Reidblog [The Reid Report blog]

Think at your own risk.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Palin on Palin
An excerpt from an article Sarah Palin wrote back in 2006, which was posted on her gubernatorial campaign web-site. The piece was called ... ahem ... "Who's your daddy?"
Sometimes I haven’t a clue, coming from non-political Chuck Heath, why l remain passionate about wanting to change the world through Alaskan politics. But I know without a doubt that my Dad’s love for this state, his Independence, his strong work ethic and right priorities are my foundation and influence for every decision I make. He’s my most loyal supporter. Me, the media-stamped ‘bard core conservative Republican”! He’s also the number one fan of one of his best buddies and hunting partners, Dr. Curt Menard, the well known democrat. See, he’s much too smart and way too nice to base relationships on politics.
I think she meant "hard core" ... I guess the "h" is kind of near the "b" on the keyboard... Another glimpse of our first lady in waiting (mind the spelling errors. I swear this is unedited...)
I’m thankful for all my dad taught me and allowed me to do. I’m glad he dragged my butt out of bed early, early autumn mornings to hunt ducks with him before cross-country running practice. He taught me to bag a caribou, fillet a fish, dig buckets of darns, and find the plumpest blueberries. He wouldn’t put up with my wimpy reasons why I couldn’t thaw frozen fish egg bait in my mouth, like he does, when ice fishing. But he did understand when I looked up at him quizzically once upon his request to “please hold those” while he searched for something to put our freshly butchered moose’s eyeballs in so his students could observe them later that day. He graciously understood, and I didn’t have to hold those ungulate’s warm parts that morning in the alders.

My dad gave me two of the greatest gifts in my life: an upbringing in Alaska and an appreciation for all one can gain from athletics. He was Wasilla High School’s track, cross-country and freshman basketball coach. He never let me quit, no matter how bad it hurt or how the odds ware stacked against his athletes. He taught “no pain, no gain.., and you reap what you sow,.. and there ain’t no such thing as a flee lunch.., and dig deep, push hard and fully rely on your ROCK!”

(In our case, that ROCK would be God.) These are lessons I draw on everyday.
This stuff may have great appeal for so-called "middle America," but I wonder how the Clinton faithful feel, being told that Sarah the Moose Hunter is the equivalent of Hillary...


|

Labels: ,

posted by JReid @ 6:28 PM  
The Sarah Palin chronicles
John McCain may consider her a "soulmate" after only meeting her once (watch out, Cindy...) and the flat earth crowd is over the moon at the prospect of Sarah embarking on her four (?) year apprenticeship and then taking the throne, to rule over us through the mighty hand of God ... but not everyone is as high on Sarah.

Her mother-in-law, Faye Palin:
"I'm not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she's a woman and a conservative. Well, she's a better speaker than McCain," Faye Palin said with a laugh. "People will say she hasn't been on the national scene long enough. But I believe she's a quick study."
Her hometown press:

Early this year, an op-ed in the Anchorage Daily News ripped into Gov. Sarah Palin's appearance on a morning "shock jock" radio show as "plain and simple one of the most unprofessional, childish and inexcusable performances I've ever seen from a politician."

So what happened? Palin has repeatedly feuded with the state's Senate president, Lyda Green, over a wide range of legislation. Last January, Palin appeared on "The Bob and Mark Show," whose host Bob Lester despises Green. That's when the trouble started...






And speaking of the Alaska GOP:
The legislative leadership of the Alaska Republican Party isn’t enamored with Palin’s selection, either, according to the Anchorage Daily News.
State Senate President Lyda Green said she thought it was a joke when someone called her at 6 a.m. to tell her the news.

"She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Green, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"

Green, who has feuded with Palin, brought up the big oil tax increase Palin pushed through last year. She also pointed to the award of a $500 million state subsidy to a Canadian firm to pursue a natural gas pipeline that's far from guaranteed.

House Speaker John Harris, a Republican from Valdez, was also astonished at the news. He didn't want to get into the issue of her qualifications.

"She's old enough," Harris said. "She's a U.S. citizen."

For more Sarah background, a plucky Politico commentator found her old campaign website in the Wayback machine. Here it is. Enjoy the "who's your daddy" file. Fascinating.

|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 2:32 PM  
When you pray for rain, be specific
The Focus on the Family folks who prayed for rain on the day of Barack Obama's big speech instead got clear skies, beautiful, cool weather, and 85,000 people in Mile High Stadium (yeah, yeah, Invesco Field...) and 38 million more watching on TV. God is bringing the rain though, and now we're all having to pray for New Orleans again.

The up-side, if one can be crass, for the Republicans, is that Gustav will apparently keep the unwelcome President Bush away from the convention, and the odious Dick Cheney, too. Hopefully in their absence, they'll actually pay attention to the storm this time, John McCain's birthday having already passed...
|

Labels: , , , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 2:19 PM  
Palin's media cheerleaders
Be prepred, Democrats: much of the mainstream media appears to be going directly into the tank for Sarah Palin, judging by the opening remarks from "neutral" reporters including David Gregory (who today called the pick "cool" ... Andrea Mitchell and Maria Bartoromo, who spent her morning on "Meet the Press" hawking Palin as if she were a hot stock. Here's David Gregory on MTP:
MR. GREGORY: She went into labor and got on an airplane to go back to Alaska. That's pretty cool. I think there's a lot of people, men and women, who are going to look at this story and say, "This is a compelling person. I want to take a new look at this ticket."
Ironically, it fell to GOP strategist Mike Murphy to throw cold water on the MTP love fest for Palin:
MR. BROKAW: Mike, as you heard, I asked Governor Pawlenty about creationism vs. evolution. He said they ought to be taught side by side in schools, local school districts should decide. How does that cut with the independents?

MR. MURPHY: It's trouble. Again, if we get into a social issues debate with those particular swing voters, we're in big trouble. I believe that McCain cannot win in this environment without ticket splitters, people who vote for him for president but vote Democrat down the ticket. He may need as many as one out of five of his ultimate voters to be a ticket splitter. So the question is in a bad base year for Republicans, if we get caught on pure base issues--I agree, the evangelical vote loves her, but I, to the point I said earlier, I'd rather have lukewarm evangelicals and a whole lot of voters...

MR. BROKAW: Right.

MR. MURPHY: ...than delighted Goldwater-sized crowds and a completely delighted 45 percent of the vote. So if Sarah Palin the reformer, corruption fighter becomes who she is, she can help. If she gets trapped in the other stuff, I think she's an anchor. And we don't know yet how it's going to play.

But on the next question, Gregory went back to making the Palin sale, with a little help in the Amen chorus from Andrea Mitchell:
MR. BROKAW: "Even before McCain picked [Palin], people outside Alaska were beginning to notice the young governor with the bright smile" - the "runnerup in the 1984 Miss Alaska contest--whose good looks spawned a bumper sticker that read: `Coldest State. Hottest Governor.'"

Is that going to work in the West?

MR. GREGORY: Well, I think a lot of it does. And as you know better than anybody, you talk to people like Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, who--and he will attribute his success as a Democrat in Colorado not to social issues, but to issues like the economy that began to turn more Republican-leaning independents and even some Republicans in the state his way. I think the economy is a huge part of this. A lot of the working-class voters in states like West Virginia or Ohio, where she was debuted, or Pennsylvania were Democrats primarily for economic issues if not social issues. Obama still has an advantage there, even if he hasn't grabbed the issue completely. I think Sarah Palin helps John McCain get it.

MS. MITCHELL: Yes, I agree with that.

MR. GREGORY: That's the attack line from Obama that he's out of touch. She's got some working class roots, the hockey mom thing.

MS. MITCHELL: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: A union husband, a husband who's in the union. So I think she may help deliver that to independent voters in the West and elsewhere for whom this is going to be a big issue, the economy.

MS. MITCHELL: I...

Likewise, George Will went from calling Barack Obama "the most thinly qualified presidential candidate in memory," last week, to stating this week on Stephanopoulos' show that it's not experience that matters after all, but rather judgment (where have we heard that before?) and good instincts about how to keep the federal government out of people's lives Will didn't even bring up Ms. Palin's experience on his own, and as of this morning, has completely abandoned it as an issue. George answered Stephanolpoulos' question of whether Palin was a good pick with an enthusiastic "yes." He went on to say:
"It certainly solved his enthusiasm deficit with regard to Mr. Obama. ... I suspect that now, the Republican base is more united and enthusiastic behind McCain then I suspect the Democratic base is behind Mr. Obama..."
And on the question of qualifications, Will adds:
"There is more to the qualification to high executive branch office than experience. There is understanding the constitutional principle of limited government and the culture of corruption that inevitably develops in a capitol that abandones limited government; that regulates everything and subsidizes everybody. She understands that."
Will later disclosed that his wife is an unpaid staffer helping to formulate Cindy McCain's convention speech.

Poor Sam Donaldson literally laughed out loud later in the roundtable, when Cokie Roberts actually claimed that Palin wasn't picked for women, or for the purposes of poaching female Hillary Clinton supporters, but rather to attract blue collar voters. Stunning.

If this first Palin Sunday was any indication, and judging by the equally enthusiastic reception Palin has received on CNN and MSNBC, where Chrystia Freeland (who was pushing Hillary as Obama's vice presidential pick before Biden was selected,) literally gushed about Palin on Friday, it's clear to me that much of the mainstream media, stung by the accusations of gender bias by the Hillary Clinton campaign during the primaries, is going to tread lightly when it comes to Palin, and many reporters, who at their core, are still fans of John McCain, will actually enthusiastically boost the ticket. That sounds like an incredible contrast to complaints by the right that the media is trying to help Obama, but I think it's reality. Democrats should pre-pare for a Palin love-fest, for at least a couple of weeks, as she receives her honeymoon.

|

Labels: , , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 1:44 PM  
So how big is the Alaska National Guard, anyway?
The latest, laugh out loud justification for putting Flat Earth Society queen Sarah "the Barracuda" Palin a skin cancer attack away from the red button is that she is ... wait for it ... commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard. Poor Tim Pawlenty had to sell that turkey on "Meet the Press" this morning (an episode in which David Gregory proved himself to be absolutely SOLD on the McCain ticket ... surprise, surprise...) and it will be part of the excuse narrative the Republicans will be selling over the next 67 days. So let's take a look at how many people Sarah is commanding:

The Alaska National Guard consists of approximately 1,850 soldiers in the Alaska Army National Guard, plus the civilian and military members of the Alaska Air National Guard, including 5,400 personnel at Eielson Air Force Base.

It had a budget in 2007 of $62,145,474 for the Alaska National Guard and $167,531,600 for the Air National Guard from the federal government, and the State of Alaska has an annual budget of around $83,255,260, according to the most recent annual report from the Alaska office of Military Affairs.

By contrast, according to the U.S. Air National Guard website:
The authorized strength for the Air National Guard for the current fiscal year is 106,678 compared to active force strength of 359,300. The operating budget for this fiscal year is $2,724.5 million for personnel, $4, 724.1 million for operation and maintenance and $165.3 million for military construction for a total of $7, 613.9 million.
In case you missed it, that's $2.7 BILLION for personnel and $4.7 BILLION for operations.

By the way, if that argument doesn't work for you, Cindy McCain says Sarah's qualified to be CIC because Alaska is physically close to Russia! Peaches!



|

Labels: , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 12:31 PM  
Saturday, August 30, 2008
From an Alaska blogger
Notes on Governor Palin.
|

Labels:

posted by JReid @ 10:49 AM  
Memo to Obama: go after John McCain's judgment
Having laid it out so brilliantly in his nomination acceptance speech on Thursday, it's time for Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, to begin a daily conversation with the American people about judgment, and specifically, about the judgment of John McCain. In fact, McCain has made it easy for them by choosing a woman so meagerly qualified for the presidency, it would be funny (if McCain's age and health concerns weren't so serious.)

Team Obama can and should go after McCain hard on his veep choice, and they can do so without personally attacking or demonizing Ms. Palin. For example, they could run an ad like this:


(FEMALE) ANNCR:

It was his first major decision as the Republican nominee...

And John McCain chose to play politics ...

instead of picking the most qualified commander in chief.

He thinks women voters don't care about issues ...

Just gender ...

(SHOW PIC OF HILLARY) That's not the respect we deserve ...

Or the judgment ... we need in the next president.
Would the McCain camp try to push back on Obama's experience? Sure. That's why they felt safe in selecting Palin. But as even the AP's Ron Fournier has pointed out, Obama's 11 years in the Illinois legislature and longer tenure in the Senate compared to Palin's 600 days of legislative experience, plus the mayoralty of a tiny town in Alaska, aren't close to comparable.

I posted yesterday on TPM that McCain has, in effect, given up his "country first" theme. Republican strategist David Frum agrees:
The longer I think about it, the less well this selection sits with me. And I increasingly doubt that it will prove good politics. The Palin choice looks cynical. The wires are showing.

John McCain wanted a woman: good.

He wanted to keep conservatives and pro-lifers happy: naturally.

He wanted someone who looked young and dynamic: smart.

And he discovered that he could not reconcile all these imperatives with the stated goal of finding a running mate qualified to assume the duties of the presidency "on day one."

... Maybe it will work. But maybe (and at least as likely) it will reinforce a theme that I'd be pounding home if I were the Obama campaign: that it's John McCain for all his white hair who represents the risky choice, while it is Barack Obama who offers cautious, steady, predictable governance.

... question: If it were your decision, and you were putting your country first, would you put an untested small-town mayor a heartbeat away from the presidency?

More from Frum here, including this important closing argument:

Should John McCain lose in November, Sarah Palin has just pole-vaulted into front-runner status for 2012. Should Mr. McCain win, her grip on the next Republican nomination will become a lock.

So this is the future of the Republican party you are looking at: a future in which national security has bumped down the list of priorities behind abortion politics, gender politics, and energy politics. Ms. Palin is a bold pick, and probably a shrewd one. It's not nearly so clear that she is a responsible pick, or a wise one.

Add to the chorus of boos Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune:

The first and last question to be asked about a potential vice president is: Is he or she prepared to take over immediately as president? Barack Obama's choice of Joe Biden gave that matter the priority it deserves.

The question is even more important for McCain because he's 72 years old and has had serious health problems. The chances are considerably higher than usual that his vice president would have to step into the Oval Office without notice.

Sarah Palin may be a politically brilliant choice. She may also be a fine governor. But it's going to be pretty hard for McCain to disparage Obama's experience on national security and foreign relations while running with someone who has much less.

But worse, this decision mocks McCain's seriousness on the issues that are supposed to be his strength. It tells us that he puts his own political fortunes above the safety of the nation.

And even Charles Krauthammer:

McCain had been steadily gaining on Obama (before the inevitable convention bounce) and had the race in a dead heat in a year in which the generic Democrat is running ten points ahead of the generic Republican. He had succeeded in making this a referendum on Obama. The devastating line of attack was, "Is he ready to lead?"

The Palin selection completely undercuts the argument about Obama's inexperience and readiness to lead -- on the theory that because Palin is a maverick and a corruption fighter, she bolsters McCain's claim to be the reformer in this campaign. In her rollout today, Palin spoke a lot about change. McCain is now trying to steal "change" from Obama, a contest McCain will lose in an overwhelmingly Democratic year with an overwhelmingly unpopular incumbent Republican administration. At the same time, he's weakening his strong suit -- readiness vs. unreadiness.

Not surprising that the neocons aren't thrilled. Anything that takes the global war on Islam off the table and puts abortion back on center stage can't be good for them. And it seems that McCain's envy over losing the attention of the media, along with his year 2000 "change", "maverick", "reformer" and celebrity labels made him throw away his best card... Now, he's got the media to talk about him the way they used to ... but he's also made the race more about him; and his judgment, than about Barack. That doesn't strike me as smart. And it will be interesting to see if Democrats begin to laugh out loud every time McCain talks about national security, given that he apparently no longer cares about it as much as he does getting anti-abortion activists to phonebank for him...

Meanwhile, suddenly on the right, experience doesn't matter!




|

Labels: , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 9:49 AM  
John McCain's trophy wife
Four thoughts on the Palin selection:

First, how remarkable is it that with the first African-American on a major party ticket, this election turns out to be more about gender in the end, than about race? Hopefully, this election will prove that despite what the McCain team apparently thinks, women just aren't that gullible.

Second, John McCain's last-minute, hurried selection of Sarah Palin, after just one meeting and a single phone call, and without even bothering to conduct the thorough vetting he gave to more serious choices like Mitt Romney, Tom Ridge, Joe Lieberman or even Tim Pawlenty, says a lot about the role of age in this election. Clearly, McCain comes from a generation (and an ideology) that dismisses women as serious people. He seems to have decided that Palin fit the bullet points ("maverick + pro-life + female,) so it doesn't matter what she actually thinks about "big things" like Iraq (which turns out to be not much); the war on terror (who knows?), Russia, Georgia, Pakistan... or whether she even understands the job being offered to her. (Sounds a lot like the way he chose Cindy McCain: rich+prettier than current wife+lives where he could win a congressional seat...) Yesterday, as the roll-out was taking place, right wing radio hack Glenn Beck was actually gushing that one of Palin's qualifications is that "she's HOT!" I can almost hear McCain, disappointed that he couldn't get Lieberman on the ticket, saying, "Ok go with that Palin broad. She's a dame, just like Hillary's a dame, and the chicks will dig that."

Third, the Republican Party can never again accuse Democrats of playing identity politics. While the Democrats held a contest, and the African-American candidate won it fair and square by getting more votes than the other candidates and conducting a better campaign, Republicans have once again thrown a scantily qualified "demographic appointment" at the wall, hoping to curry favor with the associated group . George I did it (to disastrous effect) with Clarence Thomas, and here we go again with Sarah Palin. [Ironically, the one politician who at least had the decency to appoint qualified demographic candidates was George W. Bush, who appointed Collin Powell and Condi Rice for top jobs, though both have been disappointing. (Bush later tried to put Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court, but that was more of a Texas buddy thing than a pander...)]

Fourth: There's no longer a question of which presidential candidate makes careful judgments that put the country before political expediency. Barack Obama passed on the chance to make headlines by choosing Hilary Clinton, instead picking a man he thought would better help him govern, and who, like Hillary, could very much step in and become president if need be. As for McCain, by making such an unserious, pandering choice, who couldn't possibly be the person he feels is most qualified to step in should anything happen to him as a septugenarian, four-time cancer survivor president, John McCain has closed the door on the notion that he's fit to be president.

The Obama team should hit that theme every day between now and November.

Meanwhile, will Karl Rove eat his words?

Update: Yup yup? That's Palin's response to whether she's ready to be president???

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 9:39 AM  
Why we fight
While you were hunting wolf pups from an airplane ... Sarah Palin ... the Bush administration was seeking to recertify the "unitary executive"...
WASHINGTON — Tucked deep into a recent proposal from the Bush administration is a provision that has received almost no public attention, yet in many ways captures one of President Bush’s defining legacies: an affirmation that the United States is still at war with Al Qaeda.

Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Bush’s advisers assert that many Americans may have forgotten that. So they want Congress to say so and “acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans.”

The language, part of a proposal for hearing legal appeals from detainees at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, goes beyond political symbolism. Echoing a measure that Congress passed just days after the Sept. 11 attacks, it carries significant legal and public policy implications for Mr. Bush, and potentially his successor, to claim the imprimatur of Congress to use the tools of war, including detention, interrogation and surveillance, against the enemy, legal and political analysts say.

Some lawmakers are concerned that the administration’s effort to declare anew a war footing is an 11th-hour maneuver to re-establish its broad interpretation of the president’s wartime powers, even in the face of challenges from the Supreme Court and Congress.

The proposal is also the latest step that the administration, in its waning months, has taken to make permanent important aspects of its “long war” against terrorism. From a new wiretapping law approved by Congress to a rewriting of intelligence procedures and F.B.I. investigative techniques, the administration is moving to institutionalize by law, regulation or order a wide variety of antiterrorism tactics.

“This seems like a final push by the administration before they go out the door,” said Suzanne Spaulding, a former lawyer for the Central Intelligence Agency and an expert on national security law. The cumulative effect of the actions, Ms. Spaulding said, is to “put the onus on the next administration” — particularly a Barack Obama administration — to justify undoing what Mr. Bush has done. ..
So what would the new language mean, precisely?
Mr. Mukasey laid out the administration’s thinking in a July 21 speech to a conservative Washington policy institute in response to yet another rebuke on presidential powers by the Supreme Court: its ruling that prisoners at Guantánamo Bay , were entitled to habeas corpus rights to contest their detentions in court.

The administration wants Congress to set out a narrow framework for those prisoner appeals. But the administration’s six-point proposal goes further. It includes not only the broad proclamation of a continued “armed conflict with Al Qaeda,” but also the desire for Congress to “reaffirm that for the duration of the conflict the United States may detain as enemy combatants those who have engaged in hostilities or purposefully supported Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated organizations.”

That broad language hints at why Democrats, and some Republicans, worry about the consequences. It could, they say, provide the legal framework for Mr. Bush and his successor to assert once again the president’s broad interpretation of the commander in chief’s wartime powers, powers that Justice Department lawyers secretly used to justify the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects and the National Security Agency’s wiretapping of Americans without court orders. ...

Hopefully, even Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's accommodating Congress won't fall for it. Fool me once ...

And by the way, in case you missed this in the Times on June 8th:
WASHINGTON — A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.

In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance.

Mr. McCain believes that “neither the administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the A.C.L.U. and trial lawyers, understand were constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin wrote.

And if Mr. McCain is elected president, Mr. Holtz-Eakin added, he would do everything he could to prevent terrorist attacks, “including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.”

Although a spokesman for Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, denied that the senator’s views on surveillance and executive power had shifted, legal specialists said the letter contrasted with statements Mr. McCain previously made about the limits of presidential power. ...
A question that should be put to McCain in the debates: do you believe the president of the United States has the authority to supersede the law and wiretap Americans on U.S. soil? I'd love to hear his answer to that.

|

Labels: , , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 8:33 AM  
Friday, August 29, 2008
Palin's Israel/Florida problem
Obama Main Man Robert Wexler has called Palin a "far right, pro-life zealot," and he's hitting her hard for her past support of Pat Buchanan, which could spell trouble with Jewish voters, and that means trouble in Florida...

John McCain's decision to select a vice presidential running mate that endorsed Pat Buchanan for President in 2000 is a direct affront to all Jewish Americans. Pat Buchanan is a Nazi sympathizer with a uniquely atrocious record on Israel, even going as far as to denounce bringing former Nazi soldiers to justice and praising Adolf Hilter for his "great courage."

At a time when standing up for Israel's right to self-defense has never been more critical, John McCain has failed his first test of leadership and judgment by selecting a running mate who has aligned herself with a leading anti-Israel voice in American politics. It is frightening that John McCain would select someone one heartbeat away from the presidency who supported a man who embodies vitriolic anti-Israel sentiments.


Palin has tried to clarify, saying she wasn't actually a Buchananite. But nobody told the lovable (and I mean that) Pat, who lauded Palin as a fellow traveler on "Hardball" today:



Robert Wexler just got a major shot in the arm in rallying Palm Beach Jewish voters who may have been wavering on Barack.
|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 11:11 PM  
10 things the right likes about Sarah Palin
By picking Sarah Palin, John McCain has officially abandoned the Independent vote in favor of rallying George W. Bush's old base: evangelical Christians, pro-drilling oil company shills and Rush Limbaugh listeners. Ten reasons why they love her:

1. Doesn't believe in global warming.

2. Does believe in teaching creationism in schools.

3. Wants to drill, drill, DRILL!!! in ANWR.

4. Opposes federal protection for polar bears and sued the federal government to stop them from being on the endangered species list.

5. Lifetime NRA member who's into the aerial hunting of wolves, including wolf puppies.

6. Wants to ban abortion, even in cases of rape or incest (something that will energize the NARAL and Emily's List volunteers to defeat her and McCain in key states in November.)

7. Has a disabled child (downs syndrome) which is one of the ways pro-lifers sell her pro-life credentials (although there is some scuttle that it may not be her baby...)

8. She's old fashioned and traditional. As McCain's "apprentice," she'll stay in her place and not try to shine the way a Mitt Romney might have.

9. She's young, which gives the impression that there are people under age 60 still in the conservative movement, and that the movement still has the youthful vigor the Democratic Party clearly has these days. (And she allows the GOP to claim that see, they can make history, too...)

10. She is a blank slate on Iraq, which allows her to pivot to whatever message the right is selling day by day (but which is also really strange since she has a son about to be deployed there...)

From a media standpoint, Palin could also soften the media on McCain, especially female reporters. If you saw Campbell Brown take umbrage at Paul Begala's mention of Palin being a beauty queen tonight, or Andrea Mitchell's cautiously defensive coverage of her nomination, you know what I mean. And the McCain team clearly hopes Palin's female charm will prevent Joe Biden from going all out to attack her during their lone debate next month. He won't want to pull a Rick Lazio, and Team McCain hopes she's stymie him and the Obama communications team.

That said, none of the above qualities is going to help her close the gender gap, since most of her issue positions are an anathema to women. In fact, Palin looks to me like a time traveler from the 1950s, a woman so out of step with modern womanhood that I can't imagine anyone but the most wacked out PUMAs drifting to McCain because of her.


|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 10:28 PM  
ABC: Palin displaced Lieberman, not Romney
ABC News has the inside story on the Palin pick, and it seems she became the default choice after John McCain finally accepted that he could not push Lieberman through. (Apparently that's what was behind those Karl Rove calls, which now seem logically to have been orchestrated by his former lieutenant, Steve Schmidt.) From ABC's Political Radar:

ABC's Jan Crawford Greenburg reports: It wasn't until Sunday night that John McCain, after meeting with his four top advisers, finally decided he could not tap independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to be his running mate. One adviser, tasked with taking the temperature of the conservative base, had strongly made the case to McCain that it would be a disaster for the party and that the base would revolt. McCain concluded he could not go that route.

The next day, McCain studied the three men at the top of his shortlist: Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge. All had different strengths and negatives, but McCain was not satisfied. None of them had what McCain believed he needed to do -- and would have done -- with Lieberman.

McCain wanted to shake up the ticket.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's name was in the mix as an unconventional choice for months, but she had not been considered a front-runner. So, over the next few days, with McCain continuing to believe he needed someone who had more of a maverick streak than his other choices, lawyers reviewed her vetting information. They kept their activities from even some in McCain's most senior inner circle.

Apparently, Pawlenty was seen as young enough, but too "safe." And Romney appears not to have been a serious contender in the end. No wonder both men's people are miffed. So after flying Palin in for a single, secret meeting, McCain apprently decided he was comfortable, she was maverick enough, and damnit, he liked her. And there she goes.


|

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 10:19 PM  
'What is it exactly that the VP does every day?'

The Moderate Voice asks, who exactly vetted Sarah Palin? And uncovers some oddities in her pro-life pregnancy story that are worthy of "Desperate Housewives..."

…the oldest girl is rumored to have actually been the one who had the last baby, the one with Down’s Syndrome. She was taken out of school the last 4 or 5 months of her mother’s pregnancy.

On March 5th, 2008 Alaska’s Republican Governor, Sarah Palin, announced to the media that she was 7 months pregnant with her 5th child. She is currently 44.

Palin’s daughter Bristol is 16 and attends an Anchorage high school. Students who have attended class with her report that she has been out of school for months, claiming a prolonged case of mono.

Palin does not appear pregnant in any recent photographs. The announcement came as quite a shock to people who had worked closely with her, and have been quoted as saying that she did not appear pregnant whatsoever during the prior 7 months.

Those kinds of questions about Palin will likely be more interesting to the blogosphere than to voters, especially women voters, who won't cotton to personal attacks on the Alaska governor. But women will be interested in knowing more about Palin's beliefs, which are far to the right of most women Independents, whom McCain needs in November. Two from Tapped:


Chris Hayes has a great find:

Very quickly. Remember when Pat Buchanan ran a number of hard-right, fringe campaigns for president in the late 1980s, 1990s and 2000? Well, guess who was supporting him:

From an AP report in 1999:

"Pat Buchanan brought his conservative message of a smaller government and an America First foreign policy to Fairbanks and Wasilla on Friday as he continued a campaign swing through Alaska. Buchanan's strong message championing states rights resonated with the roughly 85 people gathered for an Interior Republican luncheon in Fairbanks. … Among those sporting Buchanan buttons were Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin and state Sen. Jerry Ward, R-Anchorage."

And Palin's story about rejecting the "bridge to nowhere?" Not so much:

It seems to be totally untrue that, as Sarah Palin claimed in her speech in Dayton earlier today, she opposed the "Bridge to Nowhere." Rather, after federal funding was cut off, she decided not to replace it with state funds. There's no indication that she opposed the federal earmark.

In fact, Palin supported the bridge, and pushed for Alaska's congressional delegation to get it done. From the New Republic:

Republicans have been heavily touting Sarah Palin's reformist credentials, with her supposed opposition to Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" as Exhibit A. But how hard did she really fight the project? Not very, it seems. Here's what she told the Anchorage Daily News on October 22, 2006, during the race for the governor's seat (via Nexis):

5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?

Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

So she was very much for the bridge and insisted that Alaska had to act quickly—the party of Ted Stevens and Don Young might soon lose its majority, after all. By that point, the project was endangered for reasons that had nothing to do with Palin—the bridge had become a national laughingstock, Congress had stripped away the offending earmark, shifting the money back to the state's general fund, and future federal support seemed unlikely.

And as for the quote that headlines this post? Politico explains (hat tip to The Moderate Voice):

In an interview just a month ago, she dissed the job, saying it didn’t seem “productive.”

In fact, she said she didn’t know what the vice president does.

Larry Kudlow of CNBC’s “Kudlow & Co.” asked her about the possibility of becoming McCain's ticket mate. Palin replied: “As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?

In this campaign? She babysits the evangelical right. That's the principal reason for the Palin pick -- she'll pump up the old evangelical Bush base to work for McCain, something they wouldn't otherwise do. And she'll make die-hard PUMAs feel comfortable voting for McCain (despite both of their views.) The question is, do those constituencies add up to 50 percent. Signs point to no, but we'll see.



|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 10:01 PM  
McCain's celebrity hunt ... Sarah hearts Jesus ... and Mitt's feeling used
It strikes me that John McCain wants so badly to bask in the glow of celebrity and popularity, he went out and got himself a beauty queen.

See Sarah's childhood and beauty queen pictures! Peep her Vogue spread ... doesn't that mean Sarah is ... a celebrity...? And by proximity, I think John McCain hopes to become one, too. His jealousy of the adulation Obama receives couldn't be more evident than it is today.

But what might really be behind the McCain choice, in addition to a push for disgruntled Hillary women, is a last ditch effort to ignite the evangelical base who helped George W. Bush on the ground, and who wouldn't have warmed much to Mormon Mitt Romney. McCain currently has no ground game, and needs their help. Pro-life zealot, PTA mom, one step behind McCain Sarah fits the bill. On this front, his pick may pay off.

Meanwhile, the Pawlenty and Romney camps are feeling a lot like John McCain's first wife: used up and thrown away for a prettier girl.


|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 2:48 PM  
Sarah Palin: scandal tested, Stevens approved
Here's Sarah's endorsement by indicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens:



And here's a local CBS affiliate's report on her Troopergate scandal:



Meanwhile there's lots of good info on Palin over at Talking Points Memo.


|

Labels: ,

posted by JReid @ 2:33 PM  
Experience, shmecksperience!
A bit more about Sarah Palin, who by the way appears to have Mitt Romney's hair but Dan Quayle's qualifications. GOPers like to tag Obama as inexperienced, and "just a community organizer." But Palin was the mayor of a small city in Alaska, and she's only been governor since 2006. This is experience that belongs a heartbeat away from the red phone, when the president ... dare I say ... is close enough to death to smell it's nostril hairs?

From the in-box, the Obama camp had this to say:
"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same," said Adrianne Marsh, Obama Campaign Spokeswoman.
Then they has second thoughts and released this revised statement:
"We send our congratulations to Governor Sarah Palin and her family on her designation as the republican nominee for Vice President. It is yet another encouraging sign that old barriers are falling in our politics. While we obviously have differences over how best to lead this country forward Governor Palin is an admirable person and will add a compelling new voice to this campaign."
While veteran political strategist Jim Jordan had this to say to Politico:
"After his attacks on Obama's readiness for the job, it'll be amusing to hear a 71-year-old with a history of health problems justify this decision."

"She's a talent, but that's the end of the experience message from John McCain."
But it's just the beginning of a long, uncomfortable story about Palin. Even the right wing Associated Press wrote the following about her earlier this month:
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Gov. Sarah Palin, a rising young GOP star mentioned as a possible running mate for John McCain, could see her clean-hands reputation damaged by a growing furor over whether she tried to get her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper.

A legislative panel has launched a $100,000 investigation to determine if Palin dismissed Alaska's public safety commissioner because he would not fire the trooper, Mike Wooten. Wooten went through a messy divorce from Palin's sister.

Palin has denied the commissioner's dismissal had anything to do with her former brother-in-law. And she denied orchestrating the dozens of telephone calls made by her husband and members of her administration to Wooten's bosses.

Palin said she welcomes the investigation: "Hold me accountable."

Still, the allegations she abused her office could prove embarrassing for Palin, who got elected in 2006 on an ethics reform platform.

So what is it that the former beauty queen was mixed up in? Office politics run amok:

Palin's problems started a month ago when she fired Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, saying she wanted the department to go in a new direction.

Monegan has said he does not know why he was fired. But he said pressure to get rid of Wooten had come from those around Palin, including her husband, Todd; her former chief of staff; and other top officials.

In 2005, before Palin ran for office, the Palin family accused Wooten of drinking a beer while in his patrol car, illegal hunting and firing a Taser at his 11-year-old stepson. The Palins also claimed Wooten threatened to kill Sarah Palin's father.

Wooten was suspended over the allegations for five days in 2006 but is still on the job. Monegan refused to comment on Wooten's situation, saying he could not discuss personnel matters.

More recently, Todd Palin said, he took his concerns over the governor's safety directly to Monegan. But he said he never told anyone to fire Wooten.

Wooten has refused to comment.

Attorney General Talis Colberg's conducted an investigation and found that 14 members of the Palin administration — including Colberg himself — made calls to Department of Public Safety officials about Wooten.

In one of those calls, Frank Bailey, director boards and commissions, was tape-recorded as saying: "Todd and Sarah are scratching their heads, why on earth hasn't, why is this guy still representing the department?"

On Wednesday, Palin said none of the two dozen or so calls were made at her direction.

It's not exactly Ted Stevens, but it isn't the way you want to start off your bus tour.

MSNBC's political operation sums up the Palin pros and cons:
This was a bold move in this historic election, and a play for those Clinton supporters. Palin is a social conservative, and her views on abortion won't play well with most Democratic women. But this election has been a case study in identity politics. We'll see if she peels away some women.

The potential to grab some of those women voters is perhaps the best asset Palin brings to a McCain ticket. She also reinforces McCain's maverick image. She bucked her own party, launching an ethics investigation into the state party chairman with regard to his dealings with oil companies in the state. And being from Alaska, she's the ultimate outsider. She also also reinforces McCain's drilling message -- though she's for drilling in ANWR; McCain is not. She also represents the next generation of Republican leaders -- she's a fresh face.

... Although she's not linked to them, Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young are facing legal/ethical troubles. In fact, Stevens' trial will start in late September, so the Alaska Republican Party is a mess. And Palin's trooper trouble could play into that.

It will be interesting to see which story line catches on: "Palin, the reformer/maverick", or "Palin, under investigation?"
Scroll down past the profile to read an interesting back and forth on the Palin pick here. It's hard to tell whether the women cheering her were going to vote for McCain regardless, though I suspect so. The challenge for Obama will be to keep women over 50 in the fold. Check it out.




|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 2:02 PM  
Huh???
John McCain says "damn the torpedoes!" He torpedoes the Mittster and picks this lady:

Well, who the hell is that, you say? Why, it's just hinted at for the first time this week, one-term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin! Oh just call Ted Stevens. He'll explain...

Is it just me, or does it seem like the McCain team simply wandered through the halls of the Pepsi Center looking for the first PUMA who looked halfway put together to offer the veep spot to?

Meanwhile,

The right wing radio hacks are right on board. Glenn Beck got his talking points bright and early this morning and began shilling for the ticket in exhuberant fashion. He even went so far as to call Palin "hot." Now that'll close the gender gap... Rush is holding forth now, extolling Palin and daring Democrats to attack her. Ditto O'Reilly, who just had a Hillary delegate on, who first told the Factor she "leaned Obama" and then announced that she's "McCain all the way..." uh-huh...

You've got to figure that this happened because the McCain team pannicked, and decided they needed drama more than they needed Romney's 3-Ms (Money, Mormons (in swing state Colorado) and Michigan, where his father was a popular governor.) Romney would have been the expected pick, but not at all sexy. And then there's his fourth "M" -- Mansions. After McCain's 8-10 houses gaffe, that boat had a significant leak in it. Either way, the Mittster got bumped, as did the seminally dull Tim Pawlenty (sorry RedState.)

And there you go. McCain will shift his campaign theme on a dime, "Obama hates America," to "hey ladies, look over here!" The McCain camp is banking on their being literally millions of female Hillary supporters who were in it only to see a woman in the White House, not specifically Hillary. That's a risky gamble. And Palin doesn't exactly cut the profile most women voters tend to gravitate to. She's hardcore anti-choice, and she's into ... um ... the aerial hunting of wolves and bears. How to sell that to Jane America? Actually, with that voice and bun in her hair, she kind of reminds me of that supervisor in my past jobs that I just freaking hated, you know what I mean?

Bottom line: the McCain pick was made from a weak position. They were clearly spooked by the McMansions thing, and by the convention, Democratic unity, and the Obama speech. The decision to throw Mitt overboard for a woman nobody knows, who has a scandal bag to uncover, and who undercuts McCain's "experience" argument seems like a hell of a chance to take just to score some PUMAs.

Cross-posted at Diamond John McCain.


|

Labels: , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 1:43 PM  
Congratulations, America
Let it not be lost in the short attention span news cycle. America just nominated a black man to lead one of its parties in the presidential election, fulfilling King's and Bobby Kennedy's dreams. As Chris Matthews so rightly said last night, damn the critics, this was a great week for America. A great week for our history, and for all of us, in both parties. It's not about Barack. It's about us.

And now for the sprint.

|

Labels: , ,

posted by JReid @ 8:47 AM  
RedState foiled again?

Ben and Eric at RedState say their "sources" say Tim Pawlenty will be John McCain's new sidekick (can you be the sidekick of a sidekick...?) And they're urging the faithful to prepare to absorb the talking points.

Well not so fast...

MSNBC is reporting that Pawlenty is not the one. And Pawlenty told a radio station he won't even be in Dayton.

Chuck Todd is reporting that Mitt Romney won't be in Dayton (not even as a seat filler...) By the way, I think that if it isn't Romney, then THAT is political malpractice on McCain's part. Maybe the combined 13 houses pushed Romney into "risk" territory for McCain's message, but you've got to wonder why the GOPer would pick an unkonwn governor with no national profile and no "wow" factor (and a very recent mullet) as his veep rather than the Mittster, who brings a high profile (Olympics), executive experience (even if in Massachusetts), good debating skills, and as close as you're going to get to national star power for the moribund GOP. Romney brings the Mormon cash, and help in Michigan and Colorado. Hello? Maybe Mac was scared of the Youtubes of Mitt bashing him during the primary...

Well since I have been predicting Romney for months, why not just RedState myself into an even tighter corner, by predicting who it won't be:

It won't be Charlie Crist. He's gay, you know. Don't let the "fiancee" fool you. And how would THAT look during a convention in the land of Wide Stance?

It won't be Bobby Jindal. The GOP convention is being held on the anniversary week of Hurricane Katrina's devastating aftermath. And Jindal has other things to do, with Gustav bearing down.

It won't be Kay Bailey Hutchinson. She just about ruled herself out on MSNBC yesterday, and word on the street is that she and McCain don't get along (yeah, you and everybody else in the Senate except Joementum and Miss Lindsay...)

It won't be Sarah Palin. Like most of the women on the list, she comes off as a straight pander to Hillaryites. But here's the problem: there aren't enough PUMAs out there to make a difference. Their numbers have been inflated by the media, who love the storyline. And the ones who do exist are for the most part, already Republicans (or in New York and California, where they won't make a difference.) And Palin is that one-term governor from a state McCain is already carrying that I spoke of earlier. Her lack of experience makes Obama look like FDR in his third term...

It won't be Carly Fiorina. One word: Viagra.

That leaves Pawlenty, Tom Ridge, Joe Lieberman, Meg Whitman and the Mittster. And of these, MSNBC claims they've ruled out Pawlenty and Romney.

Meg has money galore, but she's untested in debates and has zilch to offer on national security. She doesn't pass the "ready to step in and be president if the geezer croaks" test. If McCain picks her, it's a straight up pander and gamble for national attention. (And there's that Ted Stevens problem.)

Ridge could help in PA, and McCain would probably just as soon pick him, but I find it hard to imagine McCain being able to sell pro-choice Ridge to this particular GOP. And his ties to the Bush administration would strengthen Obama's message about McCain being more of the same.

That means Lieberman won't fly either. Can you imagine McCain trying to get Lieberman nominated at a convention that's already going to be testy and boring? We're talking bourgeois riot, here.

McCain could pull a rabbit out of his hat, if he somehow convinced David Petraeus to run with him. But somehow I doubt it. Why would he risk a sure thing at CENTCOM to roll the dice with 2008's Bob Dole?

Which brings us back to the Hair. And if not the Hair, then who? I still think there's an outside chance they're pulling subterfuge with the Romney travel schedule, and that he will still be the guy.

Whatever the answer, it's clear that McCain's team has succeeded in its real aim: turning attention abruptly away from the Obama speech last night, and from the Democratic convention generally, onto the One Who Will Not Be Ignored: John McCain.


|

Labels: , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 8:11 AM  
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Obama delivers

This headline says it all:

GOP Considers Delaying Convention

Okay, that's mostly about the hurricane (we think.) But there was another hurricane tonight. Tonight, Barack Obama made history, accepting his party's nomination for president, and he did so in soaring fashion. He cold cocked both the Bush administration and John McCain, saying the so-called Maverick "doesn't get it" on the economy, lacks judgment given his 90 percent suppor for Bush (he said we can't take a "ten percent chance on change..." is making the election about "small things," and is all Bushian tough talk, but no substance. The killer line of the night: "John McCain says he'll chase Bin Laden to the gates of Hell but he won't even follow him to the cave he sleeps in." And he put McCain's temperament on the table, while throwing down the following gauntlet: "I've got news for you, John McCain: we ALL put our country first." (Read the speech here.)

The McCain campaign's response suggests he left them nowhere to go.
"Tonight, Americans witnessed a misleading speech that was so fundamentally at odds with the meager record of Barack Obama. When the temple comes down, the fireworks end, and the words are over, the facts remain: Senator Obama still has no record of bipartisanship, still opposes offshore drilling, still voted to raise taxes on those making just $42,000 per year, and still voted against funds for American troops in harm's way. The fact remains: Barack Obama is still not ready to be president."
Uh, okay...

The reviews on MSNBC are glowing. Keith O and Chris Matthews were effusive in their praise, which is not surprising. The real surprise is Pat Buchanan. He just called the sppech the greatest convention speech he has heard in more than 20 years. He said the speech "went right at the heart of America" and called it "deeply centrist."

I would hate to be in charge of staging the GOP convention. How to top the staging, the music, the level of interest and excitement as a pure television event ... and how in God's name does John McCain match a speech like the one we saw tonight?

Maybe he has some trick up his sleeve, but I don't see how he pulls it off.

Here's Barack's ending, with a send-up to MLK:

You know, this country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that's not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that's not what keeps the world coming to our shores.

Instead, it is that American spirit, that American promise, that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.

That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night and a promise that you make to yours, a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west, a promise that led workers to picket lines and women to reach for the ballot.

(APPLAUSE) And it is that promise that, 45 years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

(APPLAUSE)

The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustrations of so many dreams deferred.

But what the people heard instead -- people of every creed and color, from every walk of life -- is that, in America, our destiny is inextricably linked, that together our dreams can be one.

"We cannot walk alone," the preacher cried. "And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."

America, we cannot turn back...

(APPLAUSE)

... not with so much work to be done; not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for; not with an economy to fix, and cities to rebuild, and farms to save; not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend.

America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone.

At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise, that American promise, and in the words of scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.

Indeed.




|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 11:40 PM  
McCain's other ad
The McCain campaign cleverly grabbed some attention today with a one day, positive ad congratulating Barack Obama on getting the nomination of his party and making history. So how to explain the "HANG" ad, fellas? From RawStory:
A McCain ad aired on Fox News channel with the words "HANG" in the background along with a photograph of Barack Obama has sparked outrage after being noticed by a reporter at a local Fox television affiliate.

The words "HIGHER TAXES" are transposed on an image of Obama standing in front of a crowd. The background is blurred at the edges so that the words from Obama's signature theme -- change -- has been cut down to the word "HANG." The shot appears for about a second. ...

... Asked about the image, the McCain camp said, "We're not even validating such an outrageous and preposterous claim with a comment."

Strikingly, the image of Obama with the word hang in the background is blurred far more heavily on the side where the C would have been, suggesting the decision was intentional. The company that produced the ad refused to comment when the local Fox affiliate inquired.

|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 9:47 PM  
McCain blinks
MSNBC just reported that John McCain will not leak his veep pick tonight after all... I guess they saw the overhead tracking cam ...

|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 9:44 PM  
Wanted: Seat fillers for McCain rally in Dayton
In an interview with Lil' Rus (Luke Russert,) on MSNBC, Will.I.Am just battered the McCain team for their jealousy over Barack Obama's ability to pull a 75,000 strong crowd in Denver (and around the country), and he pointed out the obvious fact that "celebrity isn't a bad word." This after his and John Legend's terrific performance reprising the "Yes We Can" Youtube video. (MSNBC previews the speech here.)

Meanwhile, over in Dayton, John McCain is having a wee bit of trouble filling the 10,000 seats for his veep launch tomorrow in Ohio. From The Left:
John “9 Homes” McCain is having trouble filling a tiny 10,000 seat arena at Wright State University’s Nutter Center in Fairborn, OH (a Dayton suburb.)

The Old Coot and Cindy Lou will appear at the event, dubbed the “Road to the Convention Rally.” Doors open at 9 a.m. and the event begins at 11AM. Tickets are being given away at county GOP offices in southwest Ohio and in Indiana and Kentucky.

And the Dayton Daily News says tickets are still available. As one of Tae Goddard's commenters helpfully suggests, maybe he should change his name to Barack Obama...


|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 7:44 PM  
McCain to Obama: Congratulations, terrorist sympathiizing country hater!
The McCain plan pulls a switcheroo and issues a response ad that turns out to be the first positive McCain ad of the campaign, and probably the last, congratulating Obama on his achievement.



Smart politics, Rovers, although given the ads that have come before and that are sure to follow, it's tough not to read the ad cynically. By the way, the key line in the spot is "tomorrow we get back to the campaign." Meaning that, today it's all nicey-nicey, tomorrow McCain goes back to cutting Obama up.

Anyway, let's see if Bill Kristol can fake it that well tonight on Fox ... or let's not, and say we did. |

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 7:39 PM  
Shwing! Western polls favor Obama
Maybe the reason John McCain was so testy with TIME Magazine's reporters was that he'd read these polls:
An exclusive TIME/CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll reveals that Barack Obama leads John McCain by several percentage points in three crucial battleground states—Nevada, New Mexico and Pennsylvania—while McCain tops Obama by 1% in Colorado.

Obama's widest margin is in New Mexico, where 53% of registered voters said they prefer the Democrat to 40% who favor McCain. Obama also holds a five-point advantage in Nevada (49% to 44%). Both states went narrowly to George W. Bush in the 2004 election.

In Pennsylvania, Obama leads 48% to 43, while McCain topped Obama in Colorado 47% to 46%. In all state polls, the margin of error is plus-or-minus 4%.



|

Labels: , ,

posted by JReid @ 4:16 PM  
TIME discovers the real McCain
The love affair between John McCain and the suck-up press corps is hitting a rough patch. During a recent interview with TIME Magazine, Mr. POW nastily refused to define "honor," or to ask whether there's anything about his campaign he regrets...
... when TIME's James Carney and Michael Scherer were invited to the front of McCain's plane recently for an interview, they were ushered forward, past the curtain that now separates reporters from the candidate, past the sofa that was designed for his gabfests with the press and taken straight to the candidate's seat. McCain at first seemed happy enough to do the interview. But his mood quickly soured. The McCain on display in the 24-minute interview was prickly, at times abrasive, and determined not to stray off message. An excerpt:

What do you want voters to know coming out of the Republican Convention — about you, about your candidacy?
I'm prepared to be President of the United States, and I'll put my country first.

There's a theme that recurs in your books and your speeches, both about putting country first but also about honor. I wonder if you could define honor for us?
Read it in my books.

I've read your books.
No, I'm not going to define it.

But honor in politics?
I defined it in five books. Read my books.

During another exchange, McCain uses the Keating Five scandal to once again, play the POW card:

Jumping around a bit: in your books, you've talked about what it was like to go through the Keating Five experience, and you've been quoted as saying it was one of the worst experiences of your life. Someone else quoted you as saying it was even worse than being a POW ...
That's another one of those statements made 17 or 18 years ago which was out of the context of the conversation I was having. Of course the worst, the toughest experience of my life was being imprisoned, so people can pluck phrases from 17 or 18 years ago ...

I wasn't suggesting it as a negative thing. I was just saying that ...
I'm just suggesting it was taken out of context. I understand how comments are taken out of context from time to time. But obviously, the toughest time of my life, physically and [in] every other way, would be the time that I almost died in prison camp. And I think most Americans understand that.

The reporters seem genuinely shocked at the clipped, surly attitude McCain is copping with them. I guess falling out of love is no fun at all...

Read the rest here.

|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 4:06 PM  
Desperado
So tacky, so desperate for attention is the McCain campaign, so needy for a constant center spot on the stage, they are dropping hints all over town, and on Drudge, that the McMansions Man will leak his veep choice this evening, to try and step on Obama's historic acceptance speech tonight. And McCain will even drop precedent by issuing a response ad to Obama's address.

(UPDATE: team Obama calls the leak talk potential "political malpractice..." and they add: "It's one more piece of evidence that the McCain campaign is a war room masquerading as a presidential campaign." Indeed...)

It strikes me that the McCain campaign is full of people who aren't even good enough Americans to acknowledge the history being made to day, and the great things it says about our country, whether individual people support Barack or not. John McCain has damaged himself so much with this juvenile, nasty campaign, that if by some miracle of voter stupidity he manages to become president, he will have so cheapened the effort, and engendered so much hatred towards him, his presidency will have no chance of uniting the country. Sadly, his campaign has also made it difficult, if not impossible for Barack to do so either.

Okay John, we'll play with you (even though you creep me out...) I still think the odds favor Mitt Romney, although given the neediness of this campaign, and their jealousy over their man's fading celebrity status, I can see them blinking, and going for the long ball: a female running mate. Kay Bailey Hutchinson kind of fits the bill, but she's not "reliably pro-life" to my knowledge, and she's from a state McCain already has (Texas.) Besides, word is they can't stand each other (join the Senate club, Kay...) The other choice would be Meg Whitman (sorry Carly, but the Viagra thing killed your shot...) who's kind of a Mitt Romney in a dress, without the governing experience. Trouble with her: she's not ready to be president by McCain's own standards. So what to do with that? Lieberman? That would be McCain's pick if he could have it his way. But he's already been RickRoved on that one.

So it's back to Romney. (Pawlenty recently had a mullet. What would be the point?)


|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 3:41 PM  
August 29, 1963

Barack Obama will make his historic acceptance speech tonight against the backdrop of history: it was 45 years ago today that Dr. Martin Luther King publicly dreamed of a day when someone like Barack could stand at the precipice of becoming president of the United States. It's a heavy burden for Obama to bear, and he's doing it not just in front of 75,000 people at Mile High Stadium (sorry, like any true Bronco fan, I just can't call it Invesco Field...) but before the world.

Best of luck tonight, Barack.

The WaPo has advance info on the speech:

Obama, 47, a first-term senator from Illinois, is scheduled to address as many as 80,000 people in Denver's Invesco Field at Mile High football stadium and millions of television viewers starting at about 8 p.m. Mountain time (10 p.m. EST).

In the speech, which caps the four-day Democratic National Convention and opens Obama's campaign for the White House as his party's nominee, Obama will offer "a fundamentally new direction to get America back on track, both here and around the world," said David Plouffe, his campaign manager. Appearing on morning television talk shows, Plouffe said Obama would explain his plans for dealing with the economy, health care and education, as well as international challenges such as threats to the United States and strained relations with other countries.

Politico on the significance for African-Americans (by the way, my pal Sonja ran into Al Sharpton at the Pepsi Center yesterday. Needless to say, he has no role this year...)

In 1961, Robert F. Kennedy predicted that the country could elect a black president in the next 40 years. That’s how fast race relations were changing in America, said the attorney general at the time.

Now, 47 years later, Barack Obama stands at the precipice of fulfilling Kennedy’s forecast. On Thursday, he’ll become the first minority to win the presidential nomination, achieving what many thought was impossible given our national obsession with race.

To call this a historic moment feels like understatement. Obama’s nomination represents a sea change, a psychological shift in a country that still struggles with the painful and complicated legacy of slavery.

Fifty-five years ago, whites and blacks learned in separate schools, ate at separate lunch counters and sat in different parts of the bus. Forty-one years ago, Massachusetts elected the first black man to the Senate. Just 18 years ago, Virginia welcomed the first black governor.

And on Thursday, a black man will step up to the podium and accept the nomination of a party that only 44 years ago debated whether to seat black delegates from Mississippi at the 1964 convention.

... and the reactions of black officials:

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.)

“A few days ago, I was speaking to a group, and one young lady asked me, ‘What do you think Dr. King would say about Barack Obama’s nomination?’ I said, ‘Young lady, I don’t know, but I have a feeling he would look down and say, ‘Hallelujah.’”

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.)

“I think my most emotional moment came the night of South Dakota and Montana. ... I was thinking about all those times I was telling people, ‘Be what you want to be when you grow up’ and, hell, I didn’t believe it. ... It’s a big moment and, with these sorts of things, you usually don’t expect to see the day.”

Meanwhile, damn the TV pundits, Biden's getting great reviews for his speech yesterday (including from me.) His everyman thing is real, and people are talking.



|

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 12:53 PM  
Edited to death?
Critics of the relatively soft touch of the Democratic convention (at least until tonight) have been asking, "where's the red meat?" As I posited to my husband tonight, it could be that the Obama communications team is dampening the speeches, so as not to savage McCain. Call it the Obama influence, or a fool's errand, but that's what's going on.

|

Labels: , ,

posted by JReid @ 12:46 AM  
McCain's auspicious day
Over to the other bloghouse for a look at John McCain's veepinations... (and Karl Rove's role in them...)

|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 12:44 AM  
He's still got it
After about a five minute ovation, which he practically had to beg to a close, Bill Clinton put on a clinic tonight on how you break down the opposition, and lay out the issues at stake in an election. He went way off the reservation, delivering a "foreign policy" speech that was about two-thirds about the economy. But he did it damned well. Coupled with Hillary's performance yesterday, it's safe to say that the Clintons are in fine political form. Great job. (And did you peep the Kendrick Meek star turn, introducing Big Bill? I see a big job at the Clinton Foundation in somebody's future...)


Meanwhile, I disagree with the pundits who are saying that Joe Biden's less than soaring delivery of a solid speech is a problem. Biden is the regular guy in this equation. He's not supposed to deliver soaring rhetoric. He's supposed to deliver punches.

Other than that, I could have done without the excessive references to what a great guy John McCain is, from many of the speakers last night and tonight (including both Clintons, Biden and John Kerry, who otherwise delivered the reddest meat of the night, complete with calling Republican attacks "desperate" and "pathetic." He also introduced Barack's white uncle. Take it in, Pat Buchanan, it's not too late to get on board...) Apparently, the Obama communications team still believes they can win this election without going nuclear on John McCain. They shouldn't expect the same courtesy next week, when the Republicans hold their Wide Stance convention in Minneapolis.

Also, I get the feeling that Barack Obama will bring change... the talking points were in full effect.

Best line of the night: "Wrap him up!" Keith Olbermann chasing GOP hack Mike Murphy off the panel. (Par for the snipy course, MSNBC? Or Olbermann's revenge...)

Most inspiring moment: the roll call that made Obama the nominee by acclamation earlier in the evening. My pal Sonja was in the convention hall tonight. I await the pics in my camera phone...

Links:



|

Labels: , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 12:11 AM  
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Great at the end
I was troubled by the first several minutes of Hillary's speech, but the second half was great. She was uplifting, uptempo, and forceful, and at long last, she made the central point: that if her supporters were in this for more than just her, they should vote for Barack. She also characterized John McCain and GWB well, stating that "nothing less than the fate of our country hangs in the balance." Best lines: the "keep going" riffs via Harriet Tubman. Nice. Overall, best speech performance Hillary has ever given, and in the end, she did what she needed to do.

My main caveat would be that Hillary's entire presentation tonight may do more to make her supporters -- particulalry older women -- long for her than not. Not that she should have phoned it in, but the video, the rockstar entrance, the whole thing ... it was like a mini-convention of her own. Perhaps that was the point.

I'd like to see an interview with a PUMA now. That would be interesting...


|

Labels: , ,

posted by JReid @ 11:14 PM  
But enough about you...
So far, Hillary Clinton's speech is all about her campaign. But for a sole, tangential reference to her support for Barack, it sounds for all the world like a reprise of her campaign exit speech. WTF???

|

Labels: , ,

posted by JReid @ 10:53 PM  
Bill Clinton's AA BFFs
Bill Clinton just sucked up considerable oxygen in the Pepsi Center, it seems. Just caught him on CNN walking in to take his seat for HRC's speech, warmly greeting several African-American supporters. And guess who's sitting with the prez? Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas and Miami's own Kendrick Meek, two of Hil's strongest supporters during the primary (along with the late Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Philly mayor Michael Nutter.) Kendrick traveled the country with Bill, and Jackson Lee was a frequent Hillary surrogate. Also in the FOB box: one of my former bosses, Ellen Malcolm of Emily's List, who also was in charge of America Coming Together. Bill and Kendrick and another black guy are yucking it up and apparently having a great time. Clinton even held up a "unity" sign for a hot minute before getting into a really close, close discussion with a redhead... Interesting...

UPDATE: 10:40 - They just played the Hillary tribute video, which raised her to rockstar levels. The video is so good, it's sure to make her supporters even more depressed.

UPDATE: 1045 - Chelsea, who narrated the video, just introduced her mom, to a rollicking rock track and thunderous cheers. Jeez, it's almost as if SHE is the nominee... Bill is crying. Oh my god, this is so weird, I almost feel like I'm watching a convention in the Twilight Zone...

UPDATE 10:46 - one minute of sollid cheers and counting...

UPDATE (final, August 28) - the guy sitting between Meek and Big Bill was Stephanie Tubbs Jones' son.



|

Labels: , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 10:22 PM  
The most important news you haven't heard today
Amid all the sturm und drang about the Clintons and whether or not they really, really support Barack Obama (and whether or not substantial numbers of Hillary's supporters are insane...) you probably missed this interesting piece of news. I know I did:

Gen. David Petraeus, top commander of coalition military forces in Iraq, recently sat down with Newsweek to do a “valedictory” interview before he takes up his new post as CENTCOM commander next month.

Newsweek reported that while Petraeus recognized that al-Qaeda in Iraq has been significantly diminished, he refused to say the terror group had been “defeated.” Moreover, Petraeus acknowledged that the recent successes in Iraq may have been possible without the surge:

Petraeus is careful not to credit all the progress to the surge of U.S. troops in 2007. The sea change came last year from a series of movements now known as the Awakening. […] So would the Sunni Awakening have succeeded without the surge? Possibly, he concedes.

That's going to be news to John McCain. I sure hope he doesn't start calling the general a traitor. He does that sort of thing, you know...

Petraeus' uncharacteristic demonstration of a hint of independence would be huge news, were it not for the fact that his actual boss -- President Bush, as to opposed to the guy who THINKS he's president ... and who ownes seven houses, some of them probably white -- has been taking increasing steps to inch slowly out of Iraq on his way out the door.


|

Labels: , ,

posted by JReid @ 8:24 PM  
Hillary's up to bat tonight
Let the amateur psychology begin...

|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 8:03 PM  
Team Obama calls for criminal probe of Ayers ad
The Obama campaign fights back against the lowest smear ad yet, from an "independent" organization tooooootally unrelated to the McCain campaign ... totally... demanding a criminal probe of the group, which is ostensibly a 501(C)4, and thus not legally allowed to call for the election or defeat of federal candidates. They've also issued a response ad.

|

Labels: , , , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 11:53 AM  
Marlon in Denver
Follow the action in Denver with my friend Marlon Hill, a key Barack supporter in Miami.

|

Labels: ,

posted by JReid @ 11:51 AM  
Monday, August 25, 2008
Miss America
Michelle Obama's speech at the convention was lovely, as was she. Is it just me, or does Michelle look kind of like a Miss America contestant? Maybe it's the hair... or maybe its the steeped in the goodness of America lyricism of the speech. (Hey, even Pat Buchanan liked it, and he and other MSNBCers are giving Malia and Sasha rave reviews for their precocious moments ... which as a parent myself, made me hold my breath in horror... other parents will know what I mean.) For black America, and black women, this was a "Huxtable" moment -- or the first time a black woman did win Miss America. Michelle Obama is walking through a milestone, and it's a beautiful thing.

And it sure was fun watching the Fox News anchors, including the nebbishy Bil Kristol and the utterly empty Chris Wallace, find things to pan all the way through the convention. The only thing Wallace found praiseworthy was Michelle's green dress. I await next week's love-fest in Minneapolis. The dramatic shift in coverage should give everybody at Fox whiplash...

More on the speech from the WaPo.

From the TV... Wallace, Chuck Todd and David Gergen said the night was largely wasted because there were no kitchen table promises. Some on the left, apparently included James Carville, are unhappy that nobody went after John McCain. Many Dems are expecting red meat, and starting tomorrow, I suspect they will be fed...



|

Labels: , ,

posted by JReid @ 11:30 PM  
Threat against Obama reported in Denver
Meanwhile, there was reportedly an incident in Denver involving white supremacists driving erratically, with guns and meth in the car, and possible threats against Barack.

After pulling over two men for allegedly driving erratically early Sunday morning, Aurora Police said they discovered two rifles, a bulletproof vest and the drug methamphetamine in the car. When authorities questioned the men about the findings, they pointed to another member of their alleged drug ring whom they say made a threat against Obama.

A witness interviewed in the case said one of suspects allegedly said the guns were to be used to kill the Illinois senator, but authorities do not believe the alleged threat put Obama in immediate danger.

When police when to a hotel to question the third individual, officers said he jumped from a window on one of the upper floors of the building in an attempt to evade police. Medical personnel have treated him for a broken ankle.

Authorities told ABC News the men had tattoos of white supremacist images.

One of the men has been identified as Tharin Robert Gartrell, but police have not named the other two men.




More on the threat from the CBS affiliate in Denver:
CBS4 has now learned at least four people are under arrest in connection with a possible plot to kill Barack Obama at his Thursday night acceptance speech in Denver. All are being held on either drug or weapons charges.

CBS4 Investigator Brian Maass reported one of the suspects told authorities they were "going to shoot Obama from a high vantage point using a ... rifle … sighted at 750 yards."

Law enforcement sources tell Maass that one of the suspects "was directly asked if they had come to Denver to kill Obama. He responded in the affirmative."

The story began emerging Sunday morning when Aurora police arrested 28-year-old Tharin Gartrell. He was driving a rented pickup truck in an erratic manner according to sources.

Sources told CBS4 police found two high-powered, scoped rifles in the car along with camouflage clothing, walkie-talkies, a bulletproof vest, a spotting scope, licenses in the names of other people and methamphetamine. One of the rifles is listed as stolen from Kansas.

Subsequently authorities went to the Cherry Creek Hotel to contact an associate of Gartrell's. But that man, who was wanted on numerous warrants, jumped out of a sixth floor hotel window. Law enforcement sources say the man broke an ankle in the fall and was captured moments later. Sources say he was wearing a ring with a swastika, and is thought to have ties to white supremacist organizations.

A third man -- an associate of Gartrell and the hotel jumper was also arrested. He told authorities that the two men "planned to kill Barack Obama at his acceptance speech."

That man, along with a woman, are also under arrest.
Jeez, I grew up near Aurora and not far from Cherry Creek. Spooky...


|

Labels: ,

posted by JReid @ 11:27 PM  
Kennedy being feted now



Senator Edward Kennedy, the only Kennedy brother to experience old age, is receiving his tribute at the Dem convention, in a film by the great Kevin Burns. I can't imagine anything more moving, or more deserved. Hopefully the video will be online soon.

UPDATE: I'm almost afraid to put up the AP link, for fear it's full of Fournier's GOP talking points. Click if you dare.

|

Labels: ,

posted by JReid @ 9:25 PM  
The Turncoat Diaries: Debra Bartoshevich
So who is Debra, the former Hillary supporter starring in John McCain's new ad, saying "it's okay!" and she's now voting for him?

For starters, Debra is he real first name; full name, Debra Bartoshevich. And she started eating up her 15 minutes well before now:
Local Democratic delegate: I'm voting for McCain
BY BRIDGET THORESON
Journal Times
Sunday, June 15, 2008 10:52 PM CDT

A local Democratic delegate is standing by her announcement that she will vote for Sen. John McCain in November.

Deb Bartoshevich of Waterford, Racine County’s lone Clinton delegate to the national convention, said she was surprised by the huge reaction given to her comment, which was reported on a newspaper Web site Friday.

“I just didn’t expect it to be like this,” Bartoshevich said. “It’s been nonstop.”

A dramatic response came from the Wisconsin Democratic Party on Friday night, when state party members voted at their convention to challenge her status as a delegate to the Denver convention in late August, when Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is expected to get the party’s presidential nomination.

The resolution said Bartoshevich violated a Democratic National Committee rule requiring delegates to support the party’s nominee and not any other candidate, and asked the national party’s credentials committee to refuse to seat her at the convention.

If the move is approved, Democratic aides said she would be replaced by an alternate who already had been elected.

“It’s extremely important that we send a message that Democrats in the state of Wisconsin will never support somebody who supports John McCain for president,” state party chairman Joe Wineke said to cheers among the hundreds of party activists.

Bartoshevich, who was unable to attend the state convention, read that party members had voted to strip her of her status. She has been contacted by attorneys specializing in political law looking into whether that could happen, she said.

“Understandably, there are people that are upset with me,” Bartoshevich said. “I had thought that Hillary was the better candidate, but everybody’s entitled to their own opinion.”

Bartoshevich said she continues to support Clinton, who she will vote for at the convention.
By the end of July, Debra was taking advantage of her new public profile to snag a meeting with McCain:

RACINE, Wis. (AP) — Republican John McCain had coffee Thursday with a former Wisconsin Democratic Party delegate who wanted to vote for him at her party's national convention instead of Barack Obama.

McCain met Debra Bartoshevich, her 16-year-old daughter and Bartoshevich's father at a Racine coffee shop before heading to the city's civic center where about 1,000 people attended a town hall meeting. Bartoshevich and her family rode to the meeting on McCain's bus and were introduced by the candidate.

McCain thanked Bartoshevich for her support, calling her a "dye-in-the-wool Democrat."

"And perhaps your reward will be in heaven, but not here on earth but I'd like to thank you," he joked.

Bartoshevich, an emergency room nurse, had pledged to support Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton. But after Clinton lost the Democratic Party primary to Obama, Bartoshevich said she intended to vote for McCain instead.

The state Democratic Party dumped her as a delegate last week.

Now, she's come full circle, with her very own TV spot. And on Sunday, Debra kicked her status up another notch, hob-nobbing with people on McCain's veep short-list:

DENVER, Aug. 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- RNC Victory Chairman Carly
Fiorina
, Former Democratic U.S. Rep. Tim Penny (MN-01), Wisconsin Hillary
Clinton delegate Debra Bartoshevich, and Women for Fair Politics organizer
Cynthia Ruccia will host a "Citizens for McCain" press conference tomorrow
during the Democratic National Convention to discuss why many Independent
and Democratic voters are supporting John McCain's positive vision for America.

...Not that she's a social climber or anything...



|

Labels: , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 3:17 PM  
Mining the turncoats
You knew this was coming, and it's one of the reasons so many people hated the scorched earth campaign Hillary waged during the primaries:



The question is, will Hillary Clinton supporters be the Naderites of 2008? And will they soon be hated by Democrats as much as Joe Lieberman?

UPDATE: Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, herself a Hillary die-hard, responds:
“This ad does not reflect the sentiment of the thousands of former Clinton supporters from my Congressional District who have embraced Barack Obama’s message of uniting Americans and getting the country back on track.

“Cheap political stunts like this ad show that John McCain is offering more of the same: four more years of failed Bush policies and a record of supporting George Bush 95% of the time and losing track of how many houses he owns.

“Hillary Clinton supporters are embracing Barack Obama and Joe Biden because they know they will bring a tax code that gives real relief to working families, a serious plan to tackle the energy crisis and help you cope with rising prices, and an end to the kind of political game too often on display at McCain headquarters.

“The Democrats I talk to are supporting Barack Obama and Joe Biden because they’ll end the political games of Washington and provide real tax relief for working families, address the energy crisis and restore America’s respect abroad.”

More turncoatery here, and here (et tu, Rodham...?)

|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 12:28 PM  
Griff Jenkins in the sauce
A Fox News reporter gets the business in Denver:




|

Labels: ,

posted by JReid @ 12:26 PM  
Convention live-blogging by FPC
The Florida Progressive Bloggers Coalition has continual updates from Denver. It seems the Florida delegation has seats right up front, to go along with their shiny new full voting rights...

Meanwhile, Fla Politics has today's sunshiny must-reads.

More good stuff at TPM Election Central, and of course, at Politico.

|

Labels: ,

posted by JReid @ 11:53 AM  
Defede out, too ... Radio One in the crapper
If you still don't believe that radio is on the ropes, with syndication sucking the wind out of local content, and bad management killing what should be solid niche radio companies, peep these two headlines (written by me, by the way, don't blame the media outlets...)

Headline number one:

Jim Defede dealt same fate as his former producer (only he gets requests a parachute)

Just days after we learned that former "Jim Defede Show" producer Nicole Sandler was out as the morning show bench warmer at Miami's 940 WINZ (Sandler, who is not, to my knowledge, a talk radio host, inherited the mic after P.D. Ken Charles bumped Defede last year,) and Don Imus was IN (listened to him this morning. He's still in rare form...) her former boss is given heave-ho number two, this time by struggling -- and I mean STRUGGLING, radio outfit 850 AM, owned by the fiscally challenged James Crystal Radio Group. AllAccess reporteth:
JAMES CRYSTAL RADIO Talk WFTL-A/FORT LAUDERDALE-WEST PALM BEACH afternoon host JIM DEFEDE has disappeared from the station's website and appears to have exited the station.

DEFEDE, a former columnist for the MIAMI HERALD who continues as a commentator for CBS O&O WFOR-TV (CBS 4)/MIAMI, joined WFTL for 4-7p weekdays in 2007 after being let go at CLEAR CHANNEL Talk WINZ-A/MIAMI; his bio has been erased from the WFTL website and the station's programming lineup dhows 4-7p as "To Be Announced."

In an e-mail to blog RANDOM PIXELS, DEFEDE said that "Unfortunately I never meshed with the rest of the station so rather than continue working there, I asked them to buy me out of the remaining 14 months of my contract. We were able to reach a deal this week and my time at WFTL is now over. Leaving WFTL will free me up to do even more with CBS4 News. I wish the folks at WFTL all the best."
Fourteen months pay??? I've really got to get an agent...

***UPDATE: A source close to the Defede situation stresses that when it comes to parachutes, asking and receiving are two very different things, and only confirmable once you pull the rip cord, seen? ... Developing...

Headline number two!

Radio One's balance sheet sucks ... but it isn't the only one

The real AllAccess headline is about Spanish Broadcasting System become the third radio group to receive a warning from NASDAQ that they could soon be de-listed, because their stock has fallen below a buck. Well ... hellooooo, Mr. Schadenfreude:
RADIO ONE received the same notice. The LANHAM, MD-based media company has also not maintained a minimum market value of publicly held shares as required for continued inclusion by NASDAQ. RADIO ONE has not traded above $1 per share recently, and closed on THURSDAY (8/14) 7 cents below a dollar, at 93 cents a share.
You do realize that Radio One had, and fired, Steve Harvey from their L.A. station just before he blew up nationwide (then they sold the LA station at a major loss...) they turned down the HIT Michael Baisden Show ... and they scrapped their national black talk radio network just two months before Barack Obama, the first African-American major party nominee, won the Iowa caucuses ... right? (ahem...) Oh, and the board recently voted to give owner Kathy Hughes a raise...

You've got to love radio!

|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 11:15 AM  
Surprise, surprise...
Bill Kristol endorses his fellow neocon traveler, Joe Lieberman, for McCain's v.p.



|

Labels: , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 8:48 AM  
Sunday, August 24, 2008
You knew this was coming...


It's not unexpected, but I still have yet to see a single ad telling voters why they should vote FOR John McCain...



|

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 12:41 PM  
This year's swing states: Colorado, Ohio and Florida
Looking at the electoral map, which is always less satisfying, but more realistic, than looking at national polls, and eliminating the political white whales (state each party always says they can win, but probably can't,) I get down to three truly "swing" states: Florida, Colorado and Ohio.

Why?

Because based on the following assumptions, Barack Obama must win one of these three in order to be the next president.

Assumptions:

1. New Jersey is NOT a swing state, it's a GOP "white whale." Ignore what Republicans say about the New York neighbor. It's going Democrat, until some cosmic event changes the demographics and drives all those New York suburb seekers elsewhere.

2. Pennsylvania will go Dem. Another white whale. Philly is just too large, and now with Scranton boy Joe Biden on the ticket (his nickname is the "third Senator from Pennsylvania,) this state is going Democrat, too.

3. Iowa is lost to the GOP. Obama's... well ... pandering ... on the ethanol issue combined with his super-organization there, which helped him defeat Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, along with the consistent polling in his favor, means Iowa will very likely go blue.

4. Michigan is yet another "white whale." Kwame Kilpatrick will probably be driven out of office by November, easing racial tensions in Detroit. And at the end of the day, the huge black population in that state, combined with scads of college aged residents, and the economic issues (trade being issue number one, and McCain being on the wrong side of it,) means Michigan will go blue, even if Mitt Romney is on the McCain ticket.

5. New Hampshire will likely go blue. New Hampshire has been a blue state as far as the presidential race is concerned, since 1992, with 2000 being the anomoly (that year, John McCain excited enough Republican-leaning independents during the primary that he probably helped Bush in the general.) I don't see this state going back to its GOP trend. Not given what's gone on in Washington over the last eight years.

6. Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia are probably Democratic "white whales." Although I wouldn't count out the Obama ground game, these states are going to be tough to win. The South always is. This is the assumption I'm probably the least confident in, since there is a chance the Obama operation could put at least one of these states in his column. But if he can't, we're back to my big three.

7. Nevada is going to be tough. Yes, it's a heavy union state, but Nevada is also the neighbor of Arizona, which McCain should be able to win. These states share a media market, and Dems will have to pull off a miracle to win.

8. New Mexico will go blue. It was almost by accident (or cheating) that GWB won New Mexico last time, and he did so by just over 5,000 votes. This state is so winnable that if Obama can't grab it, he should punch Bill Richardson in the face.


If all of those assumptions hold, and full disclosure, I hope that some of them don't, namely 6 and 7,) then Barack Obama has three solid scenarios to get over 270: he must win either Colorado, or grab one of the tried and true decider states, Florida or Ohio. If he loses the other two and wins one, he wins. Applying all of my assumptions, and putting the remaining states in their perspective columns, here's my math:

With Florida (but without CO and OH):
Obama - 291
McCain - 247

With Ohio (but without CO and FL):
Obama - 284
McCain - 254

With Colorado (but without OH and FL)
Obama - 273
McCain - 265

I tend to have low confidence in Florida, but the 2000 race showed that there are enough votes here to elect a Democrat. Ditto Ohio, which Kerry lost by only 100,000 or so votes (and Obama's ground team should be able to scare up at least that many.) And as for Colorado, it should be winnable for Barack, as it has been trending blue in recent cycles (the legislature and a brand new Senator included.)

I guess I'm in a pessimistic mood today, but that's what I see. Let's see if the convention changes the game at all.

Play the electoral math game yourself at 270towin.com, or head over to FiveThirtyEight.com for more state by state analysis.

By the way, 270towin gives Democrats 281 winning combinations and a 77 percent chance of winning the White House versus 228 winning combinations and a 20 percent chance of our being stuck with a President McCain. I pray they're correct. 270 puts Missouri in the toss-up category, which it probably should be since Dems just won a longshot Senate race there. In fact, any state where Democrats won statewide in 2006 is being counted as a toss-up, which is why Virginia (which is as proximal to Democratic Washington and Maryland as New Jersey is to New York) is also considered "in play." The question for Democrats is whether white voters pour out for McCain in the end, spooked by the relentless negative ads from the McCain side.

We shall see...

Oh, and by the way, if Barack loses all three of my swing states but wins Nevada? We've got ourselves a 269-269 tie. How's that for heartburn?


|

Labels: , ,

posted by JReid @ 11:40 AM  
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Things that aren't going to happen: Collin Powell as McCain v.p.
How desperate for attention is the McCain campaign? So desperate, they're floating their own black guy (take that, liberal media...! Can somebody get Fournier on the line...? We've got fresh talking points for him...)
(Politico) Retired Gen. Colin Powell is among the potential running mates who have been considered by John McCain, campaign advisers told Politico.

Powell was among the possible vice presidential choices the Arizona Republican senator was thinking of when he said he would not rule out a supporter of abortion rights, a key adviser said.

Campaign officials say McCain has told them not to discuss the process.

Powell, who was President Bush's first secretary of state, would add celebrity to the ticket, as well as reinforce McCain's strength as a potential commander in chief, which his campaign considers to be one of his chief assets.
Nice of you to play along, Politico's Mike Allen, but you've got to know that this is a non-starter. Let me count the ways:

1. Colin Powell is from the Bush administration. You remember the Bush administration, right? The one that John McCain is trying his damnedest to run away from?

2. Colin Powell is pro-choice. We've seen this movie before. It's called "Rush Limbaugh and the Christian Taliban Shoot Down Ridge and Lieberman." The idea of nominating Powell, given the rabidness of the right on the abortion issue, is so preposterous, it makes me question the sanity of the McCain campaign if they are indeed floating this trial balloon. (Powell is also pro-affirmative action. See above, and insert "affirmative action" everywhere I typed "abortion.")

3. It's not even clear that Colin Powell supports John McCain. In fact, many in Washington believe he will either remain neutral, or endorse Barack Obama.

4. Collin Powell has lost his religion on Iraq. Powell, who has the dubious distinction in history of having sold the bogus Bush administration intel on Iraq to the world, has called his U.N. testimony "a lasting blot on his record." You really think McCain wants clips of either Powell's phony-baloney testimony, or his retractions and regrets aired repeatedly between now and November? I think not. And with Joe Lieberman and Randy Scheunemann hanging around, there is clearly no room for dissenters on the Neocon Express. Besides, it's now a known fact that Powell hates the neocons who dragged his reputation into the ditch to get their Iraq war. Why would he even think about serving with the same crowd again?

This strikes me as pure media manipulation, which Allen sadly fell for. Collin Powell will no more be on McCain's short list than Phil Gramm. Besides, McCain doesn't need to double down on the Iraq war. He's running on an all-war, all the time platform as it is. Powell would be surperfluous, not to mention unacceptable to the GOP Taliban, not to mention very likely not interested.

|

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 11:39 PM  
The Associated Press: the Fox News of wire services?
The Washington Monthly has the latest on the adventures of would-be McCain campaign staffer Ron Fournier, who happens to be the Washington Bureau chief for the Associated Press...
The latest piece from Ron Fournier, the AP's Washington bureau chief and the man responsible for directing the wire service's coverage of the presidential campaign, on Joe Biden joining the Democratic ticket, is drawing a fair amount of attention this morning. More importantly, McCain campaign staffers are pushing it fairly aggressively to other reporters, in large part because it mirrors the Republican line with minimal variation.

By choosing Biden, Fournier argues, Barack Obama is showing a "lack of confidence," and is siding with "the status quo."

There are two ways to consider Fournier's piece: substantively and in the broader context.

First, on the substance, Fournier's analysis seems a little lazy. By his logic, any potential running mate shows a "lack of confidence" -- picking Hillary would mean Obama lacked confidence in his ability to win over women voters; picking Bayh would mean Obama lacked confidence in his ability to win over independents and conservative Dems; picking Webb would mean Obama lacked confidence in his ability to win over voters concerned about national security; picking Kaine would mean Obama lacked confidence in his ability to win over voters in the South; etc. For that matter, "the status quo" in Washington has been conservative Republican rule. Biden may be an old pro and a DC insider, but he's anything but "the status quo."

Second, in context, Fournier's objectivity covering the presidential race continues to look shaky. We are, after all, talking about a journalist who, as recently as last year, considered working for the McCain campaign.

Fournier is also a buddy of Karl Rove, and exchanged emails with him recently, telling him to "keep up the fight..." he's also the guy who handed Mac a box of donuts during a media briefing earlier this year (with sprinkles.) Media Matters' Eric Boehlert has documented the AP's "Fournier problem," but so far, nothing has been done about it. Quite the contrary, Fournier has filled the Washington bureau with fellow travelers.

The Clintons made a lot of hay during the campaign about challenging the objectivity of news outlets, mostly to negative effect, for them. But in this case, Democrats have a real case to make that the most ubiquitous institution in news, the AP, has developed a strong right-wing/Republican bias in the bureau that matters most: Washington. How else do you explain a Fournier dispatch like this:

A dispatch Fournier filed in 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina began: “The Iraqi insurgency is in its last throes. The economy is booming. Anybody who leaks a CIA agent's identity will be fired. Add another piece of White House rhetoric that doesn't match the public's view of reality: Help is on the way, Gulf Coast.”

Somebody call Howard Dean. Or the Obama campaign. There's something rotten at the AP and it's time someone in a position to do so stepped up and said something about it.

More blog reaction here.

Join Moveon's email campaign here. Or here's the shorthand:

Can you email AP reporter Ron Fournier and CC his boss, Managing Editor Mike Oreskes? Tell them that the public's faith in the 160-year-old AP will be gone if Ron Fournier is allowed to continue his slanted articles against Democrats and for McCain.

Here are their emails:

Michael Oreskes, AP Managing Editor, mOreskes@ap.org
Ron Fournier, AP reporter and Washington D.C. Bureau Chief, rfournier@ap.org

After you email them, please help us track our progress by reporting your email here:
http://pol.moveon.org/call?cp_id=797&tg=508.532



|

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 11:07 PM  
Republicans behaving unhelpfully
I don't care what any Democrat says. I still love Chuck Hagel.

He's not speaking at the Democratic convention and he hasn't (yet) endorsed, but Chuck Hagel continues to provide great fodder for Dems.

His paper statement on the Biden pick:

"Joe Biden is the right partner for Barack Obama. His many years of distinguished service to America, his seasoned judgment and his vast experience in foreign policy and national security will match up well with the unique challenges of the 21st Century. An Obama-Biden ticket is a very impressive and strong team. Biden’s selection is good news for Obama and America."
You GO, Hagel. I love Biden and have since 1988, but I would have been thrilled to see Hagel as the veep, as well. Moving on: let's hear what Indiana Republican Dick Lugar has to say:
"I congratulate Senator Barack Obama on his selection of my friend, Senator Joe Biden, to be his vice-presidential running mate. I have enjoyed for many years the opportunity to work with Joe Biden to bring strong bipartisan support to United States foreign policy."
Okay, let's go for a third: Arlen Specter? You're up:
Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, a Republican who serves on the Judiciary Committee with Biden and often rides Amtrak with him to Washington, also offered praise. "No one on the Democratic side knows more about foreign policy than Sen. Biden," Specter said. "He's been an articulate spokesman on the subject. He also knows about domestic policy. He's been a leader on crime control."


I wonder if they get to keep their GOP mugs...

|

Labels: , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 2:32 PM  
The trouble with context
The McCain campaign rushed out an online attack ad, hoping to capitalize on a comment Joe Biden made during the primaries about Barack Obama not being ready to be president. Also included in the spot was a quote wherein Biden says that he would be happy to run "with" John McCain, and that the country would be better off for it. Well ... here's the problem... (courtesy of Insomnia):
The full quote is from The Daily Show, August 2, 2005:

-------------------------------

John Stewart: “You may end up going against a Senate
collegue, Perhaps McCain, perhaps Frist…”

Joe Biden: “Well, John McCain is a personal friend, a
great friend, and I would be honored to run with or
against John McCain, because I think the country would
be better off, it would be well off no matter who.”

John Stewart: “Did I hear you say ‘with’?”

Joe Biden: “You know, um, John McCain and I think
that…”

John Stewart: “Don’t become cottage cheese my friend,
say it!”

Joe Biden: “Yes, I hope John… I wanted John to run
with John Kerry the last time out, and I asked him to
do it.”
So the McCain camp is passing around a video that deals with McCain's flirtation with becoming a Democrat. Nice. Someone tell Rush Limbaugh, he'll love it.

But wait, there's more. When asked about his flirtation with being John Kerry's running mate by NYT reporter Elizabeth Bumiller, McCain got really hot under the collar:



Maybe that should go into the Obama response video, too... (and why ARE you so angry, John?)
|

Labels: , , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 1:27 PM  
Why the media 'vetting' may turn off middle America, and help Obama-Biden
The ticket: so fresh and so clean

The media has already begun searching for bad news in the Obama Biden pick. And what many are settling on are his gaffes, joking about Indian-Americans owning 7-11s and Obama being "articulate."

Well maybe we should take a poll. How many Americans have made a joke about Indians in the 7-11? Probably more than a few. Probably a hell of a lot more, and not just white people. If that and the fact that he talks too much is the best the media can do to try and take down Joe Biden as Obama's v.p., then the MSM is going to turn off a lot of middle America (not to mention Matt Groening)...

Did I mention that Obama and Biden are making their debut in Springfield...?

Meanwhile, sure, the "articulate, bright and clean" comment was dumb, but again, being lauded as "articulate" is something that anyone who is black and educated in America has heard over and over again from white people who genuinely believe they're giving us a compliment ("my goodness, you're soooo articulate!") So why would white Amerca suddenly turn on Biden for saying it? And watching Rush "little black man child" Limbaugh and Hannity attack Biden as racist is going to be as fun as anything I've experienced.

And they're going to have a tough time taking down Biden, who is one of Washington's most experienced and respected hands, and a guy with one hell of a personal story, including the tragedy of losing his first wife and infant daughter:
In 1966, while in law school, Biden married Neilia Hunter. They had three children, Joseph R. "Beau" Biden III, Robert Hunter, and Naomi.

His wife and infant daughter died in a car accident shortly after he was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972. His two young sons, Beau and Hunter, were seriously injured in the accident, but both eventually made full recoveries. Biden was sworn into office from their bedside. Persuaded not to resign in order to care for them, Biden began the practice of commuting an hour and a half each day on the train from his home in the Wilmington suburbs to Washington, DC, which he continues to do.

In 1977, Biden married Jill Tracy Jacobs. They have one daughter, Ashley, and are members of the Roman Catholic Church. In February 1988, Biden was hospitalized for two brain aneurysms which kept him from the Senate for seven months.

Biden's elder son, Beau, was a partner in the Wilmington law firm of Bifferato, Gentilotti, Biden & Balick, LLC and was elected Attorney General of Delaware in 2006. He is a captain in the Delaware Army National Guard, where he serves in the Judge Advocate General's (JAG) Corps. He is set to be deployed to Iraq in October. Biden's younger son, Hunter, works as a lawyer in Washington, DC, serves on the board of directors of Amtrak, and previously worked in the Commerce Department.

Since 1991, Biden has also served as an adjunct professor at the Widener University School of Law, where he teaches a seminar on constitutional law.
Needless to say, I like the Biden pick. And here's my choice for the campaign's new theme song.

|

Labels: , , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 12:46 PM  
It's 3 a.m. ...
Whoever the "high ranking Democrat" who leaked the Biden veep news to the Associated Press is, they had better keep their identity deep, deep under cover. They have got to be the most hated person in Obama world. A few more hours and Team Obama could have pulled off the announcement coup of the century, simultaneously texting millions of supporters and possibly even having Chuck Todd find out on the air at the same time as their volunteers. Instead, the leaker ensured that the old media got the scoop first, and the Obama camp had to rush the announcement, sending out a text message that I got at 3:32 a.m. It read:
"Barack has chosen Senator Joe Biden to be our VP nominee. Watch the first Obama-Biden rally live at 3 pm ET on www.BarackObama.com. Spread the word!"
The good news for the Obama campaign is that they did keep the media talking about something other than McCain's "celebrity surge" for a solid week, and they kept the news from leaking longer than anyone thought possible. In retrospect, it might have been better to drop the news on Friday, to take full advantage of the news cycle, and to not push their luck on leaks, but there you go. The millions of new email addresses and cell phone numbers they collected, which will be hella useful at Get Out The Vote time, were well worth the leak.




|

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 12:27 PM  
Leaking news: It's Obama-Biden
That's the ticket: Obama reportedly taps Joe Biden as veep

A Democratic official is leaking all over the Obama campaign's carefully crafted text message announcement. Apparently, I and lots of other prognosticators were correct -- Joe Biden is the pick -- unless we've all been Rick-rolled...

The McCain camp's response suggests the theme of their coming attacks:
There has been no harsher critic of Barack Obama's lack of experience than Joe Biden. Biden has denounced Barack Obama's poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing -- that Barack Obama is not ready to be President."
-- McCain spokesman Ben Porritt
Yeah, good luck with that. But it does suggest that Team McCain has no clear line of sight on Biden himself. He is a very respected figure, whom it would be hard even for a complete traitorous hack like Joe Lieberman to attack.

Overall: I'm thrilled with the pick. Biden was my secret favorite of all the candidates because he's knowledgeable, direct, down-to-earth and funny. Had Barack not been in the race, he was my second choice (Hillary third.) Biden was by far the best choice for Obama, and he'll fit right into the attack role, though he has had the odd bad performance...

BTW, two of the runners up, Tim Kaine and Kathleen Sebelius, are apparently booked on the Sunday shows. Biden, I suspect will get a TV walk-around, too.

Last but not least, on to the Pubs: I'm also on the line for Romney, so hopefully the McMansion story won't put McCain off him 'cuz he's too rich...

|

Labels: , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 2:24 AM  
Friday, August 22, 2008
Things fall apart
Could the McMansions flap scuttle John McCain's plans to name Mitt Romney, the single richest candidate to run for president this cycle, as his running mate? Would this multi-million dollar ticket look like a scene out of Oliver Twist, given that even some conservatives have noticed how tilted McCain's tax plans are toward the very wealthy ... like himself and his wife?

Already, McCain's team is having to come to grips with the fact that given their candidate's houses comment, it's going to be tough going forward, to paint the skinny kid from a single parent household whose mom was on food stamps and who went to college on student loans (McCain went on the taxpayer's dime, though he opposed the same opportunities for today's veterans...) as the elitist in the race.

Add Romney to the picture, and you get to do fun things like go back through the net worth rankings from the primaries:

Republicans (millions) Democrats (millions)
Mitt Romney - $202 - Full Review Hilary Clinton - $34.9 - Full Review
Rudolph Giuliani - $52.2 - Full Review Barrack Obama - $1.3 - Full Review
Fred Thompson - $8.1 - Full Review John Edwards - $54.7 - Full Review
John McCain - $40.4 - Full Review

... revealing that even during primary season, Barack Obama was -- and stil is -- the poor man in the race. Since then (last December,) Obama's average net worth (over 12 months) has been revised down to $799,000, versus $36.4 million for McCain (not counting his wife's $100 million inheritance, which is sealed away from him via pre-nup.) Add Romney's $200- or even $250 million fortune, and these guys aren't even playing in the same league.

Meanwhile, Byron York misses the plot.


|

Labels: , , , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 10:47 PM  
The secret life of Eldon Smith
John McCain has always been funny about admitting to the wealth he married into. When he first ran for Congress, and was accused of being a carpetbagger who "venue shopped" for a state and Congressional district where his war record would get him "the prize," as Mac likes to say, he responded by obfuscating, and even taking on a fictitious name so he could spruce up his and Cindy's new half million dollar crib on the down low...

In 1986, when then-Rep. McCain was running for the Senate seat vacated by Barry Goldwater, he quietly began remodeling a $500,000 house in central Phoenix owned by his wealthy father-in-law James Hensley. The $225,000 project -- which included the construction of a 4,000-square-foot addition, swimming pool, jacuzzi, cabana and barbecue -- held political peril for McCain, who was already fighting charges that he was as an opportunistic carpertbagger.

The new house was located in Phoenix's fourth congressional district -- outside of the first district in Tempe which he represented at the time.

AP caught wind of the work at 7110 North Central Ave. shortly before the general election and dispatched a reporter to examine blueprints at the planning department. They found the permit applicants were listed as Hensley and a mysterious "Mr. Smith."

The reporter tracked down McCain's plumber, who told him he'd been told Mr. Smith's first name was "Eldon."

Eldon Smith, it turned out, was John McCain.

When confronted with the blueprints, McCain's spokeswoman didn't deny that the renovation was being done for McCain and his wife Cindy -- and suggested that Smith was Cindy's mother's maiden name. She didn't explain why Marguerite Hensley might have been listed as "Mr. Smith."

Later, McCain released a statement attributing the choice of Smith's name to his architect. Use of the alias didn't violate the law, he claimed, because it appeared only on blueprints and not on official permits.

... Alas, local planning experts didn't quite agree.

Fast forward to 2007, when the media caught wind of what would soon become clear: John McCain has a problem remembering how many houses he has ... and even what kind of car he drives...

More at DiamondJohnMcCain.

|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 9:54 PM  
Can you go to hell for lying about Mother Theresa?
I may have to consult some Catholic friends on this, since I haven't been Catholic since I was like, six. At the Huffpo, Mark Nickolas explores the "evolving" story about just who promoted Cindy to bring home those two Bangladeshi orphans, a story McCain exploited so well with the, I think deliberate, help of Pastor Rick Warren last week.

|

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 9:43 PM  
A noun, a verb, and POW
Finally, the punditocracy has started to notice just how often John McCain plays the POW to get out of gaffes, political scrapes or all-around unpleasantness, usually of his own making. His press aide's frickin tirade about Obama living in a frickin mansion, and that John McCain is no pointy headed intellectual and besides, he spent FIVE YEARS IN THE HANOI HILTON SO SHUT UP!!!!

It's not just McCain. Sean Hannity threw down the POW gauntlet to try and excuse McCain cheating on his first wife then dumping her for Cindy as morally superior to John Edwards cheating on his wife but not dumping her for Rielle (Hannity's giant, kick-ball shaped head nearly exploded all over poor whats-his-name Colmes...)

And McCain's surrogates fling the POW card down every time their man is in a jam, (remember how they clam baked Wes Clark for stating the obvious (and how the media went along?) And the McCain camp even invoked the specter of Vietnam to stop the media from questioning why he wasn't in the "cone of silence" during Obama's portion of the Rick Warren debate.) When it was his turn at Saddleback, McCain drew for the Vietnam anecdote about half a dozen times, to the point that by the time he got to the "cross in the sand" made-up story, my eyes were all the way in the back of my head.

Now, people are finally talking.

Josh Marshall finds some of them, including Howard Fineman. The Huffpo features another.

VetVoice reminds McCain that there are many vets out there who have zero homes.

And another retired general, Lt. Gen. Robert Gard of Veterans for Obama makes it plain:

It's time for the Senator to stop cheapening the war experiences of thousands of vets and his fellow POWs, and his own as well, by stretching the boundaries of logic to make his POW status a wild-card rebuttal to all accusations or an answer to all difficult questions.

We are veterans who like John McCain, who served honorably, but and we continue to serve our country honorably by not using our military experiences as unjustifiable necessary shields or stepping stones. John McCain has faced and will continue to face many difficult questions that he does not have an answer for, and problems to which that he will provide no solutions to, in the 70 days between now and the election. When he uses his status as a veteran to deflect legitimate questions and concerns, it devalues not just his service to our country but ours as well.

So today, we ask not as Veterans for Obama, but as Veterans of America that Sen. McCain respect the service of his fellow POWs and combat veterans, and stop cheapening their service by hiding behind his own.

Awaiting the hysterical fricken overreaction from another frickin McCain press aide...

|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 9:00 PM  
It's a date! ... and a timetable...
The U.S. has agreed to withdraw its combat forces from Iraq by 2011, roughly the timetable laid out by Barack Obama. The Washington Post reports:
Iraqi and U.S. officials said several difficult issues remain, including whether U.S. troops will be subject to Iraqi law if accused of committing crimes. But the officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were unauthorized to discuss the agreement publicly, said key elements of a timetable for troop withdrawal once resisted by President Bush had been reached.

"We have a text," Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said after a day-long visit Thursday by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Rice and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki spent nearly three hours here discussing key undecided issues. The accord must be completed and approved by both governments before a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.

The question of immunity for U.S. troops and Defense Department personnel from Iraqi legal jurisdiction -- demanded by Washington and rejected by Baghdad -- remained unresolved. Troop immunity, one U.S. official said, "is the red line for us." Officials said they were still discussing language that would make the distinction between on- and off-duty activities, with provisions allowing for some measure of Iraqi legal jurisdiction over soldiers accused of committing crimes while off-duty.

But negotiators made progress on a specific timetable outlining the departure of U.S. forces from Iraq, something Maliki is under considerable domestic political pressure to secure. In the past, Rice and other U.S. officials have spoken of an "aspirational time horizon" that would make withdrawals contingent on the continuation of improved security conditions and the capabilities of Iraqi security forces.

Officials on both sides have said they hope to split the difference, setting next year as the goal for Iraqi forces to take the lead in security operations in all 18 provinces, including Baghdad.

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have now also agreed to a conditions-based withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by the end of 2011, a date further in the future than the Iraqis initially wanted. The deal would leave tens of thousands of U.S. troops inside Iraq in supporting roles, such as military trainers, for an unspecified time. According to the U.S. military, there are 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, most of whom are playing a combat role.
The U.S. has lost 4,137 troops in Iraq, and 573 in Afghanistan. Another 32,940 have been wounded in action. 


|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 5:58 PM  
Chet Edwards doesn't get you Texas
The AP says 9-term Texas Congressman Chet Edwards, a Nancy Pelosi favorite, is on the short-short list. While that's nice for Nancy, and Edwards does chair a veterans committee, I'm not sure what he brings to the table, and he's an unknown quantity in a debate. I still am going with Biden as the pick. Said as much on the radio today, so hopefully I won't have to eat crow come Monday!

Just to be thorough, a bit more on Edwards:

Among his credentials, Edwards is chairman of the House Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee. His district previously included Fort Hood, and the Waco Democrat is frequently pressed into service as a surrogate for the party on military issues.

Potential liabilities include Edwards vote in favor of the war in Iraq, which may not sit well with the party's liberal base. He is a low-profile member of Congress, whose selection may not give Obama's ever-tightening race against Republican John McCain the immediate boost the party is looking for.

Edwards is a native of Corpus Christi and graduate of Texas A&M University and Harvard Business School. His Central Texas congressional district includes President Bush's Crawford ranch.

Edwards has some seeming advantages: he endorsed Obama way back in February, he's a southern while male, which apparently is important to getting a Democrat into the White House, and he's a centrist (although the NRO folks point out he'd be a heartbeat away from reversing most of Obama's policies, and he voted for the war in Iraq ... then again, so did Biden...) He's also a good looking guy who would match up well with Obama, if he's not really short. I mean, he actually looks like a Chet, based on his Congressional pic. And from his official bio, more fuel for why Chet may be on fire, as it were...

As the Chairman of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, Congressman Edwards is known as a national champion for America’s veterans, troops, and their families. In 2007, he authored the largest increase in veterans funding in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration, an $11.8 billion increase. American Legion National Commander Marty Conatser called Edwards’ record VA Appropriations bill, “a monumental achievement.” This year, both the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars recognized Congressman Edwards’ leadership with their national awards given to only one member of Congress. In 2007, he was awarded the Disabled American Veterans' “Going to Bat for Veterans” award for authoring the historic VA funding increases. Working with Speaker Pelosi in 2005, Congressman Edwards introduced the GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century, which dramatically improved veterans’ health care and benefits, and covered the full cost of a college education. Edwards then received the Military Order of the Purple Heart’s "Inspirational Leadership" award in 2005. In 2008, Chairman Edwards played a key role in enacting the new GI Bill of Rights into law.

Nancy, you scamp... BTW Edwards is a Baptist, which doesn't help with the Catholic gap... And I'm not sure the Democrats would want to chance losing his seat (he has a challenger) when every vote counts to keep a strong majority in the House. I'd be surprised if he's the pick, and as I said before, I remain bullish on Biden, but hey, anything can happen...



|

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 5:12 PM  
Guess who's coming to breakfast?
I just got it on good authority that starting Monday morning at 5 a.m., Don Imus will be the morning show on 940 WINZ... Nicole Sandler, who has been "holding down the fort" since P.D. Ken Charles ousted Jim Defede (Sandler was Defede's producer), was the promotions director at one point, maybe she goes back to that...

Personally, I didn't enjoy Nicole's show and found myself choosing sports talk instead (or silence ... or a CD...) But I hate to see anyone lose a gig.

Meanwhile, word on the street is that at least three names you definitely would know are no longer going to be on the air at NBC 6, which was sold to the Washington Post Company...

Tough times are afoot in the media biz, folks! Consolidation and syndication are the name of the game, and that's death for local radio and TV.


|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 2:52 PM  
Check out the new blog: Diamond John McCain
Here you go! It's brand new, so be gentle! Anyone interested in contributing, please drop me an email.


|

Labels: ,

posted by JReid @ 1:12 AM  
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Guess what else is 'on the table'...?
The John McCain campaign chose to go bat crap crazy after the Obama campaign capitalized on El Richbo's colossal gaffe, telling a Politico reporter that he'd have to have his staff get back to him regarding how many homes McCain owns. Now, they're threatening to put "everything" on the table, from Rezko to Rev. Wright, a sure sign in politics that they fear the line of attack that McCain is the elitist in the race will work.

Tonight on the final "Verdict" (and I'm sorry the show is going, btw...) Republican talking point peddler (he's actually a nice guy, but geez... enough with the hackery, man...) Rev. Joe Watkins floated the trial balloon that not only is Rezko "on the table," Obama is "attacking John McCain's wife," because in fact it's Cindy who owns the 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 homes they've got.

Really? Do you really want to go there? Because if you do, I've got questions:
  • If John McCain left his first wife for Cindy, when did they start dating? While he was still good and married to wife #1. (Somebody call Rick Warren... and the National Enquirer!)
  • If John McCain doesn't own the homes, why is that? Because Cindy is a $100 million heiress who was damned sure not gonna marry a social climbing pol without an ironclad prenup.
  • If John McCain is a social climbing pol with a super rich wife, a pre-nup, and access to so many homes he can't remember them, what else is he forgetting? That Cindy also brought to the marriage a fortuitous introduction to a Mr. Keating.
And by the way, if John McCain wants to go Rezko, let's take his Rezko and raise him a Diamond. Per Crooks and Liars back in April:
When considering John McCain’s history of unethical behavior, the list usually starts (and ends) with the Keating Five scandal in the 1980s, for which McCain was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for having shown, at a minimum, poor judgment. In the aftermath, McCain helped improve his public image, and bury the scandal, by becoming an advocate of campaign-finance reform.

But the notion that McCain cleaned up his act may not be entirely true. Take, for example, Donald Diamond, a wealthy Arizona real estate developer and generous McCain contributor, who wanted some coastal land in California freed up by an Army base closing.

When Mr. Diamond wanted to buy land at the base, Fort Ord, Mr. McCain assigned an aide who set up a meeting at the Pentagon and later stepped in again to help speed up the sale, according to people involved and a deposition Mr. Diamond gave for a related lawsuit. When he appealed to a nearby city for the right to develop other property at the former base, Mr. Diamond submitted Mr. McCain’s endorsement as “a close personal friend.”

Writing to officials in the city, Seaside, Calif., the senator said, “You will find him as honorable and committed as I have.”

Courting local officials and potential partners, Mr. Diamond’s team promised that he could “help get through some of the red tape in dealing with the Department of the Army” because Mr. Diamond “has been very active with Senator McCain,” a partner said in a deposition.

For Mr. McCain, the Arizona Republican who has staked two presidential campaigns on pledges to avoid even the appearance of dispensing an official favor for a donor, Mr. Diamond is the kind of friend who can pose a test.

Ya think? The closer one looks at this, the worse it appears.

In California, the McCain aide’s assistance with the Army helped Mr. Diamond complete a purchase in 1999 that he soon turned over for a $20 million profit. And Mr. McCain’s letter of recommendation reinforced Mr. Diamond’s selling point about his McCain connections as he pursued — and won in 2005 — a potentially much more lucrative deal to develop a resort hotel and luxury housing.

In Arizona, Mr. McCain has helped Mr. Diamond with matters as small as forwarding a complaint in a regulatory skirmish over the endangered pygmy owl, and as large as introducing legislation remapping public lands. In 1991 and 1994, Mr. McCain sponsored two laws sought by Mr. Diamond that resulted in providing him millions of dollars and thousands of acres in exchange for adding some of his properties to national parks. The Arizona senator co-sponsored a third similar bill now before the Senate. […]

For the California projects, the campaign said the McCain aide arranged the introduction to an Army official for Mr. Diamond’s team as “a constituent matter.”

Other things that are now "on the table":
  • John McCain's use of former mistress/current wife Cindy's corporate jets for his campaign...
  • John McCain's rejection of an MLK holiday (you want to play Rev. Wright clips? Take two doses of that next week during the 40th anniversary of the March on Washington. Hey, John, maybe you can consult your personal wise man John Lewis for advice on a response...
You know what, bat-crap crazy McCain communication staffers? Turns out it really is fun putting things on the table. Thanks!

Oh, and welcome to the come-uppance, Diamond John. And yes, yes, I know you're a former POW, okay?

Previous:

|

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 10:39 PM  
Look, over there! A timetable!
The U.S. and Iraqi governments are negotiating ... somebody hold John McCain down for a minute, will you? Thanks ... a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. But the Guardian reports the U.S. may not be getting their way in the negotiations.
American negotiators have not yet succeeded in getting Iraqi officials to agree to keep US troops well into the next president's first term, the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, confirmed yesterday.

On a surprise visit to Baghdad, Rice denied earlier reports this week that the two sides had ironed out the last disputes in a heavily contested draft agreement that is due to replace the UN mandate covering the US-led occupation.

President George Bush wants the pact to authorise a troop presence at least until 2011 so that he can trumpet it as proof of his policy's success. But the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has adopted the rise in nationalist feeling in the Iraqi parliament and among the public and is insisting on a clear timetable for withdrawal, the lifting of judicial immunity for US troops who commit abuses, and a veto on US military operations, including the arrest of Iraqis.

The pact has been downgraded into a "memorandum of understanding" to avoid the need for the US Senate to approve it. In Iraq, it has to clear several hurdles. "Once a breakthrough has really been achieved, the draft will be presented to the council of ministers", Raid Fahmi Jahid, the science and technology minister told the Guardian yesterday.

If the government approves the draft, the parliament will have the last word.

The Iraqi side has been pressing for a withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraqi cities by the end of June, and for all troops to leave a year or so later. But after her talks yesterday, Rice said only "aspirational timetables" were worth having in the agreement.

The Bush administration was angered last month when Maliki gave broad support to Senator Barack Obama's pledge to pull all combat troops out of Iraq by June 2010. This undermined his Republican rival, Senator John McCain, who insisted along with the Bush administration, that withdrawals be linked to achieving various political and security goals, the so-called "conditions-based approach" as opposed to "artificial timetables".
Sorry, John.

|

Labels: , ,

posted by JReid @ 9:46 PM  
Home, sweet homes
So John McCain can't remember how many frickin' homes he has. So What! So whaaaa? Wow, look at those CRIBS!

And now, for a word from our hysterical communications person:
"We're delighted to have a real estate debate with Barack Obama," said spokesman Brian Rogers, adding that the press should focus on Obama's house. "It's a frickin' mansion. He doesn't tell people that. You have a mansion you bought in a shady deal with a convicted felon."

... "That's fair game now," he said. "You are going to see more of that now that this issue has been joined. You'll see more of the Rezko matter from us."


Yeah, yeah, and you know what else??? ... We're gonna kick his ass after school. Three o'clock, black man! We're bringing the pain!!!

The McCain campaign was in full damage-control mode as the housing story took off today. Rogers tried to play down the story, saying that reports of the many McCain houses were overstated.

"The reality is they have some investment properties and stuff. It's not as if he lives in ten houses. That's just not the case," Rogers said. "The reality is they have four that actually could be considered houses they could use."

Those four include an apartment in Arlington, a ranch in Sedona, and two condos, in California and Phoenix, he said. The others include "some investment properties and things like that."

He also added: "This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years -- in prison," referring to the prisoner of war camp that McCain was in during the Vietnam War.

Rogers called the house story "by far the most personal attack" of the campaign, and said "it comes from a candidate who said he was against this kind of thing."

He predicted that the story would not "stick" with the American people.

"In terms of who's an elitist, I think people have made a judgment that John McCain is not an arugula-eating, pointy headed professor-type based on his life story."

Yeah but ... how many houses has he got?


|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 5:35 PM  
McNasty
Here comes part two of the Skank Talk Express:

The RNC has launched a website designed to attack Barack Obama for knowing Tony Rezko... Meanwhile Team Politico reports on how the McCain camp is "coordinating..."
Sen. John McCain's campaign is fighting back against questions about his house holdings by opening a website focusing on past questions about Sen. Barack Obama's dealings with controversial Chicago businesssman Tony Rezko.

The campaign was getting the site ready Thursday afternoon. McCain surrogates on television were being armed with facts about Rezko's relationship to Obama's purchase of his Chicago home in 2005.

Previewing the message the campaign will seek to drive, a McCain spokesman said: "In an attempt to make something stick, Barack Obama has re-aired his dirty laundry with convicted felon Tony Rezko that led to a highly questionable land deal. Rezko’s dirty dealings are well-documented and his relationship with Barack Obama goes back 20 years."

Meanwhile a group "not linked to McCain", but run by a former campaign staffer, goes after Obama on Bill Ayers:
A new conservative group has produced a television ad attacking Barack Obama for his relationship with former Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers.

"How much do your really know about Barack Obama? What does he really believe?" asks the ad, which then cites the failed attack on the Capitol on 9/11, and links it to the Weather Underground attack on the Capitol decades earlier.

The group says it will spend $2.8 million airing the ad in Ohio and Michigan -- which would be the largest single third-party expenditure this cycle.

"Why would Barack Obama be friends with someone who bombed the Capitol and is proud of it?" asks the narrator. "Do you know enough to elect Barack Obama?"

The group, the American Issues Project, is a 501(c)4 -- which means it isn't required to disclose its donors. According to a press release set to go out shortly, it's the product of a coalition of conservative groups (Failor said his Iowans for Tax Relief is not among them). Its president is Ed Martin, a Missouri conservative. Another official, Ed Failor, Jr., is a former McCain aide in Iowa who left after the campaign's shakeup last summer.

The substance of the ad matches a recent upswing in the McCain campaign's references to Ayers. The use of 9/11 imagery links Ayers, and Obama, to the American conflict Islamic terror, which is the subject of many viral emails attacking Obama.

You knew this was coming folks. Batten down the hatches ... and get Barack a freaking 527 already! Yes, yes, there's this voter registration group, and there's America Votes, but what Obama needs, and needs now, is a bona fide attack group with no links to him. Stat.

There's so much McCain material out there to plunder, from the 4> 6 7 homes he can't remember, to his $500 shoes, to his dirty deals with Mr. Keating to his wife's pill problem... I say it's all on the table, if the other side is allowed to call Obama a crook and a terrorist.

Holla!



Labels: , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 4:39 PM  
You know you're rich when ...
...you don't remember how many houses you have.

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 4:18 PM  
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Polls say the darndest things

Getting a little whiplash here, but could the Reuters/Zogby shock poll showing John McCain pulling ahead of Barack Obama by five points nationally, and pulling out to a 9-point advantage on the economy be an outlier? Maybe. MSNBC and other mainstream outlets completely ignored the poll today, perhaps because they've got their very own branded polls ... but you'd think this one would be news.

The latest MSNBC/WaPo poll shows Obama still in the lead, up 45%-42%, but half the lead he held last month. But the poll shows the opposite of the Zogby finding on the economy, despite also showing warning signs for Barack:

“Whatever momentum that Obama took into the summer, he really appears to have lost it,” says Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who conducted the survey with Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart. “It is not a dead heat, but it is close.”

The survey also shows that both presidential candidates face their share of challenges. For Obama, he receives the support of just one in two voters who backed Hillary Clinton in the primaries, and he trails his Republican rival on handling terrorism, the war in Iraq and international crises like the recent conflict between Russia and Georgia.

As for McCain, nearly eight in 10 voters believe that the Arizona senator would closely follow President Bush’s policies if elected, and respondents view him as the weaker candidate on the issues of the economy and health care — which rank among the public’s top concerns in the poll.

Back to the Zogby poll: David Moore at pollster.com gives it a good working over:

All pollsters, it seems, eventually find themselves with what Andy Kohut once referred to as "loopy" results. His comment was about the Gallup polls in the 2000 election, though in September 2004, Pew experienced such results itself, and of course several polls this campaign season have produced inexplicable or "wrong" numbers, as indicated by the subsequent primary election vote counts.

This time, it's Zogby's turn to confuse the masses. His latest Reuters/Zogby poll, based on a sample of 1,089 "likely voters" drawn from listed telephone numbers, conducted Aug. 14-16, 2008, shows McCain over Obama by 46% to 41%.

Two days earlier, Zogby reported substantially different results. His online poll (of self-selected people who want to be part of his Internet polling sample) of 3,339 "likely voters," conducted Aug. 12-14, showed Obama with a three-point lead, 43% to 40%.

By Zogby's own calculation of the margins of error of each poll, the difference between the two polls in McCain's support (46% in the later telephone poll vs. 40% in the earlier online poll) is statistically significant. The difference in Obama's support (41% vs. 43% respectively) would not be statistically significant. Still, the 8-point difference in the margin of McCain's lead would be significant - a McCain 5-point lead vs. an Obama 3-point lead in the earlier poll.

If we believe both polls, the period of Aug. 13-14 must have been a real bummer for Obama and an electoral high for McCain. Whatever it was that caused millions of voters to "change" their minds and gravitate toward the Republican candidate in the two-day period, however, escaped my notice. Perhaps others have been more observant.

Moore also slams Zogby's "refusal" to use "sound methods of designing his samples," including using only listed phone numbers and self-selected online samples. Two problems that could make both the Zogby results less credible. Maybe that's why Chuckie T pretended the poll didn't exist today.


Good for my blood pressure, though I don't think it erases Obama's creeping message problem, something he is trying to address with limited attack ads and tougher rhetoric. But I agree with Josh Marshall on one big point: Obama simply must stop asking, begging, whatever, John McCain to stop attacking his patriotism. Instead, he needs to come up with three salient, succinct attacks on John McCain, and repeat them 100 times a day, every day between now and November 4th.

|

Labels: , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 11:43 PM  
Stephanie Tubbs Jones has died
The 58-year-old Ohio Congresswoman, who suffered an aneurysm yesterday, has died, according to a very well placed source. Very sad to hear.
|

Labels: , ,

posted by JReid @ 1:17 PM  
Make that TWO unacknowledged half sisters...
... for Cindy McCain.

|

Labels: , ,

posted by JReid @ 12:57 PM  
CAMPAIGN ALERT: Obama losing the lead?
It may be an outlier poll, state polls may matter far more, and Obama's veep pick and convention bounces may erase McCain's gains, but the new Reuters/Zogby survey of likely voters shows John McCain pulling ahead of Barack Obama by five points nationally, and pulling out to a 9-point advantage on the economy. Combined with Obama’s average lead over John McCain of just 3 points nationally (before the Zogby/Reuters poll,) according to RealClearPolitics, the latest Bloomberg/LosAngeles Times poll that has the race tightening to just 2 points, and the CNN "poll of polls" which shows a 3-point gap, it is indicative of a very unhealthy trend.

And while maybe it's not quite time to hit the panic button, Obama supporters (and hopefully the campaign itself,) can no longer deny that Houston, we have a problem.

Labels: , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 10:31 AM  
Cindy McCain's secret sister
Did you know that Cindy McCain has a half-sister she doesn't acknowledge, and that the Hensley tradition of acquiring a newfangled wife when the old one gets boring goes back at least a generation? NPR has the story.

|

Labels:

posted by JReid @ 12:53 AM  
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Things that are coming back
1. The "old politics" -- David Brooks laments the campaign John McCain hasn't run.
McCain started with grand ideas about breaking the mold of modern politics. He and Obama would tour the country together doing joint town meetings. He would pick a postpartisan running mate, like Joe Lieberman. He would make a dramatic promise, like vowing to serve for only one totally nonpolitical term. So far it hasn’t worked. Obama vetoed the town meeting idea. The issue is not closed, but G.O.P. leaders are resisting a cross-party pick like Lieberman.

McCain and his advisers have been compelled to adjust to the hostile environment around them. They have been compelled, at least in their telling, to abandon the campaign they had hoped to run. Now they are running a much more conventional race, the kind McCain himself used to ridicule.

The man who lampooned the Message of the Week is now relentlessly on message (as observers of his fine performance at Saddleback Church can attest). The man who hopes to inspire a new generation of Americans now attacks Obama daily. It is the only way he can get the networks to pay attention.

Some old McCain hands are dismayed. John Weaver, the former staff member who helped run the old McCain operation, argues that this campaign does not do justice to the man. The current advisers say they have no choice. They didn’t choose the circumstances of this race. Their job is to cope with them.

And the inescapable fact is: It is working. Everyone said McCain would be down by double digits at this point. He’s nearly even. Everyone said he’d be vastly outspent. That hasn’t happened. A long-shot candidacy now seems entirely plausible.

As the McCain’s campaign has become more conventional, his political prospects have soared. Both he and Obama had visions of upending the system. Maybe in office, one of them will still be able to do that. But at least on the campaign trail, the system is winning.


2. Hyper-inflation -- call it "that 70s show.."
Wholesale prices jumped in July at the fastest rate in more than a quarter century, furthering concern about a continued increase in inflation at a time when economic activity has ebbed.

New federal government data showed that the cost of materials used by businesses increased 1.2 percent in July and have risen 9.8 percent during the past 12 months. It was the largest yearly increase since 1981, as businesses absorbed sharp increases in energy and other commodity costs.

Today's report follows recent news that consumer prices are also rising faster than expected -- and faster than the Federal Reserve's generally accepted target rate of around 2 percent. Although wholesale inflation does not necessarily translate into higher consumer prices, it can be evidence of things to come.


3. The Taliban -- They're back, and attacking the French...
BAMIYAN, Afghanistan — Taliban insurgents mounted their most serious attacks in six years of fighting in Afghanistan over the last two days, including a coordinated assault by at least 10 suicide bombers against one of the largest American military bases in the country, and another by about 100 insurgents who killed 10 elite French paratroopers.

The attack on the French, in a district near Kabul, added to the sense of siege around the capital and was the deadliest single loss for foreign troops in a ground battle since the United States-led invasion chased the Taliban from power in 2001.

Taken together, the attacks were part of a sharp escalation in fighting as insurgents have seized a window of opportunity to press their campaign this summer — taking advantage of a wavering NATO commitment, an outgoing American administration, a flailing Afghan government and a Pakistani government in deep disarray that has given the militants freer rein across the border.

As a result, this year is on pace to be the deadliest in the Afghan war so far, as the insurgent attacks show rising zeal and sophistication. The insurgents are employing not only a growing number of suicide and roadside bombs, but are also waging increasingly well-organized and complex operations using multiple attackers with different types of weapons, NATO officials say. ...


4. The Russian bear -- complete with POWs...
Russia has dismissed a warning by Nato that normal relations are impossible while its troops remain inside Georgia.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused Nato of bias and of trying to save the "criminal regime" in Tbilisi.
He insisted Moscow was not occupying Georgia and had no plans to annex the separatist region of South Ossetia.

Earlier, Nato demanded that Russia pull out its troops from Georgia as agreed in an EU-brokered ceasefire plan signed by both parties at the weekend.

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev told his French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy in a phone call that the pull-out would be complete by 21-22 August, with the exception of some 500 troops, who will be installed in peacekeeping posts on either side of South Ossetia's border.

France later tabled a US-backed draft resolution at the UN Security Council, demanding full compliance with the ceasefire and calling on Moscow to withdraw its forces to the positions held before the conflict.

Russia's UN ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, rejected the text. He objected to language on Georgia's territorial integrity, saying South Ossetia and Abkhazia did not want to be part of Georgia.

Some Russian troops have been seen leaving Gori, the largest Georgian town close to the South Ossetia border.
But BBC correspondents on the ground say there are still Russian artillery positions in place. In addition, there are Russian checkpoints close to the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.

As for the POWs:
In an apparent goodwill gesture Russia exchanged 15 Georgian prisoners for five of its own troops at a Russian checkpoint in Igoeti, about 30km (18 miles) from Georgia's capital.

Georgian officials told the BBC's Helen Fawkes, who was at the scene, that two of the Russian prisoners were airmen who had been shot down by Georgian forces about two weeks ago.


|

Labels: , , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 9:49 PM  
On ambition

“Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president,’’ Mr. McCain said. “What’s less apparent is the judgment to be commander in chief. And in matters of national security, good judgment will be at a premium in the term of the next president — as we were all reminded ten days ago by events in the nation of Georgia.’’

John McCain in his 2002 book, "Worth the Fighting For," talking about his 2000 run for president:
"I didn't decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president. . . . In truth, I'd had the ambition for a long time."

When someone tells you who they are, believe them.


|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 9:32 PM  
They said it! John Lewis kick-ass edition
A few of my favorite quotes from the current news cycle:

First up, the Associated Press' Nedra Pickler, who thinks Joe Lieberman is a really big...
In a story about Obama’s plans for a vice presidential pick, AP noted that McCain was considering Sen. Joe Lieberman, “the Democratic vice presidential prick in 2000 who now is an independent.” (Emphasis added.)
And yes, there is screenshot.

Meanwhile, Jack Cafferty slaps John McCain around a little bit:
It occurs to me that John McCain is as intellectually shallow as our current president. When asked what his Christian faith means to him, his answer was a one-liner. "It means I'm saved and forgiven." Great scholars have wrestled with the meaning of faith for centuries. McCain then retold a story we've all heard a hundred times about a guard in Vietnam drawing a cross in the sand.

Asked about his greatest moral failure, he cited his first marriage, which ended in divorce. While saying it was his greatest moral failing, he offered nothing in the way of explanation. Why not?

Throughout the evening, McCain chose to recite portions of his stump speech as answers to the questions he was being asked. Why? He has lived 71 years. Surely he has some thoughts on what it all means that go beyond canned answers culled from the same speech he delivers every day.

... He was asked to define rich. After trying to dodge the question -- his wife is worth a reported $100 million -- he finally said he thought an income of $5 million was rich.

One after another, McCain's answers were shallow, simplistic, and trite. He showed the same intellectual curiosity that George Bush has -- virtually none.
And now for my favorite! John Lewis, the civil rights icon and Congressman from Georgia, who marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr and gave the other memorable speech during the march on Washington, and who according to John McCain, would be one of the "three wise people" he would consult heavily while in office, says ... well, let's just let Mother Jones tell it:
This is not the first time McCain has invoked Lewis' name on the campaign trail. Earlier this year, in Selma, Alabama, he told the story of civil rights marchers trying to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in a 1965 march from Selma to the state capital of Montgomery. Waiting at the crest of the bridge were a brigade of police and state troopers who meted out an attacks so violent that the day is known today as Bloody Sunday.

Central in McCain's telling was John Lewis, a man of just 25 who was at the front of the march and absorbed the first blow. Millions of Americans, McCain noted, "watched brave John Lewis fall."

But even though McCain has now repeatedly cited Lewis as a role model and potential adviser, McCain has not established a relationship with the Georgia Democrat in the 22 years they have served in Congress together. At the time of McCain's Selma speech, a Lewis associate told my colleague David Corn that McCain has never been close to Lewis. Lewis was not told about McCain's speech in Selma in advance, nor was he invited to attend.

In response to McCain's latest invocation of his name, Rep. Lewis said in a statement requested by Mother Jones, "I cannot stop one human being, even a presidential candidate, from admiring the courage and sacrifice of peaceful protesters on the Edmund Pettus Bridge or making comments about it." But, he added, "Sen. McCain and I are colleagues in the US Congress, not confidantes. He does not consult me. And I do not consult him."

It took McCain years to fully embrace the goals that Lewis was fighting for on Bloody Sunday. In 1983, McCain voted against making Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a national holiday, in opposition to most members of Congress, including many of his Republican colleagues. In 1987, the governor of Arizona repealed the state's recognition of King; McCain supported the move. It was only in 1990, 25 years after Lewis marched in Alabama, when Arizona reversed its decision that McCain changed his own stance on the issue. ...
Maybe he should have consulted Lewis before dropping his name during his hour-long pander at Saddleback... I mean even Byron York wasn't buying this one...


|

Labels: , , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 8:47 PM  
Veepstakes update: Biden or...
A source I highly respect within the Obama orbit told me tonight that the veep pick is down to two candidates: one you know, and one you ... know, but didn't think had a shot. According to this source, it's down to Joe Biden and (gulp) ... Hillary Clinton. I think a Clinton pick would be, problematic?... but it would chump the national press corps and be a hell of a media coup.

The Obama camp remains mum. I await my especial text message...
|

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 8:34 PM  
Not every vet is a McCain fan
Courtesy of this TPM diarist, a fellow Vietnam POW says he's not voting for McCain, and why McCain's POW experience is not in and of itself, a qualification to be president:
John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.

I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.

Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60's and 70's. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John's age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years.

I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button



|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 5:47 PM  
Incoming! Hillary will campaign for Obama in Palm Beach Thursday
From the campaign today:
The Obama campaign today announced that Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) will visit South Florida this Thursday, August 21, to campaign on behalf of Barack Obama and talk with voters about why he is the only choice for Floridians who want a President who will change the way Washington has worked for eight years under President George W. Bush.

In Palm Beach County, Senator Clinton will host a rally focused on why Barack Obama is the only choice for voters who care about issues important to women in this election. The event will be open to the public, but space is limited. Tickets will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. Later Thursday, Senator Clinton will attend an event in Broward County. Details for that event will be announced soon.

Tickets for the Palm Beach rally will be available at 5:00 PM on Wednesday, August 20 at the grand openings of two Campaign for Change offices in Palm Beach County: 279 E Main St, Pahokee and 2790 N Military Trail, Ste 6, West Palm Beach. Tickets will also be available online at FL.barackobama.com and starting at 12 noon tomorrow at the following locations: Wexler for Congress, 2500 N Military Trail, Ste 251, Boca Raton; Democratic Party Headquarters, 6634 W Atlantic Ave, Delray Beach; and the FAU Student Union, 777 Glades Rd, Boca Raton.

No location or time yet for the Broward event.


|

Labels: , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 5:28 PM  
Banned in 240 seconds: RedState becomes the Free Republic
I did an experiment today, to see how long it would take to get banned from RedState.com, the right wing site that styles itself a home for "independent conservative thinkers," not at all like the thought-policed, drone-winger sites like the Free Republic, or the loony bin flypaper sites like Little Green Footballs, and which gets frequent link love from "legit" online journalists at places like Politico and the Washington Post. So here's what I did. I signed up, using the same ID I use here, JReid. Then, I posted a comment to a thread entitled "You are the one McCain is waiting for" whose point is, I guess, that ordinary Republicans will carry McCain over the top, not his vp pick. (I think the post is supposed to be tongue in cheek, but hell, with this crowd? Who knows...) First a clip from the original post:
Much virtual ink has been spilled Internet-wide on the problem of Senator McCain's running mate selection. Policy views, succession, age, experience, home states, and every other conceivable preference are touted by one person or another as essential to the pick.

I say they're all right, and they're all wrong. You should be John McCain's running mate in 2008. It's perfect! You are in a swing state, you shore up the Bush states, and you make Obama work in his 'safe' states. You are a political novice, and you are experienced. You're young. You're mature. You are a mainstream Republican, a reformer, and a maverick. You even look like America.

You were even Time's People of the Year. You can't go wrong. ...
Okay, so now for my comment, which went up at 11:02 a.m. by their clock (which is odd, because I joined at 11:48 a.m. EST) Anyhoo, I wrote:
RedStaters discover God: and He is John McCain
JReid August 19th, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (link)
What's with the sudden hero worship of McCain by RedStaters? Here I'm assuming it's tongue and cheek, but other threads? Not so much. Frankly, it's getting creepy, like the "Pray for George W. Bush" threads that used to dominate the Free Republic.

John McCain is a politician, and frankly, not a very good one. Certainly not an inspiring one. His entire campaign boils down to: "vote for me. The other guy's a traitor." Which means that no matter who wins in November, his campaign has ensured that half the country will hate the next president's guts ... again.

Besides, wasn't this the guy RS readers found unacceptable during the primaries? Now he's Godlike? Kind of hard to accuse Democrats of beatifying Obama when this site does the same to John McCain...

[Waiting to be banned for apostasy.]
Literally 4 minutes later, came this post:
well, if you insist.
Moe Lane August 19th, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (link)
Although if I wasn't on my way to Pearl right now I'd keep you around long enough to ask whether you guys really think that anybody actually believes you when you try to pass yourselves off as Republicans.
So that's it. The amount of time it takes to be banned from RedState for criticizing John McCain is 4 minutes. And you can't be a Republican if you don't slavishly support John McCain. 

I think that might even beat my previous record at Free Republic, where I was banned a grand total of THREE TIMES (using three different ID's) for criticizing George W. Bush, back before he became "unpopular..."

The point: the right is consistent, in using strict thought policing to keep their flock in line. The FReepers aren't outliers, they're mainstream. Recall that RedState was one of those sites where so-called conservatives denounced John McCain all through the primaries (along with tax raiser Mike Huckabee,) as unacceptable as the Republican nominee. McCain, lo those many months ago, was guilty of the sin of collusion with Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold. He was soft on immigration. He was soft on the Bush tax cuts. He was soft on torture. Now, having reversed himself on all three, and returned to his pre-Bush, neoconservative zeal on Iraq, McCain is RedState's boy, and you'd better love him, if you want to post there.

Sadly, American conservatism has been reduced to a series of cults of personality -- Reagan, then Bush II, now John McCain, where the drones (talk radio listeners, group blog members, and worse, Republican voters of all economic classes,) are inducted, indoctrinated, and deployed in the service of the people paying the bills: major corporations, oil companies, and lately, the private military. To push the agenda, the right uses wealthy individual talking heads like Rush, Hannity and the former Bush flaks who run RedState, and they whip their throng into shape, demanding total loyalty and obeisance, and weeding out doubters. Perhaps most unseemly of all, the right has also indoctrinated religious zealots -- America's Taliban, if you will -- to tie these beliefs to existing zealotry on issues like abortion. Combined, its a potent mix of religious zeal, hero worship, and strident determination to enrich others, at the expense of the faithful. I find it remarkable that it continues to work on so many people, and that the right has managed to convince those poor slobs that it's the other guy who's turning their candidate of choice into a Messiah.

|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 12:25 PM  
The sorry saga of John McCain
Not only is John McCain running the most negative, divisive and dishonorable campaign since the Republican primary in 2000 (or the swiftboating of John Kerry in 2004, or hell, the Willie Horton ads against Michael Dukakis ... hang on, it seems Republicans always run dishonorable campaigns...) he is also running the most blatantly dishonest.

In 2000, the only real lie that Bush's team told about McCain was that he had a black love-child. (In fact, the McCain's adopted a Bangladeshi orphan.) Other than that, Bush was essentially right in portraying McCain as a former POW who abandoned veterans as a Senator, who traded on his media celebrity to get away with gaffes Dubya could never have, and who was a phony the right couldn't really depend on. Those things, it turns out, were true. (See McCain's voting record on veterans benefits here, here and here.) McCain has simply covered them up and coopted the Bushies who now worship him just as they did George W. Bush before the fall.

McCain's current line of attack against Barack Obama, so succinctly summed up by Keith Olbermann in his brilliant "grow up" special comment last night, is that you must elect him because his opponent wishes to lose the war in Iraq so that he can win the election. In other words, Obama is a traitor. Oh, and he is stained by the ambition to be president, an ambition McCain apparently doesn't share (I guess he is being compelled by the ghosts of his Vietnam captors who are even now, drawing crosses on the sands of time with their sandals, to run for president against his will.) Add to that McCain's meme since his disgraceful performance at the VFW in Florida yesterday, that while it would have been politically advantageous to support the generous G.I. Bill for the 21st Century put forward by fellow Vietnam vet Jim Webb, HE, the Courageous One, opposed the bill, holding out for something better.

What McCain fails to mention in his self-congratulatory nonsense speeches, is that he didn't even bother to vote on the G.I. Bill, which passed the Senate and was signed into law without his ever having had the courage to put his name on "yea" or "nay."

I hate to say this about an elder, let alone a veteran, but John McCain is a sleazy, desperate blowhard, and a man whose dishonor in this campaign makes him unfit to be president.

Flashback article of the day: New York Times, Feb 2000: When McCain played the victim on dirty campaigning

|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 11:38 AM  
Monday, August 18, 2008
Thinking the unthinkable: is Pastor Rick ... a liar?

Pastor Rick Warren is on Larry King right now, giving a post-op on his civil forum on Saturday. I turned the channel and TiVo didn't pick up the beginning of the interview, so somebody please email me and let me know if King asked him about the "cone of silence." A preliminary interview with Beliefnet suggests he won't be forthcoming.

But another aspect of the interview which I did catch is really bugging me. An emailer asked Warren when he did the "coin flip" to determine which candidate would go first. Warren stumbled around a bit, and then said that he did the coin toss "about a month ago," and that when he put the forum together, "we decided who would go first ... and the format."

He flipped the coin a month ago?

Meanwhile, Warren was on "Hannity and Colmes" in the half hour before he did CNN. Hannity asked him a "lightning round" of questions nearly identical to the ones he asked John McCain and Barack Obama on Saturday, including whether he believes life begins at conception (the answer: "of course," and which Supreme Court justices HE wouldn't have nominated. Warren hedged on this one, but then couched his answer with, "well I'm a conservative, so..."

Less than a half hour later, on CNN, Warren had an exchange with Larry King in which he declared that there are many Americans who agree with some parts of the Democratic agenda and some parts of the Republican agenda, and who are neither completely left nor completely right when it comes to issues. King asked if Warren would put himself in that category. Warren's answer sure wasn't "well I'm a conservative." Instead, he said "of course."

So he's a conservative, but also in the middle ... depending on which cable network he's on?

UPDATE: The transcript on the Larry King interview with Rick Warren is in. Here's the part I missed last night:
KING: From Lake Forest, California, we welcome -- it's always great to see him, a frequent visitor to this show. Not frequent enough, by the way. Rick Warren, pastor of the Saddleback Church, best-selling author of "The Purpose Driven Life." and on Saturday, he conducted those interviews with Senators Obama and McCain at the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency.

Let's take care of one thing right away. You introduced Obama and said that Senator McCain and said he was in a cone of silence.

WARREN: Yes.

KING: Now, obviously, Rick Warren would never tell a mistruth.

Did you not know that he was in an automobile?

WARREN: I didn't know they had put -- hadn't put him into the Green Room yet. No, I didn't. When we walked in, I knew he hadn't been in about 10 minutes earlier. And I figured within the 10 minutes we got there, they had put him in.

The whole thing is really kind of bogus, Larry. The Supreme -- I mean, the Secret Service were with him the whole time. Then our facility's staff -- our security staff were with him. And he was put in a building completely separate from everybody else. And there's no way he could hear. I've been talking about this all day. There was a rumor going around that he watched the program on a monitor in the Green Room that we had him in.

Well, there's only one problem with it. My staff, Chuck Taylor, disconnected that thing two days before it happened. So if he -- if they had happened to turn it on, it would have been all just static.

And both Barack and John agreed to the terms that said we will not listen to the other's, we will not get the questions in advance.

Actually, what happened is I did give Obama one in advance that I didn't get to Senator McCain because he wasn't there. Right before we started, I wanted to tell them there's going to be one question that I'm going to ask you for a commitment on. And I didn't think that was fair to ask for a commitment publicly without setting them up. And it had to do with orphans.

And so I did get to tell Senator Obama about that question. But because Senator McCain wasn't there, he hadn't -- he didn't have that question yet.

KING: All right.

Well, could he have heard it in the car, though, if he was still arriving at the event?

WARREN: You know what, if -- not a chance. The Secret Service would have reported it. When he showed up, there were -- and he says he didn't. You know, I...

KING: All right.

WARREN: ...I just have to accept his integrity on that.

KING: Sure.

Was it a stacked deck against Obama in the fact that this was Orange County and an Evangelical audience?

WARREN: Yes. Well, there's no doubt about it. I mean it was Orange County. And you're going to have more of a conservative audience.

But if you listen to applause, it's pretty equal in a lot of the places. And we gave an equal number of tickets to both campaigns. So they both had their -- their partisans in there at the same time and they had the exact same number of people.

KING: We have an e-mail question from Jeff in Wheaton, Illinois: "Pastor Warren, you said Saturday that there had been a coin flip to determine who went first."

WARREN: Yes.

KING: "When did this coin flip occur? Where were the senators when it took place?"

WARREN: Well, they were certainly weren't around. I just did it with my staff about a month before we even started the program. I started collecting questions myself a month in advance. And right off the bat, I said well, somebody is going to have to go first.

When I created this idea, why don't we figure out a civil way to do this, where the guys can express their views and their opinions in a civil -- a civilized, non-rude, non-got you type of format?

And I just decided why don't we just do one hour at time...

KING: Well, you did it.

WARREN: ...and we'll do them back to back. And I'll ask the identical questions so there's no bias in it.

KING: Excellent way to do it.

Not that Larry is biased... And here's the video:



You be the judge... Meanwhile, Barry Lynn calls Obama's appearance at the forum a mistake:
This crowd was swarming toward McCain to begin with, and Rick Warren has quite conservative views on plenty of hot button issues. But Warren is still a man best known for his homey advice about putting God first (not a very controversial notion for a Christian), so many viewers probably thought he would play "fair and balanced." Well, Jay, he did not. He was clearly well-schooled on how to set up questions with well-tested right-wing talking points, so that Obama would have had to spend a great deal of time just correcting the questioner. (You and I understand that technique well, both as talk show guests and hosts of our own shows.)

Let me give you a few examples on core constitutional and human rights questions. Here was Warren's set up to his stem cell questions: "We've had this scientific breakthrough of creating these pluri-potent stem cells in adult cells..." as if everybody knows we don't need all those embryonic stem cells which create all the problems for "pro-lifers." That crowd would rather grow all these "frozen" embryos into "snowflake babies" (which will never happen) and refuse to admit that these embryos will eventually be discarded as medical waste. But Warren's setup is the problem: there was no great breakthrough that means that all research can be done with adult cells. That is the line of the Religious Right; it is not the scientific consensus. To the lay listener, however, it sounded like God's own truth, not Pastor Warren's spin. Senator Obama more or less fell into the presumption, too.


|

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 9:56 PM  
John McCain's unoriginal originals
CBS News' Ryan Corsaro pisses off the right wing nutjobs by pointing out the many, many times John McCain violated the simple Rick Warren rule: don't give me your stump speech.

|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 10:24 AM  
Veepstakes: final countdown
Okay, it's that time again. Barack Obama is expected to make his veep pick this week, while McCain is expected to make his pick on the Friday that closes the Democratic convention. So here are my prognostications, starting with five assumptions I'm using as the basis for my forecast:

1. Barack Obama probably won't pick a general. Why? Because the veep has only two real functions during this campaign: attacking John McCain, and beating John McCain's pick in the lone vice presidential debate. None of the really fantastic generals who have been mentioned as possibilities: Anthony Zinni, Scott Gration, or even Wes Clark, is a proven debater. In fact, Clark, who was my choice for president in 2004, turned out to be a pretty poor debater that cycle, which is one of the reasons he lost. Clark, who is the only general in the mix who has experience running a national campaign, also proved to be a less than stellar campaigner, while his first foray at attack politics this year (the very true statement that being shot down isn't a qualification for president,) bombed with the press. Obama needs a proven debater, attacker, and campaigner, and I can't think of a general who fits the bill. The last thing he needs is an Admiral Stockdale moment...

2. There's a better than 50 percent chance John McCain will pick a woman. Picking a woman would be a smart strategy for McCain to turn up the excitement and shift the conversation to his campaign after what will likely be a big convention week for Democrats -- and a comparatively dull one for Republicans (with the exception of the sure-to-be hilarious bathroom stall jokes on latenight all week.) By picking a woman, McCain may hope to blunt Obama's veep's attack mode, by making it appear that Obama's Number Two is picking on a girl. Also, a woman could help McCain pick up more of the Hillary dead-enders (though most of them are, honestly, already Republicans.) In fact, if Meg Whitman is pro-life, I would bet on her.

3. There's almost zero chance Barack Obama will pick a woman. Not unless he wants to hire a food taster to protect him from Hillary's Congressional supporters. So sorry, Chris Kofinis, you can stop selling Kathleen Sebelius.

4. There's a better than 50 percent chance Barack Obama will pick Joe Biden. Biden fits all the bills -- he's an experienced campaigner after 30 years in politics, he's an excellent attack dog, a foreign policy expert, a seasoned guy who still looks relatively young, and he's a great debater. In fact, had he had the star quality of Obama, Clinton and Edwards, I think Joe Biden might have been declared the winner of some of those Democratic primary debates.

5. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that Obama will pick Chuck Hagel. The convention already promises to have some high drama with the Clinton crowd, so why risk adding a Republican veep to the mix? Besides, Hagel says he is not going to Denver, which means he's not in the running.

Okay, so here are some of the likely finalists, in no particular order.

For McCain:
  1. Mitt Romney - safe choice, solid on economics, can raise lots of dough, help in Michigan, and bring in the Mormon cash -- and votes -- in key states like Colorado. And the large contingent of wingers who preferred the Mittster, including the talk radio hacks, would be satisfied with the pick. Downside: he's a Mormon, which will turn off some Christian righties, and he's a flip-flopper, which will make for some interesting attack ads.

  2. Meg Whitman - 52-year-old former Romney national finance chair, she gets you a link to the Romney fund raising stream without having to talk to Mitt Romney every day. And as a woman and a CEO, she helps with both women and people worried about McCain's lack of economic grasp. Upside: she's a billionaire, which is always helpful in politics, as John "millionaire-marryer" McCain knows well. Downside: she's untested politically, though she plans to run for office someday, and nobody knows how she'd do in a debate. Also, if she's pro-choice, fuhgeddabout it. Also, picking a rich blonde may bring up unfortunate associations in the minds of some voters ... and opponents... Still, McCain's mention of her as one of his "wisest" at Saturday's Rick Warren forum might have been a trial balloon.

  3. Tim Pawlenty - the safest of safe choices for McCain -- dull, but he gets you relative youth and "everyman-ness," a good look in a swing state, and he doesn't offend the wackadoo right.
Most likely as of today? Meg Whitman. I think McCain needs drama more than he needs certainty, and Whitman has a good story to tell. Also, his campaign appears to have finally fixated on one non-militaristic theme: OBAMA WILL RAISE YOUR TAXES. While not having the virtue of being accurate, unless you're earning $250,000 a year or more, it's a tried and true Republican strategy. Picking Romney, who presided over a blue state economy and who has flipped on major positions, might be a risk, while Whitman is not from Washington, not part of the Bush administration, and not an old white man. Does she get you a state? No. But she could make McCain more competitive with older white women. Close second: Mitt.

Okay, now for Barack, who I think has a lot more choices, but I'll also narrow it down to the usual suspect three:
  1. Joe Biden - In some ways, Barack can't miss with Biden. He's smart, experienced, and has great foreign policy chops. As I said above, he knows how to attack (who can forget the "noun, verb and 9/11" line about Rudy Giuliani from the primaries?) On the downside, he can be a gaffe machine, and he talks an awful lot. But that might be less important than having an effective attacker on the trail. Another downside: if Obama picks Biden, the GOP will surely attack the ticket as being "upside-down" when it comes to experience, a la Bush-Cheney. The Obama team will have to have an answer for that.

  2. Tim Kaine - I mention him only because his name is constantly being floated. And while he did a great job on MTP this weekend, Kaine is a relatively inexperienced governor whom it would be hard to imagine stepping into the presidency. (You could say the same for Meg Whitman...) His lack of foreign policy experience makes it hard for me to see him being the guy, and I'm not sure why the Democrats wouldn't rather have him in Virginia, getting out the vote.

  3. Evan Bayh - Bayh-Bayh-Bayh! I just can't help thinking about that boy band song every time I hear his name... Bayh has some advantages -- he's midwestern, has a great looking young family like Baracks, and the two families together look like a great Ralph Laren ad. He's experienced on foreign policy, and was a Clinton ally. But Bayh is also certified boring, a hawk on Iraq and Iran, and an anathema to much of the Democratic base. Could he be the one? Maybe, since he strengthens Obama in the Indiana-Illinois corridor, but something tells me it won't be him.
Most likely pick? I'm going with Biden. Despite the accusations that are sure to come that he's more prepared to be president than Obama, McCain won't be able to find a v.p. who's more prepared than him. He's a sure-fire debater, and a great attacker, which are the two things Obama needs -- and Obama doesn't need to make a splash with his pick, he needs to make white middle class voters comfortable. Biden is comfortable, stable, and probably Obama's strongest pick.

UPDATE:

Add Joe Lieberman to the "maybe" list for John McCain. If he's in a particularly selfish mood, and feels his Rick Warren forum performance solidified him with the Christowinger base, McCain may pick the one he loves the most (sorry Miss Lindsey...) and damn the torpedos... also, if Barack picks Joe Biden, it may actually make it more likely that McCain picks Joe, since Obama's pick will not have been a splashy surprise... Meanwhile, the RedStaters are high five-ing over supposedly killing off Tom Ridge ... don't pop the corks too soon, though, boys, Lieberman is NOT, I repeat NOT, out of the running...

|

Labels: , , ,

posted by JReid @ 9:22 AM  
Pakistan does what Nancy Pelosi can't
Pervez Musharraf heads off into the sunset, fleeing office before he can be impeached. Are you listening, Nancy? From the Beeb:

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, facing impeachment by parliament, has announced that he is resigning.

In a national televised address he said he was confident the charges against him would not stand, but this was not the time for more confrontation.

The charges against the president include violation of the constitution and gross misconduct.

Oh, Naaaannnncyyyyy....!

Meanwhile, his "pals" in the Bush administration say "don't even think about asylum."
WASHINGTON, Aug 17: The United States made it known on Sunday that it was not considering any proposal to grant political asylum to President Pervez Musharraf.

The announcement came from a person no less than the secretary of state who has the final say in such matters.

“That’s not an issue on the table,” said Condoleezza Rice when asked if the Bush administration was considering any proposal to grant political asylum to the embattled Pakistani leader.

“And I just want to keep our focus on what we must do with the democratic government of Pakistan,” she told Fox News on Sunday.

Asked if it would be in the best interest of Pakistan to have Gen (retd) Musharraf resign, Ms Rice said: “This is a matter for the Pakistanis to resolve.”

Her statement makes it obvious that the United States is no longer interested in a person who only recently was called an “indispensable ally” in the war on terror. The question of seeking a ‘safe haven’ for Mr Musharraf was raised by the US media after they concluded, almost unanimously, that his days were numbered and that his departure was only a matter of days, not weeks.

While discussing Mr Musharraf’s future, a leading American scholar of South Asian affairs noted that the Pakistani leader had “one redeeming feature.”

Unlike previous US-backed strongmen, such as Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines or the Shah of Iran, he was not a rich man, said Michael Krepon, a founding president of Washington’s Stimson Institute.

“Musharraf doesn’t have an estate in Hawaii or a mansion in Los Angeles. This complicates any potential exile,” he added. But even this “redeeming feature” does not endear Mr Musharraf to Washington where he is no longer seen as an “indispensable ally”, as Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte called him on Nov 7.

He is now seen as a “serious liability,” as a Western think-tank --- International Crisis Group --- pointed out recently.
In other words, thanks a lot, and good-bye. Message: stay out of the Bushes. When they're done with you, they're done with you.

Meanwhile, the Guardian runs down the key players in Musharraf's downfall.

And inquiring minds want to know: if Pakistani's sometime democracy can manage to reassert constitutional norms by impeaching its overreaching president, why can't WE?


|

Labels: , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 8:30 AM  
Sunday, August 17, 2008
The fake 'cone of silence' ... plus: is John McCain embellishing his Vietnam stories for political gain?
Apparently, Pastor Rick Warren was surprised to learn that his pretend maverick guest, John McCain, wasn't in a "cone of silence" after all while Barack Obama was taking questions at the Saddleback Church's civil forum:
The McCain campaign, which flew here Sunday from California, said Mr. McCain was in his motorcade on the way to the church as Mr. Obama was being interviewed by the Rev. Rick Warren.

The matter is of interest because Mr. McCain, who followed Mr. Obama’s hourlong appearance in the forum, was asked virtually the same questions as Mr. Obama. Mr. McCain’s performance was well received, raising speculation among some viewers, especially supporters of Mr. Obama, that he was not as isolated during the Obama interview as Mr. Warren implied.

Mr. Warren, pastor of Saddleback, had assured the audience while he was interviewing Mr. Obama that “we have safely placed Senator McCain in a cone of silence” and that he could not hear the questions.

After Mr. Obama’s interview, he was joined briefly by Mr. McCain and the candidates shook hands and embraced.

Mr. Warren started by asking him, “Now, my first question: Was the cone of silence comfortable that you were in just now?”

Mr. McCain deadpanned, “I was trying to hear through the wall.”
Yeah, the wall of his car, in which he was riding to the church while most likely being briefed on the questions by an aide who was following the forum for him on his or her iPhone (sure, McCain doesn't know how to use one, but that's what young aides are for...)

Which leads to the question: did Mac lie to the pastor about the 'cone of silence', or did the pastor lie to us?

The McCain camp trotted out this not-unexpected defense:
Nicolle Wallace, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, said on Sunday night that Mr. McCain had not heard the broadcast of the event while in his motorcade and heard none of the questions. “The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,” Ms. Wallace said.
Sure, sure, when in doubt, draw for the "war hero" card.  We all know that former POWs never lie... Well if the McCain campaign wants to talk incessantly (as the candidate did himself at Saddleback,) about the greatness of John McCain's Vietnam service, is it fair to ask whether he is embellishing the stories of that service for political gain? I say it is. So let's... 

From CQ Politics:
Last week, a speech by Sen. John McCain had phrases that were likely lifted directly from Wikipedia.

Now it seems McCain may have lifted another story last night at megachurch pastor Rick Warren's Faith Forum. According to a very persuasive Daily Kos diary, the anecdote McCain told about a North Vietnamese prison guard making a cross in the dirt as a sign of solidarity -- or as he said, "just two Christians worshiping together" -- is very similar to a story about Alexander Solzhenitsyn and his times in the Soviet Gulags.
CQP has the Solzhenitsyn passage, along with links to other doubters about McCain's version of events when in 'Nam:
Steven Waldman [on Beliefnet] notes that McCain's recounting of this story has changed over the years and "has gradually morphed from being about the humanity of the guard to being about the Christian faith of the guard and John McCain."

Andrew Sullivan says that McCain's early accounts of his years as a POW do not even include this story.
That last piece is important, because if McCain only recently began telling that story, or worse, if he did so in conjunction with his candidacy for office, that seems to me to be a serious thing, especially given what was done to John Kerry in 2004. And just to make things interesting, guess who McCain's witness is for the cross story? Why, one Bud Day, the Florida crank and member of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. Day figures in many of McCain's Vietnam-faith stories, but curiously, the cross story often does not, as in this glowing profile of McCain in the Chicago Tribune, where a Christmas riot makes the grade, but the cross in the sand does not...

The Sullivan(?)/"Calouste" entry in the Daily Kos reinforces the point:
Shortly after John McCain came back from Vietname in 1973, he wrote a detailed 12,000 word report of his experiences that was published in US News and World Report.

Even though McCain goes into a lot of detail in that story and mentions religion a few times, there is no mention of the cross in the sand story, even though it would have fitted in well with the whole narrative. There are numerous mentions of Vietnamese guards in the reports, mostly bad ones but also good ones, but there is no indication at all that any of them would have been Christian, although "[a] lot of them were homosexual".

So even though McCain yesterday said:
It was Christmas day, we were allowed to stand outside of our cell for a few minutes, and those days we were not allowed to see or communicate with each other although we certainly did. And I was stadning outside for my few minutes, outside my cell. He came walking up. He stood there for a minute and with his handle [sandal?] on the dirt in the courtyard he drew a cross and he stood there and a minute later, he rubbed it out and walked away. For a minute there, there as just two Christians worshiping together. I'll never forget that moment so every day -

That moment he will never forget wasn't worth spending a few of those 12,000 words on.
Recall that McCain has already been caught massaging his "NFL team as my squadron" story to pander to Pennsylvania voters. He is becoming notorious for failing to remember details about his own voting record, including last night, when he served up four "liberal" Supreme Court justices he wouldn't nominate, despite the fact that he voted to confirm two of them when Bill Clinton was president (something he bragged about to Hillary Clinton dead-enders as recently as June...) And also at the Rick Warren forum, he cited a story about "evil" Iraqis strapping suicide belts on two retarded women -- a story that has long since been debunked. On the "cross in the sand story," there's also this problematic fact:

There is a real question here about whether McCain embellishing the story of his captivity in 'Nam, in order to make it more compelling to certain voters -- in this case, members of the religious right, who the inimitable Frank Rich points out McCain hasn't exactly been friendly with in the recent past. And if he is, does anyone in the media, or the Obama campaign, have the stones to call him on it?

UPDATE: The McCain campaign has adopted nearly the entire Hillary Clinton/Mark Penn primary playbook, complete with attempts to bully the press into getting back to the traditional, suck-up coverage of John McCain. This time, the campaign has demanded a meeting with NBC News president Steve Capus to protest, of all people, Andrea Mitchell, probably the one consistently objective reporter left in Washington. The reason? That darned "cone of silence..." Part of the letter from Rick Davis to Capus reads:
We are extremely disappointed to see that the level of objectivity at NBC News has fallen so low that reporters are now giving voice to unsubstantiated, partisan claims in order to undercut John McCain.

Nowhere was this more evident than with NBC chief correspondent Andrea Mitchell's comments on "Meet the Press" this morning. In analyzing last night's presidential forum at Saddleback Church, Mitchell expressed the Obama campaign spin that John McCain could only have done so well last night because he "may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama." Here are Andrea Mitchell's comments in full:

Mitchell: "The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because what they are putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well-prepared." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 8/17/08)

Make no mistake: This is a serious charge. Andrea Mitchell is repeating, uncritically, a completely unsubstantiated Obama campaign claim that John McCain somehow cheated in last night's forum at Saddleback Church. Instead of trying to substantiate this blatant falsehood in any way, Andrea Mitchell felt that she needed to repeat it on air to millions of "Meet the Press" viewers with no indication that 1.) There's not one shred of evidence that it's true; 2.) In his official correspondence to both campaigns, Pastor Rick Warren provided both candidates with information regarding the topic areas to be covered, which Barack Obama acknowledged during the forum when asked about Pastor Warren's idea of an emergency plan for orphans and Obama said, "I cheated a little bit. I actually looked at this idea ahead of time, and I think it is a great idea;" 3.) John McCain actually requested that he and Barack Obama do the forum together on stage at the same time, making these kinds of after-the-fact complaints moot.

Indeed, instead of taking a critical journalistic approach to this spin, Andrea Mitchell did what has become a pattern for her of simply repeating Obama campaign talking points.

Are you kidding me? Andrea Mitchell? Talking points? You must have her confused with David Gregory and YOUR talking points...

|

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 11:44 PM  
Condi Rice's April Glaspie moment?
Meanwhile in the, "even Gregory couldn't screw this one up" category, Stretch did manage to have an interesting exchange with "Russia expert" (ahem) Condi Rice on this week's "Meet the Press." The exchange revealed a bit more about what the administration knew, what it didn't, and what it might have done to bring on the Georgia-Russia crisis:
MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about how we got here and what precipitated this crisis. This is how The New York Times reported it this week about a visit to Georgia back in July by you. "During a private dinner [in Tbilisi]" "Ms. Rice's aides say she warned President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia not to get into a military conflict with" Georgia--with "Russia," rather--"that Georgia could not win. `She told him, in no uncertain terms, that he had to put a non-use of force pledge on the table,' according to a senior administration official who accompanied Ms. Rice to the Georgia capital. ...

"In the days since the simmering conflict between Russia and Georgia erupted into war, Bush administration officials have been adamant in asserting that they warned the government in Tbilisi not to let Moscow provoke it into a fight - and that they were surprised when their advice went unheeded."

Well who wouldn't be?
MR. GREGORY: Did Georgia provoke this crisis?

SEC'Y RICE: This crisis has been going on for, as I said, more than a decade. It has been a hot zone and a volatile zone where there have been skirmishes over a significant period of time. It is absolutely the case that we have cautioned all parties against the use of force. In fact, I also talked to the Russians repeatedly in this period about the railway troops that they were bringing in, about reinforcing their peacekeepers, about overflying Georgian territory. So this had been a zone of conflict. We were trying to resolve it peacefully.

Oh, just answer the question, woman!
... SEC'Y RICE: David, as I've said, this--you can't just start with, "we told the Georgian's this." We also told the Russians not to engage in certain activities that they were engaging in. This was a zone of conflict, we were trying to do it peacefully. But whatever happened before this, once this broke out in South Ossetia, it could have been confined to South Ossetia. Rather than confine it to that and deal with the facts on the ground there, the Russians decided to go deeper into Georgia, to bomb Georgian ports, to bomb Georgian military installations, to go into the city of Gori. And so it was that escalation that got us to the point that where we're at now. And that...

MR. GREGORY: And give--but given...

SEC'Y RICE: ...fully has been...

MR. GREGORY: ...that escalation, Secretary Rice, do you understand why there are some within the Georgian leadership who feel betrayed by the U.S.? Do they have an unreasonable expectation that the U.S. would come in guns blazing, as it were, to protect them?

SEC'Y RICE: I don't think anybody...

...could have imagined planes flying into buildings??? Oh ... sorry ... go on Secretary Rice...
... had an expectation that the United States was going to use military force in this conflict. But we need to keep the focus on the culprit here, and the culprit here is that Russia over-reached, used disproportionate force against a small neighbor and is now paying the price for that, because Russia's reputation as a potential partner in international institutions, diplomatic, political, security, economic, is frankly in tatters.

Kind of reminds you of when a certain Bush I administration State Department official told Saddam Hussein back in 1991 that the U.S. would have no opinion about his adventures in Kuwait... et tu, April Glaspie...?

Meanwhile, the NYT reports that far from backing down, Russia is moving ballistic missile launchers into South Ossetia, solidifying its hold on the province, while at the same time threatening Poland with possible nuclear attack over the "missile shield" system we're putting there.

Great work Dr. Rice! You taught our Dubha well...

|

Labels: , , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 10:35 PM  
Has anyone checked David Gregory's car for a McCain '08 bumper sticker?
Reinforcing why I would literally quit watching "Meet the Press" if he became the moderator, David "Stretch" Gregory, who has made a faux reputation as a tough Washington reporter while simultaneously serving as Dubya's sweetheart, did an entire segment with surrogates for Barack Obama and John McCain (Tim Kaine, who did very well, by the way, and the very strange Bobby Jindal, who does the creepy eyes, if you know what I mean...) on the subject of Georgia, without once asking Jindal the following question (or something like it):

"Is it appropriate, in your opinion, for John McCain to have as his top foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann, who not only lobbied on behalf of the Georgian government, but who also lobbied John McCain?"

Nor did Gregory quiz Jindal on the McCain campaign's crass politicization of the Georgia crisis, After all, his own network has reported on it, and in the previous segment, Gregory had just talked to Condi Rice ... about Georgia... Another issue that went un-asked, and thus un-answered, McCain's newly minted ties to Jack Abramoff scandal-tainted "Christian" lobbyist Ralph Reed, another issue reported by his very own network, NBC.

Instead, Gregory lobbed such softballs at Jindall as, "are you going to be vice president? ... are you sure ...? Is that a Shermanesque 'no' or a fakey-fake one...?" 

Just for giggles, let's check out the first question to Kaine and Jindall this morning. First, Kaine. Gregory asked him:
Let's get right to it. We both heard Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice talking about the situation in Georgia, Governor Kaine. Senator Obama was criticized by the McCain campaign this week, particularly for his comments that there should be restraint on both sides after the invasion. Was he too weak in his initial response?
...a fine imitation of Stephen Hayes or Bill Kristol, but trotting out the RedState.com meme of the month is not an auspicious start for a so-called "straight reporter." Now, let's take a look at Jindal's first at-bat, which came moments later:
Governor Jindal, just as Senator Obama's criticized, Senator McCain, too, was criticized by an adviser to Senator Obama, who said that some of his initial tough talk was shot from the hip and was actually belligerent, in the words of one of Obama's advisers.
Okay, not bad, although it was a bit more than just Obama advisers that were having a go at McCain for trying to restart the Cold War ... anyway, now let's look at the next 10 questions Gregory asks the two surrogates, and I'm going to put them in the exact order in which they appeared in the program and transcript, without the responses, for the sake of time. Here we go...
1. MR. GREGORY: Let's turn to domestic matters in this campaign, and The New York Times reporting some criticism of Senator Obama now. And the headline reads like this: "Allies Ask Obama to Make Hope More Specific. [Democratic] party leaders in battleground states say the fight ahead against Senator John McCain looks tougher than they imagined, with Mr. Obama vulnerable on multiple fronts. ...

"These Democrats - 15 governors, members of Congress and state party leaders - say Obama has yet to convert his popularity among many Americans into solutions to crucial electoral challenges: showing ownership of an issue, like economic stewardship of national security; winning over supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton; and minimizing his race and experience level as concerns for voters. ...

(plays some tape)

2. MR. GREGORY: Governor Kaine, has Senator Obama wasted time here?

3. MR. GREGORY: But understands the economy, but has Senator Obama owned this issue?

4. MR. GREGORY: Are some of these criticisms of Obama coming out of the Clinton camp in your judgment?

5. MR. GREGORY: But is unity a problem right now in the party?

6. MR. GREGORY: There may be agreement there, but that doesn't sound like there's unity within the party, to hear some of the criticism about Obama.

(Kaine says you'll see unity in Denver)

7. MR. GREGORY: But it's not there yet.

Okay, now, for question number 8, with the set-up:
MR. GREGORY: Let me turn to Governor Jindal and Senator McCain.

In some of his ads, this is how he's talking about America today, watch.

(Videotape, campaign ad)

Announcer: Washington's broken. John McCain knows it. We're worse off than we were four years ago.

(End videotape)

8. MR. GREGORY: That's a pretty direct swipe at President Bush, isn't it, Governor?
Say WHAT??? So Gregory spends about five minutes haranguing Tim Kaine about Democratic disunity, Obama squandering bad economic news and general doom and gloom for November, and then serves up a golden ticket for Bobby Jindal to distance his candidate from President Bush, which just happens to be precisely the McCain campaign strategy??? namely, DISTANCING THE CANDIDATE FROM PRESIDENT BUSH? Gregory, are you serious?

Let's go on:
9. MR. GREGORY: Governor, do you agree with Senator McCain that America's worse off than it was four years ago?
Again, nothing about McCain's comment, just the night before, about $5 million in income being the floor for being rich. Nothing about his 95-100 percent voting record with President Bush, in contrast to the message in the ad Gregory just ran; in short, nothing at all that an actual reporter, and not another campaign surrogate, would ask. Do we dare try question number ten? Oh, why the hell not. It's late and I'm an insomniac...
10. MR. GREGORY: You've talked about the crisis within the Republican Party, that it lost its way, that it used to be the party of big ideas. And now you back Senator McCain. What's the big idea Senator McCain is campaigning on?
Okay, here's where I start poking sharp sticks in my eyes. Why not just ask, "Governor Jindall, what is John McCain's plan to make America a better place for all of us to live?" Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Well, at least there was a follow up:
GOV. JINDAL: Well, I think there's several, but certainly when it comes to domestic issues, he understands the energy crisis is probably the biggest economic obstacle we face and he understands that it's not one silver bullet, that we do need more domestic oil and gas production. We do need nuclear power. We need clean coal. We need conservation. We need renewables.

MR. GREGORY: But those were Bush-Cheney big ideas in 2000. Where are the new big ideas of the Republican Party that John McCain is, is championing?
Wow. Give that man a Pullitzer.

Of course, after that, Gregory went right for the Jindal jugular with his very next question:
MR. GREGORY: Governor Jindal, would you like to be vice president?
Well that's it, folks. David Gregory: crack reporter, killing "Meet the Press" in 11 questions or less. 


|

Labels: , , , , , , ,

posted by JReid @ 10:13 PM  
Meg Whitman??? ... and other thoughts on the Rick Warren presidential forum
My initial impression of the Rick Warren "civil discussion" tonight featuring one hour each for Barack Obama and John McCain is that the forum, and particularly the questions, did seem tailor made for McCain, which isn't surprising because Warren, like most evangelical leaders, is a Republican. Still, I thought he was fair, for the most part (except when he failed to remind John McCain to stay off his stump speech,) and thoughtful, and his forum enlightening. So here's the scorecard:

1. Thanks for nothing, honey. When asked who the smartest people he knew were, and who he would turn to for advice as president, Barack mentioned his wife and grandmother as the wisest, then fired off an assortment of Republican and Democratic colleagues in the Senate like Dick Lugar and former Sen. Sam Nunn as people he would turn to for advice (interestingly, he did not include either Clinton...) John McCain coldly ignored poor Cindy altogether, not to mention his very old mother, and instead reeled off the strangest triad I've ever heeard: Gen. Petraeus (surprise, surprise) Democratic Congressman John Lewis ... a Clinton friend and flip-flop to Obama guy, and Meg Whitman, the CEO of Ebay. HUH???

Whitman is a McCain campaign co-chair, She's also a former Romney girl, which increases the possibility that he's being influenced in that veep direction. And I guess he thought he was being economically hip by mentioning an online company that was hot like, ten years ago. The John Lewis thing I can't even begin to explain. Maybe he got his Georgias confused... Score this one: Obama.
2. Talking points memo. I have to give this one to McCain, who will, as David Gergen noted on CNN tonight, be a tougher debater than the Obama Nation might have imagined. While I found him irritating (he's simply got to drop the "my friends" thing -- it's extremely creepy and weird...) pandering and repetitive (war, war, Gen. Petraeus, war, al-Qaida, Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam, can I tell you one more story about Vietnam, my friends...?) he did what any communications director wants to see: he fired off the talking points and repeated them over, and over and over again, no matter what he was asked. When asked about his greatest moral failing, he gave a clipped answer: "the failure of my first marriage," and then moved right back to his stump speech talking points. Asked about abortion, he begged to talk about the Supreme Court, so he could give his talking points. (and then mentioned he would not have nominated the four liberal justices, including David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer, all of whom he voted to confirm in the Senate, by the way ... he probably would have voted to confirm John Paul Stevens, too, but he wasn't in the Senate in 1975 ...) Asked about security vs. privacy, he threw in secret union ballots -- a right wing favorite topic -- straight out of left field ... McCain pandered on every answer to his audience of religious right voters, and was aggressive at promoting his ... you guessed it: talking points. McCain came off more blatantly political and Obama more thoughtful and authentic, but that may not matter to undecided voters, who want one of these candidates to force them to make up their minds. Score this one: McCain.

3. Too cool for school? Barack Obama was his usual cool, languid self, but his communications team has simply got to get him to shorten his answers. By being so thoughtful and nuanced, Obama missed the chance to take more questions, and he failed to get across clear, succinct messages. On the up-side, he actually had an intimate, real conversation with Rick Warren, whereas McCain simply hammered on the talking points and pandered to the audience, rarely addressing Warren directly. I think Obama hit paydirt with his Supreme Court answer by saying that the justice he would not have nominated would be unqualified Clarence Thomas (he righties are just seething over that one, and we love that!) But as Chuck Todd points out over at First Read:
Obama spent more time trying to impress Warren (or to put another away) not offend Warren while McCain seemingly ignored Warren and decided he was talking to folks watching on TV. The McCain way of handling this forum is usually the winning way. Obama may have had more authentic moments but McCain was impressively on message.
Score this one: McCain.

4. Land mine avoidance. McCain completely circumvented Rich Warren's attempts to get him to elaborate on issues that could split him from the right wing of his party. His six word answer to the "worst personal moral failing" question was one example, but he did that one better when he completely avoided the obvious answer to the question of what instance he could cite when he bucked his party at great political risk to himself. The obvious answers: campaign finance reform and immigration reform. McCain chose neither one, instead picking climate change, or something... Warren, who we should stipulate is not a reporter, didn't follow up. Score this one: McCain.

5. Maybe this would have been a good time for McCain to mention his wife? Asked by Warren what amount of income qualifies someone to be considered "rich," Barack gave a pretty good answer, joking that anybody who has sold 25 million books, as Warren has, qualifies. But then he got down to numbers, saying that if you make over $250,000 a year, "you're doing pretty well." McCain? He set the low bar for being considered rich at a cool $5 million. As Chris Kofinis said on Fox tonight, that was an opposition ad waiting to happen, and that ad should be made. Score this one: Obama.

6. Faith first. This was, after all, supposed to be a faith forum, and on that score, Obama won by a mile. He came off as much more humble, more conversant with the topic of faith, and more versed in Biblical scripture. He talked about man's need for humility in confronting evil, knowing that God is the only one capable o