put forward by Senator Clinton making explicit that the resolution could not be used as authority to take military action. All we have is Obama's rhetoric juxtaposed with his co-sponsorship of a piece of legislation that proposed what he says he opposed.
LINK Parent
and IIRC it was Stoller who accused Elizabeth Edwards of being racist and sexist per her comment that the media gave little positive attention to Edwards because he wasn't a black man or a woman running for prez. Obama supporters ran with Stoller's opinion - citing it over and over. But that's basically the reason Edwards gave for suspending his campaign - so that "history" could take place, etc. Parent
Specifically that, after all the work we did, the activists following Obama will start to justify things like centrism, bi-partisanship, and putting conservatives in positions of great power as somehow actually progressive. It would be like a reversion to the early 1990's, when progressive internalize the belief that progressive positions are unwinnable, and conservative legislation and administration under an Obama presidency are given a free pass. I don't want to return to the 1990's. While Obama is a less obvious return to that era than Hillary Clinton, much of what he says and does indicates otherwise.
Stunning comment. A clear example of what Bowers is talking about is the issue of mandates in health care. The policy arguments are fair game, but an alarming number of Obama supporters take the position that "forcing" people to purchase health insurance is a surefire political loser. This is the "we can change the world, but we can't convince people to have premiums deducted from their paycheck" position that I love to ridicule.
I actually explored a version of this issue in a diary a few months back. It seems to me that the word "progressive" has been redefined, in the eyes of many Obama supporters, to mean whatever it is that Obama does. If Obama says the way to accomplish change is by dancing the macarena beneath a full moon, then presto, that position becomes the lodestar by which progressivism is measured. If Obama says we shouldn't have mandates for health care, then market-based solutions are suddenly the progressive position. A strange and unpleasant phenomenon.
Obama: A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder
By David Ignatius Sunday, March 2, 2008; Page B07
Hillary Clinton has been trying to make a point about Barack Obama that deserves one last careful look before Tuesday's probably decisive Democratic primaries: If Obama truly intends to unite America across party lines and break the Washington logjam, then why has he shown so little interest or aptitude for the hard work of bipartisan government?
This is the real "Where's the beef?" about Obama, and it still doesn't have a good answer. He gives a great speech, and he promises that he can heal the terrible partisan divisions that have enfeebled American politics over the past decade. This is a message of hope that the country clearly wants to hear.
But can he do it? The record is mixed, but it's fair to say that Obama has not shown much willingness to take risks or make enemies to try to restore a working center in Washington. Clinton, for all her reputation as a divisive figure, has a much stronger record of bipartisan achievement. And the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, has a better record still.
Obama's argument is that he can mobilize a new coalition that will embrace his proclamation that "yes, we can" break out of the straitjacket. But for voters to feel confident that he can achieve this transformation should he become president, they would need evidence that he has fought and won similar battles. The record here, to put it mildly, is thin.
The unkindest cut Ignatius to Obama: You're no Joe Lieberman!
Ignatius to Obama: You're no Joe Lieberman!
He seems to be trying to deflect the criticism with a dig at Lieberman. I wonder how many e-mails he is getting to remind him that Obama strongly supported Lieberman over Lamont in the Democratic primary? Parent
Obama has been running for president almost since he arrived in the U.S. Senate in 2005, so his Senate colleagues say it's hard to evaluate his record. But what stands out in his brief Senate career is his liberal voting record, not a history of fighting across party lines to get legislation passed. He wasn't part of the 2005 Gang of 14 bipartisan coalition that sought to break the logjam on judicial nominations, but neither were Clinton or other prominent Democrats. He did support the bipartisan effort to get an immigration bill last year, winning a plaudit from McCain. But he didn't work closely with the White House, as did Sen. Edward Kennedy.
He thinks Clinton is better at his kind of "bipartisanship":
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080302/ap_on_el_pr/obama_34
Obama is described as saying that Jay Rockefeller, who endorsed him, voted against the war resolution, unlike Hillary.
But as a matter of fact, Rockefeller voted for the war! Obama can't keep basic facts straight in his push to vilify Hillary? Or maybe it is the AP writer who misunderstood.
A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. ... Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
...
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Link
This is ridiculously easy to fact check. The AP is just doing a wonderful job these days. Parent
In the "Individual Search" simply put his last name. When the result page comes up, click "Send message" and you're good to go! Quick and easy thanks to everyone's help here.
Thank you!! Parent
David Axelrod, though, cast Rockefeller as a war opponent when he mentioned the West Virginia senator's endorsement on "This Week," referring to: "Senator Jay Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who opposed the war in Iraq, who read the intelligence before the war, which Senator Clinton concedes she did not, and who said that Barack Obama has the judgment and the maturity and the vision to lead," he said.
"Senator Jay Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who opposed the war in Iraq, who read the intelligence before the war, which Senator Clinton concedes she did not, and who said that Barack Obama has the judgment and the maturity and the vision to lead," he said.
Just another example of the Obama camp making up the story as it goes along. Will the press care?
Source. Parent
I felt the Wilson piece was a rather scathing indictment of Obama's foreign relations work (lack of) in the Senate. He states:
"As a consequence of Obama's dereliction of duty on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a feckless administration has had absolutely no oversight as it careens from disaster to disaster in Afghanistan,..."
Additionally:
"He first co-sponsored the "Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which contained explicit language identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. He subsequently claimed to oppose the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate resolution proposing the same thing. Obama's accountability problem here is that he didn't show up for the vote on that resolution -- a vote that would have put him on record. Then he declined to sign on to a letter put forward by Senator Clinton making explicit that the resolution could not be used as authority to take military action. All we have is Obama's rhetoric juxtaposed with his co-sponsorship of a piece of legislation that proposed what he says he opposed."
And:
"It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable."
Sorry, if that is a bit long. But, I wonder what Caroline thinks when she compares this to her father's record in the Senate. Parent
And we get bamboozled again.
Does that make it clearer? Those some folks do not include me but they do include people I respect. Parent
It's a Hoyer trademark. Parent
Is it completely open? Or is there usually a list of words to choose among?
The reason I'm asking is that Timmeh gave poll results for "Which word best describes" and Hillary's list had "b**ch" at the 4th or 5th word. Timmeh used the "rhymes with witch" euphemism.
I was really wondering if these descriptive words are bubbling up from the poll responsdents--or is there a hint planted in the form of a list of words.
I had a poll about electric companies recently, and they had "which word" questions which had a list of five words.
How do the political pollsters do this one?
Anyone know polling techniques? Or been polled this way? T/U much. Trying to figure out how well this descriptor of Hillary has been planted out there.
*Not sure how to discuss this word, which is being used on the Op-Ed Page of the NYTimes by MoDo, and referred to on MTP. I understand there is a no profanity rule, but this is a word which is being used by the MCM and obviously by opponents of Clinton, along with using it defensively by Tina Fey.
Now, Advanced Search time. Parent
It's often said that the amount of money being spent by political campaigns is "outrageous" or "obscene". Chances are the 2008 presidential/congressional races will break all records - I'm guessing around $5 billion total. The race for the presidency (including primary season) will likely be over $2 billion alone (although I'm basing that on just what I've seen thus far - I don't really know).
Is this an "obscene" amount of money? I don't think so. I don't see why spending $5 billion on a year-long (or, really, 18 months) campaign for the presidency and 35 Senate seats and 435 House seats is a lot of money. It's about $15 per voter. The fact is the USA is a huge country, geographically and in terms of its population. It costs a lot to get your message out and rise above the din of popular culture. Spending $5 billion every four years on political campaigns for leaders who each fiscal year will be responsible for $3000 billion in spending and decisions on war and peace, the environment, and everything else seems a pretty small price to pay.
And given that this money boom is being fueled by small donors, the increasingly large sums of money in political campaigns is a sign of a new participation from below. I, for one, feel empowered every time I send a small donation to a candidate. I honestly do think that politicians are coming to realize that they need to pay attention to the legions of small donors, who may just yet overwhelm special interests, corporations, and others who have exercised so much influence over past campaigns.
Anheiser Bush spent around $40 million for 15 30-second spots during the Superbowl, which brought in close to $200 in advertising revenue. That money was over 10 hours to convince us to buy beer, jeans, and iPods. $5 billion over 18 months to elect 536 leaders of the federal government for 300 million voters does not seem at all excessive to me.
(About 10 yr ago, a pol near where I lived was indicted for allegedly buying votes in a local election. The going rate alleged was $40, so I added another $10 for inflation.) Parent
Michael Huffington was a well financed millionaire who spent tons of money only to lose.
I'm hoping it will happen again for the democrats. Parent
First class in logic can be paraphrased as "anything can be said about False." I find attributing any positive values to Obama to be questionable. The only true statement about Obama is that he is a good orator. Other than that, everything, emphasizing everything, is an uneducated guess. Obama proved time and again that his stands are shifting with the audience and his track record is summarized by "Present."
Struck me as a variant on the CNN "Is Obama patriotic enough," except here it was "Are the Clintons Democratic enough?".
Every one of Matthews' guests made a point of dissing Bill and Hillary in the way they answered.
Katty Kay: Well, if the groundswell is strong enough for Obama, then, yes, the Clintons will get on the bandwagon to protect their reputations.
All were variants of that kind thing--not one word that for the good of the nation and the Democratic Party, they would support the Democratic nominee!!
But, of course, the MCM treats the Clintons fairly....
(I need to find a transcript of this program.)
His comments can't be explained any other way. Parent
But Karl Rove, the former senior political adviser to President Bush and architect of his presidential election victories, said such calls from Democrats for Mrs. Clinton's withdrawal were unwise and unbecoming. "I think it's a mistake for his campaign to be calling for her to drop out," Mr. Rove said on Fox. That would be seen as "rubbing her nose" in the fact that she is trailing, he said. "It's up to the delegates at the convention to decide who wins and loses," he added.
"I think it's a mistake for his campaign to be calling for her to drop out," Mr. Rove said on Fox. That would be seen as "rubbing her nose" in the fact that she is trailing, he said. "It's up to the delegates at the convention to decide who wins and loses," he added.
Yep, good idea, let 3 patriarchs push the woman out of the race..
Wish people would think sometimes.
I want to see her in the race until after Penn. I know, I know, "Rezko is nothing". However, did anyone think a Scooter Libby endictment would come out of the Valerie Plame trial? When Fitzgerald is involved, anything can happen. Parent
Jonathan Alter, the veteran Newsweek columnist who traveled with the Obama campaign to Dallas on Wednesday, said that the attempt by the Clinton camp to weigh various stories represented a kind of "silly, even-Steven-itis." "People got it into their head that if you say something good about a candidate, you have to say something bad about him, and if you don't, that's not fair," Mr. Alter said. "What the Clinton partisans wanted was for us to create a phony balance that was at odds with what our eyes were telling us. That's not the job of a journalist."
"People got it into their head that if you say something good about a candidate, you have to say something bad about him, and if you don't, that's not fair," Mr. Alter said. "What the Clinton partisans wanted was for us to create a phony balance that was at odds with what our eyes were telling us. That's not the job of a journalist."
That is good to know, because it immediately follows these three paragraphs:
Which is not to say that there is not much more scouring to be done. "The number of questions that we don't know the answers to about the relationship between Mr. Rezko and Mr. Obama is staggering," Howard Wolfson, a top aide to Mrs. Clinton, said on a conference call with reporters on Friday. Still, others have noted that with the exception of a mention by Mr. Russert in Tuesday's debate, Mrs. Clinton has largely escaped serious journalistic vetting over matters like when or whether her campaign will release her tax returns or her calendar from her years as first lady, or detail the origins of the $5 million she has contributed to her own campaign.
"The number of questions that we don't know the answers to about the relationship between Mr. Rezko and Mr. Obama is staggering," Howard Wolfson, a top aide to Mrs. Clinton, said on a conference call with reporters on Friday.
Still, others have noted that with the exception of a mention by Mr. Russert in Tuesday's debate, Mrs. Clinton has largely escaped serious journalistic vetting over matters like when or whether her campaign will release her tax returns or her calendar from her years as first lady, or detail the origins of the $5 million she has contributed to her own campaign.
they don't have a Rezko on Hillary. They've been in her closet and have found the skeletons from 10 years ago.Nothing here move on...... Parent
This is SO "old politics"... Parent
I know, it's a national poll so it's signficance comes with caveats. Still, though, it's interesting, eh?
Who is right? Parent
He believes that Sen Obama will compromise away on Dem issues.
He feels that Sen Obama WILL not fight for the issues Dem need. He says he will vote for McCain because he is stronger on the Economy.
Now because I posted this... I received the message that .... he is leaning towards racism.
No.... my husband is a minority and really knows what prejudice can do.
By the way... I vote Dem ...no matter who get the nomination.
My concern... if this plays out... wote for McCain is equal to racism... Dems are scr%&*d.
According to the latest Rasmussen NJ poll, HRC beats McCain handily, but McCain beat BO by a few. link
Interesting, no? I should add that these polls are totally irrelevant in my few--think how much has changed in just the last week.
But it contradicts both BO's 50 state strategy and belief he does better than McCain--kinda hard to argue that if you loose NJ...
I've gone to other sites... and it is ok.
In 1955, 14-year-old Emmett Till was murdered by white men in Money, Mississippi.
In 1957, William Buckley, National Review:
"The central question that emerges is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.
"The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is by no means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own.
"National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. The great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could. Universal suffrage is not the beginning of wisdom or the beginning of reedom.
"The South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not exploit he fact of Negro backwardness to preserve the Negro as a servile lass. It is tempting and convenient to block the progress of a inority whose services, as menials, are economically useful. Let the outh never permit itself to do this. So long as it is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to function."
Liberal Fascism indeed. Parent
"In February, the number of Americans who consider themselves to be Democrats jumped to 41.5%, the highest total on record. Just 31.8% consider themselves to be Republicans. The partisan gap--a 9.7 percentage point advantage for the Democrats--is by far the largest it has ever been. The previous high was a 6.9 point edge for the Democrats in December 2006."
As a consequence of Obama's dereliction of duty on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a feckless administration has had absolutely no oversight as it careens from disaster to disaster in Afghanistan, including the central governments loss of control over 70 percent of the country and yet another bumper crop of opium to fuel the efforts of the Taliban and their terrorist allies...Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Obama holds forth on Afghanistan, chiding the administration and our allies as though he's a profile in courage and not someone who has abandoned his post in establishing accountability.
Both candidates answer questions (without the drawback/benefit) of being able to "follow" the other in a live debate. Parent