With today's RBC deal on Fl and MI, the new "magic number" to become the Democratic nominee is 2,117 (there was a resignation by a guy called Al Wynn, so the 2,118 has been cut by one.) Barack now needs just 65 delegates to clinch the nomination. As Craig Crawford says, there's a new boss in town. All that's left are the deal and the exit.
That said, I don't think Hillary's camp will shrink from their stated goal of piling up primary votes so as to put forward a (phony) claim on the popular vote. (Phony, because you have to discount the caucus states and assume that nobody in Michigan -- not one soul -- intended to support Barack Obama, in order to make it so.) Hillary wants to go out like Al Gore, laying claim to the "moral victory" of getting more votes, and allowing her supporters, inexplicably, to carry away the bitterness of having the nomination "stolen" from them by the powers that be. That, combined with Harold Ickes' and Howard Wolfson's continued nastiness, stoking the rage of Clintons' white women supporters, is just baffling when you consider that these people are Democrats.
The Michigan, Florida compromise at the DNC rules committee is the big news today, but the other headline creeping onto the front pages is Barack Obama and his family's resignation from Trinity Church in Chicago:
Barack Obama has resigned his 20 year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago in the aftermath of inflammatory remarks by his longtime pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and more recent fiery remarks at the church by another minister.
Obama campaign communications director Robert Gibbs said Obama had resigned from the church "over the last few days."
Campaign aides said they werehttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifn't immediately certain how the resignation took place, whether by letter or in some other fashion, and were trying to find out.
Roland Martin on CNN just read from a letter sent from Trinity's leadership expressing their sorrow for the loss of the Obamas, and asking their parishioners to keep the family in prayer. The resignation follows the latest dust-up, over a sermon mocking Hillary Clinton by a visiting priest, Father Pfleger. My initial reaction was that it was a shame that Obama had to cave to craven, idiotic media types who feel it's their place to vet a politician's pastor, but that it was probably necessary from a pragmatic point of view. The real shame here is that American politics has become so trite, so obsessed with sidebars, that a man standing for political office has to answer for every utterance by his pastor. Next, we'll be vetting the pre-school teachers, choir directors and high school basketball coaches for any views that don't conform to a manufactured, homogenized version of phony patriotism. The media's complicity in creating this ridiculous litmus test (flag pins, platitudes and other tripe) that substitutes for a true and interactive love of country, has been nothing short of shameful.
Enough with this crap. Now that Obama has appeased "middle America" (will he be forced to join a nice, majority white, Presbytarian church next, in order to further bow to this brand of idiotic, "God bless America, civics-free nonsense?) can we please move on to real issues?
UPDATE 8:07 p.m.: Obama is holding a news conference about the Trinity resignation, and the DNC decision, right now. He made the very valid two-fold point, that had he remained at Trinity, he would continue to have to answer for every utterance from the pulpit, even by guest pastors, and the church was being unfairly inundated and scrutinized by the press, which was subjecting every sermon to its own vetting, harassing members, calling shut-in and ill people associated with the church, and generally harassing its membership. So for his own sake, but also the church's, he felt it best to resign. That's a sound explanation, and I think he's absolutely right, as well as prudent, to do what he's doing. It won't appease the right, which will continue to hang his 20 years of membership at Trinity around his neck, but it should calm the rational portions of the mainstream press.
UPDATE 2 10:22 p.m.: Politico has the transcript of Obama's presser.... almost like the kind of thing you'd find on whitehouse.gov...
Following a unanimous vote to accept the full delegation/half vote compromise for Florida, Harold Ickes threw down the gauntlet on the Michigan compromise, which would accept the Michigan delegation at full seating with half votes apiece, and accepting the Michigan Democratic Party's preferred allocation of 69 delegates for Mrs. Clinton and 59 for Obama, each casting a half vote, rather than Clinton's preferred split of 73 for her and 55 for "uncomitted." Ickes "rose in opposition" while seated, and then scalded the committee, saying the compromise violates the fundamental principle of "fair reflection," meaning the proportion should reflect the will of the voters. (Ickes had sparred with Robert Wexler about the issue earlier today, just before he walked off the dais.) Said Ickes:
"I am stunned that we have the gall and the chutzpah to substitute our judgment for 600,000 voters, was the process flawed? you bet your ass it was flawed."
He then opined that in his view, "hijacking" four delegates from Hillary Clinton was no way to achieve party unity (the latter word used with derision by him throughout.)
After Ickes' rant, in which he characterized the delegates as the personal possession of Mrs. Clinton and closed by informing the room -- and the country -- that Mrs. Clinton had instructed him to "reserve her right to take the issue to the credentials committee," (that's tomorrow's headline, by the way) he was chastised harshly, by an African-American member of the committee, Everett Ward of North Carolina, who called the previous remarks "political propaganda." (full list of delegates by affiliation here.) That was almost as good as Donna Brazille telling Hillary's surrogate from Michigan that when she was growing up, her mama taught her that when you don't abide by the rules, it's called cheating..."
In the end, the motion passed 19-8, meaning Hillary failed to carry all 13 of her supporters on the committee. Hillary held onto Hartina Fluornoy and Elizabeth Smith, both of D.C., Ickes, of course, and lost Don Fowler.
Watching the DNC Rules Committee's blockbuster meeting, pretty much all morning and afternoon, a few pieces of news have come out of it. (CNN has a breakdown of who's who on the panel here.)
News item #1:
Harold Ickes and the other Hillary supporters on the committee -- about 13 of them -- intend to be very vigorous in pushing the committee to do what's best for HER. That's stunning, considhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifering the responsibility of that committee, ostensibly, to do what's best for the party, and for its voters. It's been rather startling to watch Ickes and other members of the panel, particularly Hartina Fluornoy, a Hillary superdelegate from D.C., advocate essentially as members of her campaign. Ickes, after a particularly contentious exchange with Obama Florida campaign chairman Robert Wexler, even appeared to walk out of the room, although MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell says he actually walked across the room, not all the way out.
News item #2:
Wexler made the most news today, announcing that the Obama campaign would be willing to support the position taken by Florida DNC member Jon Ausman, whose challenge created the core Democratic position of seating all of the state's superdelegates, whose selection depends on their election to Congress or appointment by the local DECs, not upon the date of the primary, and seating half of the pledged delegates. Wexler said the Obama campaign would be willing to allow Hillary to half the maximum number of delegates available to her: 19, as part of a deal, in the interests of party unity.
News item #3:
Michigan Senator Carl Levin made perhaps the most arresting presentation today, walking the panel through the process that he was a part of, going back to the 2004 party convention, to try and change the almost regal status of New Hampshire and Iowa, with their presumed "god-given right" to hold their votes first. Levin was part of a reform panel that included the Rules Committee members, which agreed that at least one caucus would be moved up in the calendar, such that that state -- Nevada -- would caucus after Iowa but before New Hampshire.
New Hampshire, whose secretary of state has the authority to move the state's primary at will, violated that agreement and moved its primary ahead of Nevada's anyway. New Hampshire appealed to the Rules Committee for a waiver, so that it could preserve its status in defiance of an agreed-upon rules change. So Michigan, which has fought, with Levin's leadership, for a more diverse opening to the campaign, decided to apply for a waiver, too, to send a message that if New Hampshire wouldn't comply, somebody had to face down the bully. the committee gave New Hampshire its waiver but denied one to Michigan. In the end, whereas Florida's primary was held at the mercy of the Republican legislature and governor, Michigan's was an act of principled defiance. Given that, Levin said, no further punishment should ensue. To my mind, that was the most compelling argument made today. It certainly moved committee member Donna Brazille.
News item #1:
Howard Wolfson was just on NBC continuing to take pot shots at Barack Obama, and essentially asserting, as did Hillary's advocates before the panel, that they would settle for nothing short of a full seating of both delegations to her advantage, and would concede nothing to the Obama camp in return. They want Obama to get zero delegates out of Michigan, even while they concede that most, if not all, of the 40 percent "uncommitted" vote would favor Obama. And they want the maximum vote in Florida, too (although Bill Clinton may have conceded privately that his wife would wind up with half). So, to quote Pat Buchanan, Hillary wants "the whole hog." Their position is so recalcitrant, and so basically ugly, it makes me wonder if they have any interest whatsoever, in unifying the party, except under Hillary Clinton as nominee (something that would be all-but impossible, since I don't see how she would attract Obama's core supporters, young voters and Black voters, even if she could snatch the nomination away.) Meanwhile, the Obama team seems more reasonable, more willing to compromise and make concessions, and more eager to unify the party. As one reporter put it, the Obama camp is acting "the way a winner acts." That will matter, I think, to uncommitted superdelegates who are observing today's proceedings.
...In many ways, Mr. Obama is wheezing across the finish line after making a strong start: He has won only 6 of the 13 Democratic contests held since March 4, drawing 6.1 million votes, compared with 6.6 million for Mrs. Clinton.
Still, Mrs. Clinton’s associates said she seemed to have come to terms over the last week with the near-certainty that she will not win the nomination, even as she continues to assert, with what one associate described as subdued resignation, that the Democrats are making a mistake in sending Mr. Obama up against Senator John McCain.
One of the last procedural fights took place Saturday in Washington where, with demonstrators supporting Mrs. Clinton marching outside, the Democratic Party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee struggled with the question of whether to seat at the convention members of the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan. Those states have been sanctioned by the party for holding their contests in January in defiance of the primary calendar laid out by the Democratic National Committee.
Mrs. Clinton has kept her counsel about what she might do to draw her campaign to a close and when she might do it. Her associates said the most likely outcome is that she will end her bid with a speech, probably back home in New York, in which she would endorse Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton herself suggested on Friday that the contest will end sometime next week.
Still, she has signaled her ambivalence about the outcome, continuing to urge superdelegates to keep an open mind and consider, for example, the number of popular votes she has won. Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a superdelegate who has been at the forefront of calling for uncommitted Democrats to make a choice soon after the last vote, said in an interview that Mrs. Clinton called him last week and urged him to “keep an open mind until the convention.”
Assuming Mr. Obama reaches the total number of delegates and superdelegates he needs to secure the nomination in the coming week, Mrs. Clinton will be faced with three options, associates said: to suspend her campaign and endorse Mr. Obama; to suspend her campaign without making an endorsement; or to press the fight through the convention. Several of Mrs. Clinton’s associates said it was unlikely she would fight through the convention, given the potential damage it would do to her standing within the party, which is increasingly eager to unify and turn to the battle against Mr. McCain.
Mrs. Clinton would almost surely face the defection of some of her highest-profile supporters, as well as some members of her staff. She would no doubt also face anger from Democratic leaders as she contemplates a return to the Senate and, potentially, another run for the White House. ...
And as for superdelegates:
... “A number of people have reported that various members intend to endorse AFTER the last primary,” said one e-mail message to wavering delegates from Mr. Obama’s supporters, its warning barely couched. “Those members need to understand that they won’t get any visibility from that.”
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who endorsed Mr. Obama nearly two months ago and campaigned with him last week, recently called Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, who has yet to endorse. “Hey Ritter!” Mr. Richardson said. “After June 3, it means nothing. Those who take a little bit of a risk, he’ll remember you.”
On the other end of the line, Mr. Ritter demurred, saying he had pledged to remain neutral until the primary seasons ends.
Since the 2000 election, John McCain has been the golden boy of the Washington press corps. They travel with hin. They laugh at his jokes. They insert the word "maverick" into every story about him. They eat him up with a spoon.
Well... this ain't the year 2000 John McCain.
The current version is forgetful, stammering, and really, scary angry ... a LOT. And there's evidence that the major media reporters who used to dote on him, are changing their tone, perhaps fearing a future Saturday Night Live parody about offering the old boy a pillow...? Case in point, the conference call on which McCain surrogates tried to cover for McCain's latest gaffe on Iraq, as reported by the HuffPo's Sam Stein:
...Reminded that troops in Iraq currently number 155,000, well above the pre-surge level of 130,000, McCain refused to acknowledge on Friday that he had misspoke.
"I said we had drawn down," the Senator declared during a press conference (watch video). "I said we have drawn down and we have drawn down three of the five brigades. We have drawn down three of the five brigades. We have drawn down the marines. The rest will be home the end of July. That's just facts, the facts as I stated them."
But that isn't what he stated. On Thursday, in fact, he made a very specific measurement as to the extent of troop reductions.
"I can tell you that it [the mission in Iraq] is succeeding," said McCain. "I can look you in the eye and tell you it's succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels."
And that was just the beginning. McCain's gaffe had already been exacerbated during a conference call earlier in the day, when aides to the Arizona Republican insisted that he had not misspoke, even while McCain surrogate Sen. Jon Kyl acknowledged on the same call that he had: "What he said was not entirely accurate. OK. So what?"
The campaign aides also ridiculed reporters for even caring about the topic. "It is the essence of semantics," foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann said. "We are having this call about a verb tense and if you choose to write a story about Sen. McCain's use of a verb tense you need to hold Senator Obama to that exact same standard."
All of which, of course, simply piqued the interest of reporters. Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post pointed out that, contrary to the McCain campaign's tone, word choice does, in fact, matter. "If Bush had said 'the mission will be accomplished' as opposed to 'mission accomplished' -- those are two completely different things with completely different meanings."
An increasingly irritated Scheunemann responded: "If you're going to start fact-checking verb tenses, we're going to make sure we start monitoring verb tenses a lot more closely than we have in this campaign."
Later in the call, a reporter questioned whether McCain's verbal error was a sign that the Senator's age was affecting his memory and understanding.
"In every campaign, when you want to change the subject you try to pick a little thing that you can pick on and try to change the subject," replied Senator Jon Kyl, a McCain supporter. "I don't think this has anything to do with age."...
Now, if only MSNBC would replay HIS pastor videos over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again... or at least ask his boy Joe Lieberman why he's still hanging out with John "Hitler was an agent of God" Hagee...
If the White House got an advanced look at the Scott McClellan manuscript, is "he's not the Scott we knew" the best coordinated response they could come up with, given a full month's lead time? Wow, these guys are really missing Karl Rove.
John McCain stepped in it again. Call it a senior moment if you want, but Mac apparently doesn't know what our troop levels are in Iraq, even though he has made a point of shoving it in our faces how many times he has traveled there. Here's a peek at the latest face-off:
The likely GOP presidential nominee told an audience Thursday: "We have drawn down to presurge levels. Basra, Mosul and now Sadar City are quiet."
In fact, U.S. troop levels are not yet down to levels before President Bush's troop increase last year, a move that McCain endorsed.
There were 15 combat brigades in Iraq before the increase began. Five were added, and the United States has been reducing numbers since December. As of Friday, there are 17 brigades in Iraq, another brigade will depart in June and the plan is to pull out another in July, returning the level to 15.
Prior to the increase, there were 130,000-135,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.
In a conference call with reporters, Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, an Obama supporter, argued that McCain was misrepresenting the facts when he said that the U.S. military has drawn back to levels before last year's force increase in Iraq. "That just is just not true. And everybody knows it's not true. And I assume Senator McCain just doesn't know the facts here," Doyle said in a conference call with reporters.
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, another Obama backer, echoed Doyle's criticism.
That prompted an angry response from the McCain campaign.
"Clearly John Kerry and Barack Obama have very little understanding of troop levels, but considering Barack Obama hasn't been to Iraq in 873 days and has never had a one-on-one meeting with General Petraeus, it isn't a surprise to anyone that he demonstrates weak leadership," the McCain campaign said.
In a dueling conference call, Sen. Jon Kyl, a McCain backer, accused the Obama campaign of deflecting from the real issue that Obama still calls for withdrawal even though the troop-influx strategy has worked to curb violence and he hasn't been to Iraq in two years. "It is absolutely the case that the decisions have been made to draw down to presurge levels," Kyl said.
The Arizona senator said, "It is correct that the levels of troops there are not the same as they were during the surge, and, in fact, all of them will be home by the beginning of July."
In response, the Obama campaign said the GOP campaign "still can't explain why John McCain could be so clearly and factually wrong in stating that our troops are at pre-surge levels. They are not, and anyone who wants to be commander in chief should know better before launching divisive political attacks. Once again, Senator McCain has shown that he is far more interested in stubbornly making the case for continuing a failed policy in Iraq than in getting the facts right."
"The only things we should be wearing on our sleeves are our military insignia," Mullen wrote.
Three days later, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, sent a fundraising solicitation using an image of him and Gen. David Petraeus.
... ABC News' Jonathan Karl notes that Petraeus's spokesman, Colonel Steven Boylan, says the McCain campaign did not ask for permission to use the photo.
"By no means does the use of his photo mean he has endorsed anybody. He has not. He won't. He remains apolitical,"
After the use drew fire, including from decorated Vietnam vet John Kerry and Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, McCain says, um, it won't happen again.
It was bad enough watching Mike Brzezinksi twist herself in knots trying to turn the Father Pfleger slip into a real-life news story, as Chris Matthews dead-panned that he didn't get why it's important, and try mightily to move on to a discussion of Scott McClellan (he ultimately gave in with a perturbed "it's your show...") But by 5 p.m., Matthews had given up the ghost (or given in to his bosses at MSNBC) and was dutifully inflating the clip (which is actually funny as hell, by the way,) into highly important campaign news. David Shuster and David Gregory have joined in on the act, gleefully forcing the issue onto the airwaves for the better part of the afternoon and early evening (it will stop momentarily when Keith comes on at 8, but will likely return full force at 9 when Abrams comes on.) I didn't even bother to check Fox News Channel, since I'm sure they've been running the clip for 24 hours straight.
The most exasperating aspect of the story is that Pfleger is not only not Barack Obama's pastor, he's not even a part of his religion, let alone Trinity Church. Earth to Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson: Pfleger is part of YOUR church. He's a freaking Catholic! Hence, the "Father" part. (sigh)
Worse, what Pfleger said is so uncontroversial, you'd have to be made of papier mache to be offended by it. Here's the clip. While you're watching it, think of the last two Hillary skits on "SNL." Believe me, worse things have been said about Hillary by comedians. Watch, laugh, and then let's please move the hell on:
Geraldine Ferraro, America's bitterest woman, has shredded what was left of her reputation. Her vituperative brand of support for her candidate, Hillary Clinton, has made them both look bad. If I'm Hillary, I'm emailing Gerri with the following subject line: STFU.
Here we are at the end of the primary season, and the effects of racism and sexism on the campaign have resulted in a split within the Democratic Party that will not be easy to heal before election day. Perhaps it's because neither the Barack Obama campaign nor the media seem to understand what is at the heart of the anger on the part of women who feel that Hillary Clinton was treated unfairly because she is a woman or what is fueling the concern of Reagan Democrats for whom sexism isn't an issue, but reverse racism is. ...
... As for Reagan Democrats, how Clinton was treated is not their issue. They are more concerned with how they have been treated. Since March, when I was accused of being racist for a statement I made about the influence of blacks on Obama's historic campaign, people have been stopping me to express a common sentiment: If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist. They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening. They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white. It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment. And that is enforced because they don't believe he understands them and their problems. That when he said in South Carolina after his victory "Our Time Has Come" they believe he is telling them that their time has passed.
By the way, Ferraro, who goes on to defend the downtrodden white voters who "don't identify with someone who has gone to Columbia and Harvard Law School and is married to a Princeton-Harvard Law graduate. His experience with an educated single mother and being raised by middle class grandparents is not something they can empathize with. They may lack a formal higher education, but they're not stupid. What they're waiting for is assurance that an Obama administration won't leave them behind," wants a study ... at Harvard ... how anti-elitist of you, Gerri.
To punctuate her point, Gerri went on her favorite news outlet, totally un-sexist Fox News Channel (where your bra size and hair have to be bigger than your I.Q. in order to get on the air as a woman, and where ... and this is the big one ... Loofah-waving pervert Bill O'Reilly STILL WORKS ...) to whinge about anti-white racism:
"All the surrogates that they had out there, from the black journalists — you know, have you read Bob Herbert recently in the past six months? There wasn't one column that had anything decent to say about Hillary."
Well ... inevitably, the black journalists, fired back with the following statement, followed by a comment:
"NABJ is outraged that a former vice presidential candidate would suggest that all black reporters are mouthpieces for the Obama campaign," NABJ President Barbara Ciara, an anchor for WTKR-TV in Norfolk, Va., said in a statement. "To suggest this shows not only a stunning lack of judgment but also her unapologetic bigotry. Ms. Ferraro used her appearance on Fox News to reinforce stereotypes that suggest that black reporters can't be trusted to cover another person of color without bias and favoritism."
NABJ's vice president for print, Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter Ernie Suggs, called the remarks a "direct attack" not only on the integrity of black journalists, but "the integrity of all journalists who work every day to provide good, honest journalism."
Does that mean, by extension, that white female journalists are surrogates for Hillary?
I plan to read Scott McClellan's book, "What Happened" (it's at the top of my summer reading list, along with Vincent Bugliosi's "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.") And I think that he may be the unlikliest, but also among the most important, truth-tellers to emerge from the nightmare era known as the Bush administration. McClellan is important, not because he was a policy insider, but because he was a personal one. He and the president went back all the way to Texas, and he was the first of the Texas inner circle to break publicly with George W. Bush. Yes, he left disgruntled, but it's why he was disgruntled that is important: he was angry because Karl Rove (another of the Texans) and Scooter Libby, principally, but also Dick Cheney and Bush himself, repeatedly lied to him about important matters. They lied about the outing of Velerie Plame, and then sent him out to lie. They lied to him about the war he was selling. And he had a front row seat to the lies that they were telling us, about Iraq.
So while his former colleagues may not like it, none of their synchronized, personal attacks has touched the fundamental premises of his book. None have even tried to refute his facts. And so his story stands basically unrefuted, even if he is now an enemy.
And yes, it's unprecedented for a press secretary to spill his guts while the boss is still in place (I was a press secretary, so I have some sympathy for McClellan's position,) precedent was thrown out the window long ago by the Bush team. They threw out 200 years of precedent on America's non-aggression foreign policy, 200 years of precedent of America as the "good guy," not torturing our captives, for instance. And in setting up a truly Soviet domestic spying regime, they took the J. Edgar Hoover playbook and super-sized it.
So keep your head up, Scott. You've turned out to be a more articulate, more honest, and more substantial a figure than I certainly ever gave you credit for. And don't worry about the "snitching" rap. We have a lot of that same pathology in the black community when it comes to reporting crimes and turning in criminals. At the end of the day, "snitching" is ghetto-ese for "doing the right thing." I think it's a safe bet that history will judge you a hell of a lot more kindly than it will your former boss.
David Gregory has been spinning himself silly trying to deflate the accusation that the press was too soft on President Bush, and were played by the administration in the run-up to the Iraq. War. His indefensible defensiveness was exploded by none other than Christopher Matthews on "Hardball" yesterday:
Aussie journalist Russell Coker, whose site you can find here, alerted me to this very interesting article in the Washington Post, putting forward what could be the solution to the nettling question of "what to do withher..."
...It's likely that the next president will face at least one Supreme Court vacancy. Obama should promise Hillary Clinton, now, that if he wins in November, the vacancy will be hers, making her first on a list of one.
Obama and Clinton have wound up agreeing on nearly every major issue during the campaign; at the end of the day, they share many orthodoxies. Unless the Supreme Court were to get mired in minuscule details of what constitutes universal health care, Obama could assume that he'd be pleased with most Clinton votes, certainly on major issues such as abortion.
Obama could also appreciate Clinton's undeniably keen mind. Even Clinton detractors have noted her remarkable mental skills; she would be equal to any legal or intellectual challenge she would face as a justice. The fact that she hasn't served on a bench before would be inconsequential, considering her experience in law and in government.
If Obama were to promise Clinton the first court vacancy, her supporters would actually have a stronger incentive to support him for president than they would if she were going to be vice president. Given the Supreme Court's delicate liberal-conservative balance, she would play a major role in charting the country's future; there is no guarantee that a Clinton vice presidency would achieve such importance.
For nearly a year and a half, Clinton has been fighting a bruising battle. Many appointees and officials from her husband's administration have turned their backs on her; she has lost the support of friends she had every reason to believe would stand by her. She has campaigned tirelessly only to discover that, according to polls, more than half the populace mistrusts her. Yes, she can still hope for 2012 or 2016, but why trust that she will be viewed differently next time around? (A recent CNN "quick poll" found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed someone other than Clinton would be the first female president.)
Instead of subjecting herself to a long wait and another possible defeat, she could don one of those roomy black robes, make a potentially ineradicable impact on the course of the republic -- and never again have to worry about being liked. ...
Now, I have heard theories about what it would cost to get Hillary Clinton out of the race, and the subject of putting her husband on the Court has come up. This is the first time I've been provoked to think about the Court, rather than the New York governership (too provincial), the Senate Majority Chair (too audacious -- she's down in the 40s in terms of seniority, moving her up would step on a lot of toes...) or the vice presidency (never ... going ... to ... happen. Get over it, Clintonettes.) And you know what? I LIKE IT!
Of course, Obama probably couldn't openly declare his support for handing Clinton 11.1% of the nation's highest court, both because it would energize the right -- particularly the religious right -- on one of their most fundamental issues: activist judges (read "abortion,") but also because it doesn't quite seem appropriate to declare your court nominee before (her) time. But the idea that Clinton could ascend to the SUPCO (hey, since her husband has relinquished the "first black president" title, we could call her the "real holder of the Thurgood Marshall seat...") while not as ground-breaking as becoming the first female president, would give her lasting power and influence, things it's clear she desperately craves. A seat on the Court would put Hillary in a position to extend her influence beyond the limited shelf life of the presidency, while freeing her from that bothersome ambition, which has brought her, and her husband, so low in the esteem of former supporters (myself included.)
So I'd at least back-channel it if I were Obama's team, to top Emily's Listers, to League of Women Voters heads, and through his new pals at NARAL (national -- the local NARAL's are probably still pissed off...) and see what happens. So long as they can find a way to filter the hope of an appointment down through the ranks without blasting it on their MySpace, it just might make a difference.
Scott McClellan wasn't as much of a douchebag as Ari Fleischer, or as slick as Tony Snow, but he was as stonewally a press secretary as they whip up in Texas. Do you remember the time?
"I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove." McClellan on PlameGate, September 23, 2003.
"The President knows he [Rove] wasn't involved." McClellan on PlameGate, September 23, 2003.
"There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did." McClellan on the roles of Libby, Rove and Abrams in revealing the identity of Valerie Plame, October 7, 2003
"As I've previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it." McClellan on new PlameGate revelations, July 11, 2005.
"That's accurate." Later changed in White House transcript to "That's not accurate" regarding a statement that Rove and Libby were involved in outing Valerie Plame, October 31, 2005.
"The last thing anyone should do is politicize this issue by rewriting history." McClellan on revelations regarding bogus uranium in Niger claims, July 17, 2003.
"[I]t is sad and irresponsible that The New York Times is rewriting history to fit an inaccurate storyline and conveniently ignoring key facts." McClellan on criticism of Bush's preparation for Hurricane Katrina, February 10, 2006.
"This is getting into trying to finger-point and play the blame game." McClellan on bungled Bush response to Katrina, September 6, 2005.
"This was a report based on a single anonymous source that could not substantiate the allegation that was made." McClellan describing Newsweek's Koran desecration story, not the role of Curveball in Iraq pre-war intelligence, May 16, 2005.
"Declassifying information and providing it to the public, when it is in the public interest, is one thing. But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious. And there is a distinction." McClellan justifying President Bush's authorization to leak classified information from the October 2002 NIE to attach Joe Wilson and other White House critics, April 7, 2006.
"The Democrats have a credibility problem when they try to suggest that we were manipulating intelligence, or that this is about something other than what I just said. That's crass politics." McClellan on criticism of President Bush's leaking classified material, April 7, 2006.
There's more Greatest Hits for your amusement at PERRspectives.
Scott McClellan is no longer GWB's chubby little buddy. Now, the sweatiest press secretary ever will forever be known as the guy who wrote "the book."
ormer White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush “veered terribly off course,” was not “open and forthright on Iraq,” and took a “permanent campaign approach” to governing at the expense of candor and competence.
Among the most explosive revelations in the 341-page book, titled “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs, $27.95):
• McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.
• He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.
• He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.”
• The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them — and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts.
• McClellan asserts that the aides — Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff — “had at best misled” him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity.
It's safe to say the media is going ape-crap over the McClellan book bomb, as the White House says "we don't know this guy" and reporter David Gregory practically squeals on MSNBC, "the media did NOT let the country down! Waa." Because of course, if Scotty is right, and the media was weak and fed propaganda (by him and the White House) well then that would make Gregory a dupe ... (ahem)
Besides his war mongering tendencies, and close association with creepy Joe Lieberman, the thing that most scares me about John McCain is his apparent utter fealty to corporate interests, even as he swears that he's just the opposite kind of guy (impeccably moral, honest to a fault, and a damn site better than you!) And the biggest fear I have is that if, by some scorn of fate he is elected president, he will complete George W. Bush's task of bringing on a complete, late 19th century-style corporatocracy. Case in point: his economic guru is none other than scuzzy Texas congressman-turned-uber lobbyist Phil Gramm. As MSNBC reported tonight?
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain’s national campaign general co-chair was being paid by a Swiss bank to lobby Congress about the U.S. mortgage crisis at the same time he was advising McCain about his economic policy, federal records show. [See sidebar.]
“Countdown with Keith Olbermann” reported Tuesday night that lobbying disclosure forms, filed by the giant Swiss bank UBS, list McCain’s campaign co-chair, former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, as a lobbyist dealing specifically with legislation regarding the mortgage crisis as recently as Dec. 31, 2007.
Gramm joined the bank in 2002 and had registered as a lobbyist by 2004. UBS filed paperwork deregistering Gramm on April 18 of this year. Gramm continues to serve as a UBS vice chairman.
... As early as October, 2006, RealClearPolitics.com reported that Gramm was advising McCain on economic issues. Politico.com quoted McCain advisors saying that Gramm had input on McCain’s March 26 policy speech about the mortgage crisis. McCain himself has often cited Gramm’s influence as a way to establish his bona fides with economic conservatives.
When Gramm chaired the Senate Banking Committee, he wrote and passed deregulatory legislation in more than one industry, establishing himself as a pre-eminent foe of government regulation. McCain’s March 26 speech recommended further deregulation of the banking industry as his response to the mortgage crisis.
McCain and Gramm have been friends for more than a decade. McCain chaired Gramm’s 1996 presidential run and Gramm says the two men speak every day. McCain reportedly has hinted Gramm might serve as his Treasury secretary.
Gramm has bankrolled much of McCain's campaign since his finances hit the skids last year. But his nastiness reaches levels you could drive a straight talk express through.
... even before lobbying emerged as an issue, some of his own advisors told the Washington Post last month that they questioned how Gramm’s legislative record might affect McCain’s campaign.
After Gramm passed a law easing regulation of energy-commodity trading, California experienced a sharp run-up in energy costs. The energy-trading company Enron was blamed and soon collapsed.
In 1999, Gramm successfully undid the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, removing the decades-old wall between commercial banking, which was heavily regulated, and investment banking, which was not. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act did not extend significant new regulation to investment banking.
Some economists fault Gramm’s deregulatory successes, as well as lax enforcement of remaining oversight powers, not just for the subprime mortgage crisis, but for its spread to other sectors of finance. Even Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has expressed interest in toughening regulations.
By the by, Graham also killed a bill that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgage terms to help homeowners in trouble remain in their homes. Nice.
Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute told the Washington Post, “McCain is counting on people having very short memories and not connecting some pretty obvious dots here.”
Well, he's right about one thing: people do have short memories, especially people in the press. Let's see how long this story lasts.
Every couple of days I receive an email in my gmail account from a Carolyn Kay, of makethemaccountable.com. I must admit I don't open them, since it's obvious that the dispatch is an email newsletter from a Democratic-leaning blog or website. Well, tonight, I decided to have a look.
What I found was a lengthy screed, full of links to posts by other angry feminists, denigrating Barack Obama and interspersed with offensive cartoons depicting him as a simian dumbass. It's kind of like the lefty sites devoted to hyperventilating about George W. Bush, only this one is coming from a Democrat, and dedicated to attacking another Democrat. Oh, there's the odd anti-John McCain link, and plenty of Bush-bashing, but for the most part, it's all about Obama.
Ms. Kay, who makes it clear by her posts that she is a rather ... um... dedicated, Hillary Clinton supporter, is apparently a friend, on some level, of radio host Thom Hartmann, who also seems to lean Clinton (hell, he works for Air America. Mark Green doesn't do Obama love...) Given his intellect, I'm surprised that he would hang with such a person. If you don't believe how vituperative, ugly, and snide Ms. Kay can be, go on over to her site and read her for yourself. A sampling:
What Krugman said (by lambert) I’ll bet my first Early Girl tomato that none* of Krugman’s wise suggestions will be adopted. That is, the demonization of the Clintons will continue, Hillary’s supporters will continue to be written off as hicks, and Hillary will not be offered the VP slot.** Nor will Obama address the deficiencies in his health care plan. My views are based on Obama’s past performance in the campaign. If Obama has made no gestures of respect when he hasn’t won, why would he do so after he has? His base won’t demand it of him, nor will his handlers, nor will our famously free press, and so it won’t happen. If it were going to happen, it would already have happened; it’s not like there haven’t been opportunities.
What Hypocrite Obama Should Have Discussed in His Wesleyan Commencement Address (by Truthteller at No Quarter) MIDDLETOWN, Conn. (AP) – “Filling in for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and tying himself to the family’s legacy, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama urged college graduates Sunday to ‘make us believe again’ by dedicating themselves to public service….[and] urged students to focus on more than ‘the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy.’” The rest of the 25-minute speech should have been dedicated to urging students to focus on “the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy,” for this is the life Barack Obama actually pursued. Indeed, Obama should have offered Wesleyan students instructions on how to find and secure political and financial godfathers in the mold of Antoin “Tony” Rezko. After all, this is how Obama climbed the political, social and financial ladders of Chicago, Illinois.
Meanwhile, on her bio page, she reveals that she grew up in Louisiana, didn't object to segregation, but was just fine with Blacks eventually trying to get equality. Thanks, dear. Then, at the bottom of her bio, just after the revelation that she is a cancer survivor, there's this:
So here I am. And here I’ll stay. I’ll use every talent I possess and all my energy to try to bring back tolerance, decency, and generosity to the country I love.
Tolerance? Decency? Generosity??? Lady, have you read your own blog???
Fox News "analyst" Liz Trotta has it in for Barack Obama ... or at least, she did:
During an interview on Fox News between anchor Eric Shawn and contributor Liz Trotta about the "assassination" comment by Sen. Hillary Clinton, Trotta mistakenly refers to Obama as Osama. "The vast right wing conspiracy blame has been undermined by her evasions, by her outright lies if I may say, by her pandering, by her race baiting, and now we have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama," she said.
Shawn corrected Trotta just as she herself realized she said the wrong name, and they simultaneously said, "Obama." Then, Trotta appears to attempt to make a joke about the gaffe. "Well, both if we could," she says, and laughs while Shawn says, "Talk about how you really feel." He then changes the subject.
Well, now, Trotta has said sowwy, but only when asked (by Bill Hemmer), after a full segment of truly ironic Hillary explication.
If your man has introduced you to his friends, if you've been invited to Thanksgiving dinner at his parents' house, if he takes you out to places where he could reasonably be recognized, and if, when he answers your phonecalls, he uses your name, rather than just "hey" or your first initial, you ARE the girlfriend. If not, it's time to lower your expectations.
PHOENIX (AP) — John McCain's complex relationship with President Bush can be summed up with a simple saying: can't live with him, can't live without him.
The president's own popularity is bottom-of-the-barrel low. Even allies privately fret that he's an albatross for the Republican looking to succeed him. Voters are crying out for change amid a prolonged Iraq war and a weakened economy.
But Bush also is beloved among GOP loyalists. He's a proven campaigner who can raise serious money. Those are huge assets as Arizona Sen. McCain works to rally the Republican base and fill his coffers while facing the Democrats' unrivaled enthusiasm and record-breaking fundraising.
The president and his would-be successor were appearing together Tuesday for the first time in nearly three months at an event that epitomized both elements of their tricky alliance — they were holding a fundraiser with GOP faithful at a private home, without the media to document it.
By the McCain campaign's own planning, the only time Bush and McCain would be captured on camera would be after the event — and too late to make most evening newscasts — on the Phoenix airport tarmac in the shadow of Air Force One, just before the president departs. McCain's fundraisers typically are closed to the press; the White House deferred to the campaign. No statements were expected.
There was originally supposed to be an arena event, but ... well ... you know, ticket sales aren't what they used to be ... and then there are all those cell phone cameras ... (shudders thinking about Youtube pics of McCain and Bush embracing lustily...)
("Yes, George, give me more pioneers ... and MORE ... and MORE!!!)
"Today, John McCain is having a different kind of meeting. He's holding a fundraiser with George Bush behind closed doors in Arizona. No cameras. No reporters," Obama said before a town hall in Las Vegas, "And we all know why. Senator McCain doesn't want to be seen, hat-in-hand, with the President whose failed policies he promises to continue for another four years. But the question for the American people is: do we want to continue George Bush's policies?"
Oh, and if nobody at his job knows who you are...?
http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifThe New York Times, which it should be said, supported, promoted, and through its former reporter, Judith Miller, laid the groundwork for the war in Iraq, delivers a stinging rebuke of President Bush and his opposition to a new G.I. Bill:
President Bush opposes a new G.I. Bill of Rights. He worries that if the traditional path to college for service members since World War II is improved and expanded for the post-9/11 generation, too many people will take it.
He is wrong, but at least he is consistent. Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers’ lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break.
So lavish with other people’s sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq, Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home.
Thankfully, the new G.I. Bill has strong bipartisan support in Congress. The House passed it by a veto-proof margin this month, and last week the Senate followed suit, approving it as part of a military financing bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Senate version was drafted by two Vietnam veterans, Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska. They argue that benefits paid under the existing G.I. Bill have fallen far behind the rising costs of college.
Their bill would pay full tuition and other expenses at a four-year public university for veterans who served in the military for at least three years since 9/11.
At that level, the new G.I. Bill would be as generous as the one enacted for the veterans of World War II, which soon became known as one of the most successful benefits programs — one of the soundest investments in human potential — in the nation’s history.
Mr. Bush — and, to his great discredit, Senator John McCain — have argued against a better G.I. Bill, for the worst reasons. They would prefer that college benefits for service members remain just mediocre enough that people in uniform are more likely to stay put.
They have seized on a prediction by the Congressional Budget Office that new, better benefits would decrease re-enlistments by 16 percent, which sounds ominous if you are trying — as Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain are — to defend a never-ending war at a time when extended tours of duty have sapped morale and strained recruiting to the breaking point.
Their reasoning is flawed since the C.B.O. has also predicted that the bill would offset the re-enlistment decline by increasing new
