SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)2/25/2008 1:35:45 AM
From: denizen48  Respond to of 89467
 
I had a change-maker when I drove CTA. Skol. Prost. You can't type loaded. F.. Hilary.



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)2/25/2008 3:27:54 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Who Will Tell Hillary?
____________________________________________________________

By Robert D. Novak
Columnist
The Washington Post
Monday, February 25, 2008; Page A15

Even before Sen. Barack Obama won his ninth straight contest against Sen. Hillary Clinton, in Wisconsin last Tuesday, wise old heads in the Democratic Party were asking this question: Who will tell her that it's over, that she cannot win the presidential nomination and that the sooner she leaves the race, the more it will improve the party's chances of defeating Sen. John McCain in November?

In an ideal though unattainable world, Clinton would have dropped out when it became clear even before Wisconsin that she could not be nominated. The nightmare scenario was that she would win in Wisconsin, claiming a "comeback" that would propel her to narrow victories in Texas and Ohio on March 4. That still would not have cut her a path to the nomination. But telling her then to end her candidacy and avoiding a bloody battle stretching to the party's national convention in Denver might not have been achievable.

The Democratic dilemma recalls the Republican problem, in a much different context, 34 years ago, when GOP graybeards asked: "Who will bell the cat?" -- or, go to Richard Nixon and inform him that he had lost his support in the party and must resign the presidency. Sen. Barry Goldwater successfully performed that mission in 1974, but there is no Goldwater facsimile in today's Democratic Party (except for Sen. Ted Kennedy, who could not do it because he has endorsed Obama).

Clinton's rationale for remaining a candidate is the Texas-Ohio parlay, and pre-Wisconsin polls gave her a comfortable lead in both states. But Texas has become a dead heat, and her margin in Ohio is down to single digits. Following the Wisconsin returns, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, Clinton's leading endorser in the state, is reported to have privately expressed concern as to whether he can hold the state for her. If she ekes out a win in Ohio while losing Texas, who will bell Hillary?

The former sense of inevitability regarding Clinton becoming the first female president was based on her dominance over weak fields in both parties. McCain was the one Republican who worried Democratic strategists, and he appeared dead three months ago. Mitt Romney, the then-likely Republican nominee, was viewed in Democratic circles as unelectable.

Obama's improbable candidacy always worried Clinton insiders, which explains the whispering campaign that the Illinois neophyte would prove vulnerable to a Republican onslaught as the presidential nominee. That private assault continues to this day, with Obama described as a latter-day George McGovern whose career record of radical positions will prove easy prey for GOP attack dogs.

But Clinton could not go before Democratic primary voters and assail Obama for being too far to the left. Instead, she insinuated moral turpitude by asserting that Obama had not been "vetted." When that backfired, she claimed plagiarism by Obama in lifting a paragraph from a speech by his friend and supporter Deval Patrick, the Massachusetts governor -- an approach that yielded mainly derisive laughter among politicians.

I listened in on last Wednesday's news media conference calls by Clinton campaign managers Mark Penn and Harold Ickes in the wake of her Wisconsin drubbing. Incredibly, they were hawking the same plagiarism charge that had just proved ineffective. Clinton herself raised the bogus issue again at Thursday night's debate in Austin and was rewarded with boos from the Democratic audience.

Clinton's burden is not only Obama's charisma but also McCain's resurrection. Some of the same Democrats who short months ago were heralding her as the "perfect" candidate now call her a sure loser against McCain, saying she would do the party a favor by just leaving.

Clinton's tipping point may have come when it was announced that her $5 million loan to her campaign came from a fund she shares with Bill Clinton. That puts into play for the general election business deals by the former president that transformed him from an indigent to a multimillionaire and might excite interest in their income tax returns, which the Clintons refuse to release. The prospect impels many Democratic insiders to pray for the clear Obama victories on March 4 that they hope will make it unnecessary for anybody to beg Hillary Clinton to end her failed campaign.

washingtonpost.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)2/25/2008 3:35:49 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
UPDATED: MSNBC's and Now CNN's Odious Attack on Obama Today

dailykos.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)2/25/2008 9:03:29 AM
From: jim-thompson  Respond to of 89467
 
is Obama American enough? might have a problem in convincing people he supports the United States.

By NEDRA PICKLER


WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Barack Obama's refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin along with a photo of him not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem led conservatives on Internet and in the media to question his patriotism.

Now Obama's wife, Michelle, has drawn their ire, too, for saying recently that she's really proud of her country for the first time in her adult life.

see rest if story at : apnews.myway.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)2/25/2008 2:33:42 PM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 89467
 
Hillary is releasing photos of Obama in a turbin.



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)2/25/2008 3:36:21 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
His and Her finances
____________________________________________________________

Posted: Monday, February 25, at 11:39 am

SOURCE: The Wall Street Journal

WSJ - Stonewalling and secrecy helped Bill and Hillary Clinton win the White House without a thorough enough vetting in 1992. Now they're trying to do it again, this time by not disclosing either their income tax returns or the donor list for the Clinton Foundation.

All of this has become the target of greater attention since Mrs. Clinton loaned her struggling campaign $5 million last month. She waited until after the crucial Super Tuesday voting to disclose this news, and initially described the loan as "my money." Campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson then clarified that the cash had come from Mrs. Clinton's 50% "share" of the couple's joint resources.

Is America a great country or what? Only seven years ago the Clintons were swimming in legal bills. They've since cashed in on their celebrity to pay off a $2 million mortgage on their Washington D.C. home, and are now able to lend $5 million to Mrs. Clinton's campaign. The Senator has had her own success, earning more than $5 million for her "Living History" memoir. But the real income source has been the former President, who has been giving $450,000 speeches, and in general parlaying his political fame into personal riches.

Mr. Clinton is now trying to unwind a business relationship with billionaire pal Ron Burkle. This deal made him a partner -- along with the ruler of Dubai -- in the Yucaipa Global Fund. How much did Mr. Clinton earn from a partnership with men whose business interests might be affected by the policy actions of a President Hillary Clinton? The Clintons and their accountant know, but the public doesn't.

Mr. Clinton has also been raising cash for the Clinton Foundation, which funds his charitable activities and Presidential library. The foundation has raised more than $500 million, but Mr. Clinton has refused to release a donor list.

What we do know is that Mr. Clinton has allowed donors to use his influence to advance their business interests. That was the case with Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, who won a huge mining concession in Kazakhstan after Mr. Clinton flew all the way to Almaty to introduce him to President Nursultan Nazarbayev. Bloomberg reported this week that Mr. Clinton has also been a frequent flyer on Mr. Giustra's corporate jet.

Mr. Giustra later donated $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation and has pledged $100 million more. As the New York Times has reported, Mr. Clinton used his trip to praise Mr. Nazarbayev's bid to head the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, even as Senator Clinton was slamming the country's record on corruption and elections. If Mr. Clinton's personal business is going to affect U.S. foreign policy, he ought to tell the world who his benefactors are.

We've seen this nondisclosure before. During the 1992 campaign, the Clintons claimed to be coming clean by releasing their tax returns from 1980 forward. But they steadfastly refused to release their returns for prior years, and only later did we learn that 1978 and 1979 were the tax years when Mrs. Clinton reported her 10,000% cattle-futures trading profit. Remember Red Bone and Jim Blair, and how she claimed she had made the investment on her own after reading the Wall Street Journal? For that matter, remember the other characters who provided cash for the Clintons in return for nights in the Lincoln Bedroom, among other things?

Senator Clinton has said she'll make her tax returns public only if she wins the Democratic nomination. Mr. Clinton has said he'll disclose his future donors only if she is President. Once again they're trying to block disclosure until it's too late to inform the judgment of voters.

Mr. Obama has released his tax returns and has suggested Mrs. Clinton do the same because "the American people deserve to know where you get your income from." If the Clintons continue to keep his and her finances under wraps, the public would be wise, given their history, to assume they have something to hide.



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)2/25/2008 3:39:41 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Drudge Says Clinton Staffers Circulate “Dressed” Obama Photo (SECOND MAJOR UPDATE)

themoderatevoice.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)2/25/2008 3:53:38 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
They're Republican red, and true blue to Obama
_______________________________________________________________

GOP renegades seeking a candidate capable of ending the Washington partisanship are surfacing in the senator's campaign in surprising numbers. 'Obamacans,' he calls them.

By Mark Z. Barabak
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 25, 2008

DELAWARE, OHIO -- Chatter bounces off the bare walls and checkered linoleum floor as Josh Pedaline and other Barack Obama supporters burn through their call sheets.

A map of Delaware County splays across a tabletop. Another table is laden with cookies, pretzels and other snacks. Volunteers sit elbow to elbow, pecking at cellphones and pitching the Illinois Democrat in advance of Ohio's March 4 primary. The scene is a typical campaign boiler room.

Except that four of the 13 dialing away are lifelong Republicans, including Pedaline, 28, who reveres Ronald Reagan and twice voted for President Bush.

"I am so sick and tired of the partisanship," Pedaline says before starting his night shift at Obama's outpost in this affluent Columbus suburb. "I don't want to be cheesy and say, 'He'll bring us all together.' But he seems like someone willing to listen to a good idea, even if it comes from a Republican."

Pedaline and other GOP renegades are part of a striking phenomenon this campaign season: They are "Obamacans," as the senator calls them, and they are surfacing in surprising numbers. Though some observers question their commitment, they are blurring -- for now, at least -- the red-blue lines that have colored the nation's politics for the last several years.

"I'm a conservative, but I have gay friends," Pedaline explains over dinner at a Columbus diner. "I have friends who don't believe in abortion, but I don't condemn them for it; I don't feel like Obama is condemning me for being a Republican."

Pedaline has some high-profile company. Susan Eisenhower, a GOP business consultant and granddaughter of President Eisenhower, has endorsed the Democratic hopeful. Colin L. Powell, who served in both Bush administrations, has hinted he may do so as well.

Former Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, who quit the Republican Party after losing his 2006 reelection bid, endorsed Obama even though he campaigned for Chafee's opponent. Mark McKinnon, a strategist for Republican John McCain, says he will continue to back the Arizona senator but will step aside rather than work against Obama if the two meet in the fall election.

McCain also enjoys crossover support, Democrats attracted by his blunt talk and willingness to break with Republicans on campaign finance and global warming. "We know the old Reagan Democrats," McCain said aboard his campaign charter. "We'll try to get those on our side as well, Democrats who think that I'm more capable, particularly on national security issues."

But so far, Obama has shown more success pulling members of the other party to his side.

Republicans made up 6% of voters in Missouri's Democratic primary, 7% in Virginia's and 9% in Wisconsin's. (Most states make it harder to vote in the other party's contest.) The overwhelming majority cast their ballots for Sen. Obama, according to exit polls.

Johanna Schneider was one of his Virginia supporters. She went door to door for Obama with her 14-year-old son, Chase, convinced that fellow Republicans have lost their way. "I just feel this is a tremendous opportunity to open politics up to a new generation," said Schneider, a former GOP staffer on Capitol Hill. "And I believe that Barack Obama is a genuine transformational candidate."

The support has not come unbidden. Throughout his campaign, Obama has been appealing to Republicans even as he battles Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York for the Democratic nomination. Obama's first TV ad in Iowa featured a GOP lawmaker from Illinois touting Obama's ability to work with Republicans.

"Very rarely do you hear me talking about my opponents without giving them some credit for having good intentions and being decent people," Obama recently told U.S. News & World Report. "There's nothing uniquely Democratic about a respect for civil liberties. There's nothing uniquely Democratic about believing in a foreign policy of restraint. . . . A lot of the virtues I talk about are virtues that are deeply embedded in the Republican Party."

As noble as those words may be, there are tactical benefits to Obama's outreach. Winning support from Republicans and independents as well as Democrats "shows he's the candidate best situated to take on McCain in the fall," Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman, asserted. "That is an important distinction in this race."

Republican support also reinforces Obama's message as he paints himself as a unity candidate above party labels, capable of ending the Washington sniping. "We're going to build a working majority," he said the night he swept primaries in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C. "Not by turning people off, but by bringing them in."

Those words resonate with Lennie Rhoades, 57, who cast his first presidential ballot for Richard Nixon and has voted Republican in every presidential race since. "It seems like Washington has come to a standstill the last eight years," said Rhoades, in between calls at the Obama office in a brick storefront below Delaware County's Democratic headquarters. "I think Obama can get beyond that."

Many are skeptical that Republicans will stick with Obama until November. They point out that many of his proposals -- including a timetable for ending the war in Iraq, repealing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, expanding the government's role in healthcare and supporting gay rights and gun control -- cut too much against GOP orthodoxy.

"Even in this day and age, partisanship carries a lot of weight," said David Redlawsk, a University of Iowa political scientist whose polling last summer picked up early signs of Obama's Republican appeal.

But for Pedaline, who spent months researching candidates before embracing Obama, there is no going back. Even though he questions the feasibility of Obama's plan to withdraw from Iraq and figures government would grow under the Democrat's administration, his support "is not a policy decision."

"It's a personality decision," Pedaline says. "It's an inspirational decision."

Pedaline, a loan officer at a Columbus mortgage company, grew up in rural Ohio and still carries the heft of his high school football days. His father, a salesman, and his mother, who ran a pizza shop, were largely apolitical. But Pedaline was bothered when the Democratic congressman from nearby Youngstown, James A. Traficant Jr., went to prison on corruption charges. "I had a bad taste in my mouth about Democrats from the beginning," he says over a chicken dinner.

During his college years in Columbus, the political talk was all about President Clinton and impeachment. That compounded Pedaline's contempt for Democrats in general, and the Clintons in particular. "Disingenuous," he says of the former first lady. He will vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee.

Like many, he discovered Obama through the candidate's soaring address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention. His words put "chills on the back of my neck," Pedaline says, especially when he talked about America's shared values. He followed Obama on the Washington talk-show circuit and went to YouTube to download his February 2007 speech announcing his presidential candidacy.

By then, Pedaline had soured on Bush and the "conservative ideologues" he blamed for Washington's gridlock, especially when it came to Social Security, an issue important to his parents.

He wrote a long MySpace missive calling for a candidate "who is flexible, creative, intelligent and willing to compromise." After Obama entered the race, Pedaline posted his statement on a campaign message board with an addendum: "My biggest hope is that his refreshing outlook and attitude will rub off on his opponents both Republican and Democrat alike. . . . "

Soon, Pedaline heard from John Martin, a New York law student and co-founder of Republicans for Obama, a loosely knit grass-roots organization, who asked him to head the Ohio chapter. (There are 22 across the country.) Pedaline agreed, even though he was still weighing support for McCain and former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Obama's two autobiographies sold Pedaline. After reading them last summer, he was convinced Obama possessed both the desire and a singular capacity to unite Americans. "Maybe it's just a fairy tale," Pedaline says, "but maybe we can at least get back to a point where people can listen and respect each other."

He committed to the Obama campaign six nights a week through the March 4 primary and hopes to volunteer in the fall, when Ohio will be a top target of both parties. His day job, which requires the occasional cold call, helps in phone canvassing. Two hours into his boiler-room shift, Pedaline sounds as relentlessly cheery -- "Hi, this is Josh, from Sen. Obama's presidential campaign!" -- as he did starting out.

Seated nearby is Royal Morse, 56, a small-business owner and another lifelong Republican. He too hungers for more civility and productivity in Washington. "I've never been as passionate about any presidential candidate in my 35 years of voting," Morse says during a break. "Never."

The two dial, chat, dial, chat, each in his own conversation until Morse gets some grief from the other end of the line. He glances at Pedaline. "Another one of those stuffy Republicans," he says. The two smile, and keep dialing.

-Times staff writers Johanna Neuman and Maeve Reston contributed to this report.



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)2/25/2008 4:48:42 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Caroline Kennedy courts women for Obama

startelegram.typepad.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)2/25/2008 8:34:22 PM
From: jim-thompson  Respond to of 89467
 
i am beginning to agree with willy.... Obama might just be on a big fairy tale journey....



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)2/25/2008 8:54:27 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Barack has 4 MORE years of legislative experience than Hillary

my.barackobama.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)2/25/2008 10:50:22 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Clinton campaign starts 5-point attack on Obama

iht.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)2/27/2008 3:06:06 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
The reviews are in on Tuesday night's debate...

my.barackobama.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)2/27/2008 10:57:39 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Why the War on Obama

consortiumnews.com

By Robert Parry

February 26, 2008

While some cynics still view Barack Obama’s appeal for “change” as empty rhetoric, it’s starting to dawn on Washington insiders that his ability to raise vast sums of money from nearly one million mostly small donors could shake the grip that special-interest money has long held over the U.S. government.

This spreading realization that Obama’s political movement might represent a more revolutionary change than previously understood is sparking a deepening resistance among defenders of the status quo – and prompting harsher attacks on Obama.

Right now, the front line for the Washington Establishment is Hillary Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, which has been stunned by Obama’s political skills as well as his extraordinary ability to raise money over the Internet. Obama’s grassroots donations have negated Clinton’s prodigious fundraising advantage with big donors.

Powerful lobbies – from AIPAC to representatives of military and other industries – also are recognizing the value of keeping their dominance over campaign cash from getting diluted by Obama’s deep reservoir of small donors. It’s in their direct interest to dent Obama’s momentum and demoralize his rank-and-file supporters as soon as possible.

So, neoconservatives and other ideological movements – heavily dependent on grants from the same special interests – are now joining with the Clinton campaign to tear down Obama by depicting him as unpatriotic, un-vetted, possibly a “closet Muslim.”

On Feb. 25, the New York Times’ new neocon columnist William Kristol attacked Obama’s patriotism by citing the Illinois senator decision to stop wearing an American flag lapel pin because, Obama said, he saw how George W. Bush was exploiting the flag to stampede the nation toward war with Iraq.

“You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin,” Obama said when asked about his lack of a flag pin in October 2007. “As we’re talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.”

In a column entitled “It’s All About Him,” Kristol mocked this explanation as an example of both Obama’s dubious claim to patriotism and his pomposity.

“Leaving aside the claim that ‘speaking out on issues’ constitutes true patriotism,” Kristol wrote. “What’s striking is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. … Moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good – too patriotic! – to wear a flag pin on his chest.”

Kristol then turned on Michelle Obama for her comment about how excited she was by the public outpouring for political change that has surrounded her husband’s campaign: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country,” she said.

Kristol wrote: “Can it really be the case that nothing the U.S. achieved since [the mid-1980s] has made her proud? Apparently.” [NYT, Feb. 25, 2008]

Clinton Money Woes

Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign – having burned through $130 million and needing a $5 million emergency loan from the Clintons’ personal finances – has gone hat in hand to some of the special interests with a strong stake in protecting the Washington status quo.

For instance, campaign finance director Jonathan Mantz met with donors from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in a Washington hotel lobby when these pro-Israel AIPAC supporters were in town for other business, the Wall Street Journal reported on Feb. 14.

The approach made sense because these pro-Israeli lobbyists remain wary of Obama’s advocacy of high-level talks with Iran, his opposition to the Iraq War, and his skimpier record of supporting Israel when compared with Hillary Clinton or John McCain.

One former Israeli official told me that the Israeli government feels it can work with Obama, Clinton or McCain, but that the Israeli lobby in the United States is adamantly opposed to Obama, preferring Clinton because “they own her.” The ex-official said the lobby has some concern, too, with McCain because of his independent streak.

Like other powerful lobbies, AIPAC is threatened by Obama’s ability to raise large sums of money from everyday Americans, thus reducing the need of Washington politicians to hold out their tin cups to AIPAC’s legendary network of wealthy donors. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “How Far Will the Clintons Go?”]

After having lost 11 consecutive contests, the Clinton campaign is now turning to what its “kitchen sink” strategy of throwing whatever it has at Obama.

Over the past few weeks, Clinton surrogates have been spreading rumors about Obama’s association with people with Arab names and contributions he has received from 1970s-era student radicals (though they’re now gray-haired, middle-class professionals). Some are packaging the attacks under the title, “The Obama Scandals.”

On Feb. 26, Internet gossip Matt Drudge reported that a Clinton staffer e-mailed a photo taken of Obama during a 2006 trip to Kenya when he was dressed in a turban and other traditional garb of a Somali Elder. That reinforced earlier rumors spread about Obama as a secret Muslim, though he has long belonged to a Christian church in Chicago.

Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe denounced the Clinton campaign for circulating the photo with the goal of “shameful offensive fear-mongering.”

The Clinton campaign denied knowledge of how the photo was disseminated, but campaign manager Maggie Williams attacked the Obama campaign for overreacting. “If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed,” she said.

Two Faces of Hillary

Sen. Clinton herself seemed torn between showing voters her softer side and releasing her inner combative persona.

At the end of a Texas debate on Feb. 21, Sen. Clinton extended her hand to Obama and expressed how “honored” she was to be on the same stage with him. But she soon switched tactics and launched harsh attacks on Obama.

On Feb. 23, reacting to flyers that the Obama campaign distributed in Ohio criticizing her positions on the North American Free Trade Agreement and the mandate included in her health insurance plan, Clinton rebuked her rival.

“Shame on you, Barack Obama,” Clinton shouted, before instructing him to “meet me in Ohio, and let’s have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign.”

To some observers, Clinton’s outburst had the look of an angry queen scolding a misbehaving servant boy, or a principal pulling a wayward student by the ear to the school office.

“Enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics right out of Karl Rove’s playbook,” she added, suggesting that the flyers contrasting the positions of the two rivals were somehow a novel or diabolical concept.

In reality, the Obama flyers were pretty standard stuff, more from the playbook of Tom Paine than Karl Rove. If Rove’s playbook were in use, the flyers would have claimed to come from a pro-Hillary group while advocating legalization of child pornography.

But the Clinton campaign was only warming up. On Feb. 24, during a stop in Rhode Island, Clinton mocked Obama’s speeches calling for change:

“Now, I could stand up here and say, ‘Let’s just get everybody together. Let’s get unified. The sky will open. The light will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.”

Amid some chuckles from her supporters, Clinton added, “Maybe I’ve just lived a little long, but I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and the special interests disappear.”

Though this Clinton line of attack is popular among some of her backers – ridiculing the supposed naivety of Obama’s young supporters – Obama has never suggested that countering the entrenched special interests of Washington would be easy.

Obama’s argument has been that only an energized American public can elect representatives to bring about change and then the people must stay vigilant to make sure there is no backsliding.

While it’s true Obama doesn’t spell out all the difficulties ahead, his argument is at least as realistic as Clinton’s – that Republican obstructionism can be countered with “hard work.” That approach failed miserably when her initial health care plan collapsed in 1994 despite her strenuous efforts on its behalf.

More to the immediate point, however, Obama’s success in getting out from under the special-interest financial dependency may be the most significant political development of this election cycle.

That success also helps explain the emerging war on Obama – and the rising hysteria among Establishment figures about his surging candidacy.
_____________________

*Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek.



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)2/28/2008 8:38:58 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
West Wing/Obama fans: Check this out. Pretty interesting

slatev.com

One name leaps out: Obama Senior Strategist David Axelrod



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)2/28/2008 10:28:10 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Texas Republicans cross over to vote for Obama

msnbc.msn.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)2/29/2008 3:57:54 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 89467
 
savvy cliffyAS:

OBAMA is not running in 2008, but might when he's older and more experienced. He is a future mega-star and possible president, but probably not until 2016. After eight great years of President Kerry?

Kerry would still make the finest president. He is ready and he has earned it. He could really get this country back on track. But first he'll need to get past Warner and McCain. Those are the big two assuming Gore doesn't have a change of heart. Hillary, Guliani and the rest are all sideshows

To: johnflipflopper who wrote (69569) 6/18/2006 12:06:35 PM
From: American Spirit Read Replies (1) of 116150



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)2/29/2008 5:22:43 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Clinton smears latte liberals everywhere...

tnr.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)3/1/2008 4:54:34 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Hillary Clinton:

-is currently behind by 159 in pledged delegates earned

-has lost 11 races in a row

-couldn't beat Obama on pledged delegates on any day during this race.

And that's after she started out with 20-30% leads everywhere due to her strong name recognition advantage over Obama to begin the race.

Such a pitifully run and destructively negative campaign should be strongly discouraged from continuing by party leaders.

The Clinton campaign's negative tactics go a long way...

-starting with a whole bunch of tactics to paint Obama as a black candidate, a muslim guy etc.

-denigrating Obama supporters with the "cult" meme (Blumenthal sold that to the media)

-throwing around BS plagiarism charges (Wolfson peddled this)

-dishonest NH mailer distorting Obama's strongly pro-choice record

-distorting radio ads in SC

-Hillary's unprovoked Xerox stink bomb at the debate

These negative tactics haven't worked and in fact have backfired. They still keep throwing them at Obama. Maybe Mark Penn doesn't really want Hillary to win. He apparently has some ties to McCain and so maybe he's doing all this to actually help elect McCain while milking millions from Hillary (and running her broke by the end of January) at the same time.

________

some links:

1. Sid Blumenthal pushing "cult" meme for Clintons
buckeyestateblog.com

2. The Wolfson Plagiarism Attack Is Ridiculous
huffingtonpost.com

3. Mark Penn's lobbying shop is headed by John McCain's top adviser
dailykos.com

*My bet is that if Hillary does not win big on Tuesday and does not drop out by the middle of March, then Pelosi, Gore, Carter, and a slew of other influential super delegates will endorse Obama this month. This will be a complete and total humiliation for Clinton. Almost every last one of her super delegates could eventually be picked off.

The Democrats have the best opportunity ever to pick up the white house in 2008. The party leaders will not allow Hillary Clinton's ego to get in the way of that.

This thing is done by mid March unless Hillary wins big in BOTH Ohio and Texas -- no excuses...the goal post can not be moved any more.



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)3/1/2008 2:41:38 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 89467
 
“His record is relatively sparse, so I want to look at the totality of influences that might bear on Senator Obama,” said Ed Lasky, news editor of the online magazine, American Thinker, whose criticisms of Mr. Obama for aligning himself with allegedly anti-Israel advocates have been widely circulated among Jewish voters.

Mr. Obama said on Thursday that some questions about his commitment to Israel and the Middle East are being provoked by Mrs. Clinton and her advisers,
as well as other rivals.

“Those concerns have been continually stoked, whether through these e-mails that suggest that I’m a Muslim and attended madrassas and was sworn in with my hand on the Koran and scurrilous e-mails that were untrue,” Mr. Obama said. “Or whether it was an article that was in Newsweek recently indicating the degree to which Clinton supporters had questioned my positions on Israel.

“I think it’s very clear why there have been problems,” he added. “It’s been part of a series of political strategies not all necessarily, by the way, by the Clinton administration.”

Campaign advisers said they approached Jewish voters the way they did others, confident that once they knew more about Mr. Obama, they would be reassured. At the same time, they acknowledged that many Jewish voters were “vigilant” in testing candidates for president, particularly on Israel.

“The Jewish community, rightfully so, is a sensitive and anxious community and has many historical reasons for that,” said Representative Robert Wexler of Florida, a top adviser to Mr. Obama on Israel. Campaign officials said they were surprised, however, by the penetration of the viral e-mail messages, which were background static in the campaign until they began flooding the inboxes of Jewish voters right before nominating contests.

The e-mail messages have not gone unchallenged. Jewish supporters of Mr. Obama have sent thousands of their own e-mail messages, and some have started an online petition for other Jews who support his candidacy.

The campaign in recent days has moved to shore up Jewish support, with Mr. Obama speaking last Sunday to an influential group of Jewish leaders in Cleveland and addressing their questions about Israel, Mr. Farrakhan and even his church in Chicago, whose pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., has been viewed with suspicion.

“Nobody has ever been able to point to statements that I made or positions that I’ve taken that are contrary to the long-term security interests in Israel and in any way diminish the special relationship we have with that country,” Mr. Obama told reporters Thursday in Texas. “My job is just to keep on getting the information out and this is part of the political process.”

Jews make up about 1.7 percent of the adult population, but they are a stronghold of the Democratic base and important to the party’s fund-raising.

1 2 Next Page »
Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting from Beaumont, Tex., and Marjorie Connelly from New York.



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)3/4/2008 1:32:15 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
How Barack Obama upended every prediction about the Democratic presidential race.
_______________________________________________________________

What A Long, Strange Trip It's Been
By E.J. Dionne, Jr.
Columnist
The New Republic
Monday, March 03, 2008

WASHINGTON--So how did the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination come down to a choice between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? We have become so accustomed to their pounding each other relentlessly that we've forgotten that this is a remarkable endgame.

To be sure, just about everyone anticipated that when the field narrowed, Clinton would be one of the contenders left standing. She had won allies from her work for her husband and in the Senate, was helped by the residual affection for Bill Clinton in many parts of the party, and created a support base among women.

But the scenario-builders pondering this contest two years ago imagined a showdown between Clinton and--let's be honest about it--a white guy. It was thought that a moderate Democrat (popular choices included Mark Warner of Virginia and Evan Bayh of Indiana) would cast himself as the "electable" alternative to the "divisive" Clinton.

Alternatively, John Edwards had the chance to go at Clinton from her left (he'd run against "Clintonomics" as the pro-labor, mill-town-born populist) and from her right (he was, after all, a Southern white male).

Obama upended all these calculations. Warner and Bayh understood how much the race had changed and decided not to run. Obama bested Edwards in Iowa, effectively blocking Edwards' only path to contention.

Against anyone else but Obama, Clinton could have counted on strong support from African-Americans. Against an Adlai Stevenson-Gary Hart-Paul Tsongas-Bill Bradley sort of reformer, she would have assembled the "regular" Democratic coalition: blue-collar whites allied with black voters. This, more or less, is how Walter Mondale, Bill Clinton and Al Gore all prevailed in the primaries. Against a centrist, Clinton would have won the liberals. Her strength among women would have provided her with additional ballast.

Obama not only created an alliance between African-Americans and upscale reform voters, he also changed the composition of the Democratic electorate by drawing in hundreds of thousands of voters under the age of 30. If Obama prevails, historians will see him as the first Democrat since Franklin Roosevelt to bring a whole new constituency into the system. That, the political scientists tell us, is how realignments happen.

Obama changed the dynamic in another way: As my Brookings Institution colleague (and Clinton supporter) William Galston says, Clinton ran the last campaign of the 20th century while Obama ran the first campaign of the 21st century. Galston argues that Clinton ran a first-rate version of the last century's campaign--her fundraising by past standards was impressive.

But Obama one-upped her by understanding the new possibilities of modern communications. It wasn't just that he outperformed Clinton by raising so much money online, he also exploited the social networking sites (and built one of his own), and understood the interaction between virtual communities and real communities.

Obama reached out to bloggers without pandering to them. In 2005, the blogosphere went after Sen. Pat Leahy for supporting the nomination of John Roberts as chief justice. Although Obama opposed Roberts, he defended Leahy against criticisms he called "knee-jerk," "unfair," and "dogmatic."

But Obama took an additional step, as Matt Bai reports in his essential book on the new Democratic politics, "The Argument." Obama offered a long post of his own on Markos Moulitsas' Daily Kos site declaring that Americans are "suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon" and that Democrats should stand for "thoughtfulness and openness."

At a stroke (as it were), Obama did two things at once. He established himself as a unifier capable of, as he likes to say, "disagreeing without being disagreeable." And he demonstrated his respect for the blogosphere by arguing with its members in their own space.

Because the Clinton campaign failed to anticipate the imperatives of a race against Obama, it is only in the last two weeks that she has managed to move to offense. Her campaign has gone back to its basic argument that, love her or not, Clinton is the experienced fighter who can be trusted to deal with a nasty world and a decaying economy. She's trying to turn Obama's newness into inexperience, his eloquence into slickness, and his conciliatory nature into a form of softness. It is no accident that her "red phone" ad about her readiness to be president was created by a veteran of Mondale's campaign who had made a similar ad against Gary Hart in 1984.

This is not the campaign Clinton hoped to run, but it's the one approach she has left, and it's had the effect of forcing Obama to respond to her. You wonder what would have happened if she had adjusted earlier.
_______________________________________________________

*E. J. DIONNE, JR. is a columnist for The Washington Post, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a professor at Georgetown University.



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)3/4/2008 2:09:52 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
A Phone Will Ring at 3 am: +27 Texas Delegates for Obama

ruralvotes.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)3/4/2008 3:30:51 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Marc Andreessen, the co-founder of Netscape, is one of the most successful entrepreneurs in the technology world...

en.wikipedia.org

Out on his blog I noticed that he has some comments on Barack Obama...

blog.pmarca.com

An hour and a half with Barack Obama

Mar 3, 2008

I've tried very hard to keep politics out of this blog -- despite nearly overpowering impulses to the contrary -- for two reasons: one, there's no reason to alienate people who don't share my political views, as wrong-headed as those people may clearly be; two, there's no reason to expect my opinion on political issues should be any more valid than any other reader of what, these days, passes for the New York Times.

That said, in light of the extraordinary events playing out around us right now in the runup to the presidential election, I would like to share with you a personal experience that I was lucky enough to have early last year.

Early in 2007, a friend of mine who is active in both high-tech and politics called me up and said, let's go see this first-term Senator, Barack Obama, who's ramping up to run for President.

And so we did -- my friend, my wife Laura, and me -- and we were able to meet privately with Senator Obama for an hour and a half.

The reason I think you may find this interesting is that our meeting in early 2007 was probably one of the last times Senator Obama was able to spend an hour and a half sitting down and talking with just about anyone -- so I think we got a solid look at what he's like up close, right before he entered the "bubble" within which all major presidential candidates, and presidents, must exist.

Let me get disclaimers out of the way: my only involvement with the Democratic presidential campaigns is as an individual donor -- after meeting with the Senator, my wife and I both contributed the maximum amount of "hard money" we could to the Obama campaign, less than $10,000 total for both the primary and the general election. On the other hand, we also donated to Mitt Romney's Republican primary effort -- conclude from that what you will.

I carried four distinct impressions away from our meeting with Senator Obama.

First, this is a normal guy.

I've spent time with a lot of politicians in the last 15 years. Most of them talk at you. Listening is not their strong suit -- in fact, many of them aren't even very good at faking it.

Senator Obama, in contrast, comes across as a normal human being, with a normal interaction style, and a normal level of interest in the people he's with and the world around him.

We were able to have an actual, honest-to-God conversation, back and forth, on a number of topics. In particular, the Senator was personally interested in the rise of social networking, Facebook, Youtube, and user-generated content, and casually but persistently grilled us on what we thought the next generation of social media would be and how social networking might affect politics -- with no staff present, no prepared materials, no notes. He already knew a fair amount about the topic but was very curious to actually learn more. We also talked about a pretty wide range of other issues, including Silicon Valley and various political topics.

With most politicians, their curiosity ends once they find out how much money you can raise for them. Not so with Senator Obama -- this is a normal guy.

Second, this is a smart guy.

I bring this up for two reasons. One, Senator Obama's political opponents tend to try to paint him as some kind of lightweight, which he most definitely is not. Two, I think he's at or near the top of the scale of intelligence of anyone in political life today.

You can see how smart he is in his background -- for example, lecturer in constitutional law at University of Chicago; before that, president of the Harvard Law Review.

But it's also apparent when you interact with him that you're dealing with one of the intellectually smartest national politicians in recent times, at least since Bill Clinton. He's crisp, lucid, analytical, and clearly assimilates and synthesizes a very large amount of information -- smart.

Third, this is not a radical.

This is not some kind of liberal revolutionary who is intent on throwing everything up in the air and starting over.

Put the primary campaign speeches aside; take a look at his policy positions on any number of issues and what strikes you is how reasonable, moderate, and thoughtful they are.

And in person, that's exactly what he's like. There's no fire in the eyes to realize some utopian or revolutionary dream. Instead, what comes across -- in both his questions and his answers -- is calmness, reason, and judgment.

Fourth, this is the first credible post-Baby Boomer presidential candidate.

The Baby Boomers are best defined as the generation that came of age during the 1960's -- whose worldview and outlook was shaped by Vietnam plus the widespread social unrest and change that peaked in the late 1960's.

Post-Boomers are those of us, like me, who came of age in the 1970's or 1980's -- after Vietnam, after Nixon, after the "sexual revolution" and the cultural wars of the 1960's.

One of the reasons Senator Obama comes across as so fresh and different is that he's the first serious presidential candidate who isn't either from the World War II era (Reagan, Bush Sr, Dole, and even McCain, who was born in 1936) or from the Baby Boomer generation (Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, and George W. Bush).

He's a post-Boomer.

Most of the Boomers I know are still fixated on the 1960's in one way or another -- generally in how they think about social change, politics, and the government.

It's very clear when interacting with Senator Obama that he's totally focused on the world as it has existed since after the 1960's -- as am I, and as is practically everyone I know who's younger than 50.

What's the picture that emerges from these four impressions?

Smart, normal, curious, not radical, and post-Boomer.

If you were asking me to write a capsule description of what I would look for in the next President of the United States, that would be it.

Having met him and then having watched him for the last 12 months run one of the best-executed and cleanest major presidential campaigns in recent memory, I have no doubt that Senator Obama has the judgment, bearing, intellect, and high ethical standards to be an outstanding president -- completely aside from the movement that has formed around him, and in complete contradition to the silly assertions by both the Clinton and McCain campaigns that he's somehow not ready.

Before I close, let me share two specific things he said at the time -- early 2007 -- on the topic of whether he's ready.

We asked him directly, how concerned should we be that you haven't had meaningful experience as an executive -- as a manager and leader of people?

He said, watch how I run my campaign -- you'll see my leadership skills in action.

At the time, I wasn't sure what to make of his answer -- political campaigns are often very messy and chaotic, with a lot of turnover and flux; what conclusions could we possibly draw from one of those?

Well, as any political expert will tell you, it turns out that the Obama campaign has been one of the best organized and executed presidential campaigns in memory. Even Obama's opponents concede that his campaign has been disciplined, methodical, and effective across the full spectrum of activities required to win -- and with a minimum of the negative campaigning and attack ads that normally characterize a race like this, and with almost no staff turnover. By almost any measure, the Obama campaign has simply out-executed both the Clinton and McCain campaigns.

This speaks well to the Senator's ability to run a campaign, but speaks even more to his ability to recruit and manage a top-notch group of campaign professionals and volunteers -- another key leadership characteristic. When you compare this to the awe-inspiring discord, infighting, and staff turnover within both the Clinton and McCain campaigns up to this point -- well, let's just say it's a very interesting data point.

We then asked, well, what about foreign policy -- should we be concerned that you just don't have much experience there?

He said, directly, two things.

First, he said, I'm on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where I serve with a number of Senators who are widely regarded as leading experts on foreign policy -- and I can tell you that I know as much about foreign policy at this point as most of them.

Being a fan of blunt answers, I liked that one.

But then he made what I think is the really good point.

He said -- and I'm going to paraphrase a little here: think about who I am -- my father was Kenyan; I have close relatives in a small rural village in Kenya to this day; and I spent several years of my childhood living in Jakarta, Indonesia. Think about what it's going to mean in many parts of the world -- parts of the world that we really care about -- when I show up as the President of the United States. I'll be fundamentally changing the world's perception of what the United States is all about.

He's got my vote.



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)3/4/2008 5:25:55 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Max Kennedy endorses Barack Obama

baylor.edu

By Sommer Ingram
Staff Writer
March 1, 2008

Max Kennedy, son of Robert Kennedy, spoke at the Waco field headquarters of Sen. Barack Obama Saturday night. Standing on a chair, he addressed the crowd of about 50 Obama supporters, delivering a short, but powerful, message of hope and the need for change.

"I've never felt this good about a candidate in my life," Kennedy said. "I've never seen a person generate the kind of energy that's in this very room tonight."

Kennedy said he was fully convinced that Obama will win Texas, and that the small organizations like the very field office the group stood in that night would make the difference.

"This election is similar to the election of 1960," Kennedy said. "In 1960, there was a huge shift. It was the first time the grassroots organizations had altered the hands of the president. What you guys are doing here is amazing; it's just what we need to win the state of Texas."

He encouraged the group to continue their efforts by manning the phone banks, making sure their friends were signed up to vote, and that every person they knew was informed about the great change that Obama could create.

"The hard work comes in the next three days," he said. "We need to create a fundamental shift, and we have a man who will lead us in doing so; a man who says we are all empowered."

Kennedy has been traveling around the country speaking at field offices, factories, rallies, and college campuses on behalf of Obama. He said the level of support the senator is receiving from college students is unprecedented.

"It's crazy," he said. "I've never seen anything like it before."

Obama supporters were thrilled with his endorsement of the senator.

"It's an honor that Max endorses Obama," said Dr. Chris Van Gorder, professor of world religion at Baylor. "Robert F Kennedy was one of the greatest politicians America has ever seen, and to see that his son has this motivation and energy is amazing."

Other member's of the Kennedy family have put their support behind Obama as well. Caroline Kennedy has even been quoted as saying that Obama is a continuation of the legacy John F. Kennedy began.

"Just what you see in this room lets me know that he can absolutely carry on that legacy," Kennedy said. "Obama has motivated Americans across the country. He is unbelievably smart, eloquent, and has a solid, detailed plan for our country. He has asked us to make a sacrifice and has shown that he is willing to sacrifice as well so we can make this country all we can be."



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)3/4/2008 10:38:22 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Where Today Will Leave Us

blogs.tnr.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)3/4/2008 12:53:43 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Yes We Can: Barack Obama Is Contesting Mississippi

cottonmouthblog.blogspot.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)3/4/2008 1:39:50 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Ed Schultz is VERY UPSET with many of the Clinton campaign's tactics...just listen to his show today...and Ed Schultz is the leading progressive radio talk show host in North America (with well over 3 million listeners)...

bigeddieradio.com

Ed Schultz still gives some air time to Clinton surrogates BUT you can tell he is very concerned about what's best for the Democratic party. Btw, both Ed Schultz and his guest David Wilhelm today were confident that Obama would end up as the Democratic Party nominee for President...and Wilhelm was Bill Clinton's successful Presidential Campaign Manager in 1992 -- he's now a strong Obama supporter and is actively advising the campaign.



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)3/4/2008 11:50:28 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Barack Obama is fighter...and his campaign is a noble one...It's time to kick things up a few notches...at least 50 new Super Delegates are coming on board soon too (according to Tom Brokaw)...Yet, I would also like to see some influential Democratic Super Delegates REJECT negative campaigning and come out and endorse Barack Obama this week -- it's about time for Edwards, Gore and Richardson to get out of the bleachers and step into the ring. Patriots like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, and many others have come forward to ACTIVELY endorse Barack Obama....It's easy to stay on the sidelines but sometimes you gotta take a stand and do what's right for your party and your country...Just my view.



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)3/5/2008 1:22:10 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
HRC makes up little ground in terms of delegates

mydd.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)3/5/2008 8:59:29 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Interesting new comments from Obama's Chief Strategist on competing with the Clinton Campaign...

Axelrod: “I think we’re willing to join the debate. If they want to define the debate in terms of the issues they’ve laid out in the past week, if they want to throw the kitchen sink, they’re going to engender a response. If they want to have a discussion about ethics, then we’ll have a discussion about ethics. If they want to have a discussion about who is prepared to be commander in chief, then we’re going to ask the hard questions about the decisions that’s she’s made. If she wants to say she’s going to be a steward of the economy, and talk about her accomplishments in public life, then we’re going to talk about that. It isn’t going to be a one-way debate. “

bourbonroom.blogs.foxnews.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)3/5/2008 9:12:01 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Is Hillary going to define Obama or will Obama define Hillary...? DEFINE YOUR OPPONENT OR BE DEFINED...It's time for Obama to engage Hillary but in the right way. Axelrod is one of the smartest strategists in the political world...and remember that David Wilhelm is now actively advising the Obama campaign -- David Wilhelm was Bill Clinton's Campaign Manager of his successful Presidential Race in 1992.



To: American Spirit who wrote (76781)3/5/2008 9:35:12 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Clinton Campaign's "Path to the Presidency" memo

dailykos.com