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 (76923)3/6/2008 12:06:19 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Advisers for Clinton Plan the Endgame
______________________________________________________________

By PATRICK HEALY
The New York Times
March 5, 2008

Advisers to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today began plotting a ground game, advertising budgets and a confidence-brimming outreach strategy in hopes of both scoring a big victory in April’s Pennsylvania primary and accumulating enough superdelegates over time to even the nomination fight against Senator Barack Obama.

Mr. Obama, who had 11 straight primary and caucus victories in February, has enjoyed momentum lately in picking off superdelegates, the party leaders who have a vote in the nomination. Mrs. Clinton and her advisers now believe that with her victories in Texas and Ohio last night, she can convince superdelegates to stand with her after a Pennsylvania victory.

She also believes that a strong showing in Pennsylvania, which has 188 delegates at stake, could set up a powerful one-two punch two weeks later in the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, which have a combined 218 delegates. Her team believes she has an especially good shot at winning Indiana, where the state’s influential Democratic senator, Evan Bayh, a former two-term governor, was one of Mrs. Clinton’s earliest supporters.

Clinton advisers acknowledged on Wednesday that the delegate arithmetic still has them at a disadvantage; Mr. Obama has 1,456.5 delegates to Mrs. Clinton’s 1,370, and the upcoming primaries will award delegates proportionally to both the winner and the loser. That will have the effect making each candidate inch toward the 2,025 delegates needed for the nomination.

Senator Clinton is also hoping to get an extra boost by adding delegates to her column from Michigan and Florida, and her advisers today have been discussing ways to deal with the conundrum in those states.

The Democratic Party stripped the two states of their delegates after they moved up their primaries to January, but Mrs. Clinton remained on the ballot in both - as Mr. Obama did in Florida. She won in both Florida and Michigan and is now seeking to have the delegates counted.

While Clinton advisers have publicly opposed talk of a “do-over” vote in either state, which is possible, some of her advisers said today that they would now be inclined to support such a vote. They believe her strength with Hispanics, women and Jewish voters in Florida, and with union workers and women in Michigan, would be enough to overtake Mr. Obama’s advantage with black and young voters in both states.

Mrs. Clinton and her top officials continue to oppose such a do-over. The alternative is waiting until July for the party to consider allowing Florida and Michigan delegates to count at the August convention. But the Clinton advisers who support a new vote said they expected conversations on the issue to intensify in her camp.

In the short term, the campaign announced today that it was dispatching former President Bill Clinton tomorrow to Wyoming — which holds Democratic caucuses on Saturday — and on Friday to Mississippi, which holds presidential primaries next Tuesday. Mrs. Clinton’s upcoming travel plans are still under wraps.

As for other upcoming primaries, Mark Penn, the campaign’s chief strategist, predicted today that “a fuller vetting process” of Mr. Obama by the media would heighten concerns among voters about Mr. Obama’s candidacy and “open up a number of other states” where Mrs. Clinton could compete intensively for delegates. He spoke on a conference call with reporters.

Campaign advisers said they believed Kentucky and West Virginia could ultimately be in play. They also predicted that Mrs. Clinton would win the final contest on June 7 in Puerto Rico, where 63 delegates will be at stake.

Mrs. Clinton is not simply looking for outright victories in all of the states to come, of course, but is also looking to narrow Mr. Obama’s margin of victory so that even in defeat, she can pick up a number of proportionally allocated delegates in each state.

Harold Ickes, a senior adviser to Senator Clinton, said on the conference call that the Clinton campaign’s chief objective was not to sully Mr. Obama’s image or record, but to cast a spotlight on lightly examined or unknown aspects of both.

“This is not a question of trying to damage somebody — this is a question of trying to fully understand all the particular aspects of each of the candidates,” Mr. Ickes said. “There’s not another shoe in her closet to drop. It is clear that too much is yet unknown about Senator Obama.”

The Clinton campaign also released a memo stressing confidently that it would have enough money to compete against Mr. Obama this spring and summer, after nearly going broke in early February — at a time when Mr. Obama was raising $1 million or more a day. Since the Feb. 5 national primary, Mrs. Clinton has also been raising money at a clip of $1 million a day, mostly online.

“In February, the Clinton campaign raised approximately $35 million,” according to the campaign memo, e-mailed to reporters and supporters. “This deep level of support gives Hillary the resources she needs to compete between now and the convention.”

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company



To: American Spirit who wrote (76923)3/6/2008 6:46:44 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Hillary’s New Math Problem
___________________________________________________________

Tuesday's big wins? The delegate calculus just got worse.

newsweek.com

By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 6:48 PM ET Mar 5, 2008

Hillary Clinton won big victories Tuesday night in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. But she's now even further behind in the race for the Democratic nomination. How could that be? Math. It's relentless.

To beat Barack Obama among pledged delegates, Clinton now needs even bigger margins in the 12 remaining primaries than she needed when I ran the numbers on Monday--an average of 23 points, which is more than double what she received in Ohio.

Superdelegates won't help Clinton if she cannot erase Obama's lead among pledged delegates, which now stands at roughly 134. Caucus results from Texas aren't complete, but Clinton will probably net about 10 delegates out of March 4. That's 10 down, 134 to go. Good luck.

I've asked several prominent uncommitted superdelegates if there's any chance they would reverse the will of Democratic voters. They all say no. It would shatter young people and destroy the party.

Hillary's only hope lies in the popular vote-a yardstick on which she now trails Obama by about 600,000 votes. Should she end the primary season in June with a lead in popular votes, she could get a hearing from uncommitted superdelegates for all the other arguments that she would make a stronger nominee. (Wins the big states, etc.). If she loses both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, no argument will cause the superdelegates to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters. It will be over.

Projecting popular votes precisely is impossible because there's no way to calculate turnout. But Clinton would likely need do-overs in Michigan and Florida (whose January primaries didn't count because they broke Democratic Party rules). But even this probably wouldn't give her the necessary popular vote margins.

Remember, Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot when voters there went to the polls. Even if he's trounced there (and Michigan, won by Jesse Jackson in 1988, has a large African-American vote in its primary), Obama would still win hundreds of thousands of popular votes. This is also an argument for why Obama may end up preferring a primary to a caucus in Michigan. (Obama has done better in caucuses).

Florida, with its heavy population of elderly and Jewish voters, might be a better place for Hillary to close the popular vote gap. But even if you assume she does five points better than her double-digit win there in the meaningless February primary (where no one campaigned), she would still fall short.

I'm no good at math, but with the help of "Slate’s Delegate Calculator" I've once again scoped out the rest of the primaries. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week. That's 12 victories in a row, bigger in total than Obama's run of 11 straight. And this time I've assigned her even larger margins than I did before in Wyoming, North Carolina, Indiana and Kentucky.

So here we go again:

Let's assume that on Saturday in Wyoming, Hillary's March 4 momentum gives her an Ohio-style 10-point win, confounding every expectation. Next Tuesday in Mississippi, where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary, she shocks the political world by again winning 55-45.

Then on April 22, the big one-Pennsylvania-and it's a Hillary blow-out: 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 3 and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6. The Hoosiers go for Hillary 55-45 and the same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state. Enough blacks desert Obama to give North Carolina to Hillary in another big win, 55-45, netting her seven more delegates.

May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. Another 60-40 landslide on May 20 in Kentucky nets her 11 more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Ooops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3 and the scheduled primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Hillary pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates.

Given that I've put not a thumb but my whole fist on the scale, this fanciful calculation gives Hillary the lead, right? Actually, it makes the score 1,625 to 1,584 for Obama. A margin of 39 pledged delegates may not seem like much, but remember, the chances of Obama losing state after state by 20-point margins are slim to none.

So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. What happens then? Will Democrats come together before the Denver Convention opens in late August?

We know that Hillary is unlikely to quit. This will leave it up to the superdelegates to figure out how to settle on a nominee. With 205 already committed to Obama, he would need another 200 uncommitted superdelegates to get to the magic number of 2025 delegates needed to nominate. But that's only under my crazy pro-Hillary projections. More likely, Obama would need about 50-100 of the approximately 500 uncommitted superdelegates, which shouldn't be too difficult.

But let's say all the weeks of negative feeling have taken a toll. Let's say that Clinton supporters are feeling embittered and inclined to sit on their hands. It's not too hard to imagine prominent superdelegates asking Obama to consider putting Hillary on the ticket.

This might be the wrong move for him. A national security choice like Sen. Jim Webb, former Sen. Sam Nunn or retired Gen. Anthony Zinni could make more sense. But if Obama did ask Clinton, don't assume she would say no just because she has, well, already served as de facto vice president for eight years under her husband. (Sorry, Al).

In fact, she would probably say yes. When there's a good chance to win, almost no one has ever said no. (Colin Powell is the exception). In 1960, when the vice-presidency was worth a lot less, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson gave up his powerful position to run with John F. Kennedy.

How about Clinton-Obama? Nope. The Clintonites can spin to their heart's content about how big March 4 was for them. How close the race is. How they've got the Big Mo now.

Tell it to Slate's Delegate Calculator. Again.



To: American Spirit who wrote (76923)3/9/2008 8:43:20 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Influential Democrats Waiting to Choose Sides

washingtonpost.com

Many Superdelegates Hope for Clear Leader After Primaries

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 9, 2008; A01

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's trio of victories over Sen. Barack Obama last week appears to have convinced a sizable number of uncommitted Democratic superdelegates to wait until the end of the primaries and caucuses before picking a candidate, according to a survey by The Washington Post.

Many of the 80 uncommitted superdelegates who were contacted over the past several days said they are reluctant to override the clear will of voters. But if Clinton (N.Y.) and Obama (Ill.) are still seen as relatively close in the pledged, or elected, delegate count in June, many said, they will feel free to decide for themselves which of the candidates would make a stronger nominee to run against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the fall.

"You're going to see a lot of delegates remaining uncommitted," said Rep. Mike Doyle (Pa.), who has not endorsed either candidate. "There's a sense that this is going to Denver not resolved."

Obama's victory in yesterday's Wyoming caucuses gave him an additional seven delegates, bringing his total to 1,578. Clinton won five delegates, bringing her total to 1,468, according to the Associated Press. Obama had 61 percent of the votes to Clinton's 38 percent.

At the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August, there will be 796 superdelegates -- members of Congress, governors, mayors, and state and national party leaders who have automatic seats -- and more than 300 are still uncommitted.

To win the nomination, Obama or Clinton will need a total of 2,025 pledged delegates and superdelegates. That is, unless Michigan's and Florida's delegations, now barred because the states violated party primary rules, end up being seated at the convention. Then the winning number would be higher, depending on how many delegates the two states are awarded.

Pat Waak, who chairs the Colorado Democratic Party, expressed the view of many uncommitted superdelegates who hope the remaining primaries and caucuses will produce an obvious winner. "My hope is that there's a clear lead among pledged delegates and the popular vote before we get to the convention, so that the automatic delegates can reflect what's happening nationally," she said. "I'm just very hopeful that it's not up to us."

But Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury said that if there is no clear leader, he is prepared to exercise his judgment. "If the pledged-delegate total is within 100 votes or whatever, I don't think there's a great deal of significance in that," said Bradbury, who also represents other secretaries of state as a superdelegate.

He added: "I just believe that the determining factor for superdelegates shouldn't be, 'Well, 49 percent voted for Hillary and 51 percent voted for Obama, and that decides it for us.' Sorry, but that's not how it works."

By winning in Wyoming, Obama recaptures a little of the momentum he lost when Clinton defeated him in three out of four states last Tuesday. Until then he had reeled off 11 straight victories, pushing Clinton to the verge of defeat.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said that the Wyoming victory speaks to the candidate's strength in the West and that Obama is better suited to help down-ticket Democrats, even in states that traditionally vote Republican in the general election. "I think it's evidence that Senator Obama is going to be able to put more states in play because of his strength with independent voters," Plouffe told the Associated Press.

This Tuesday, Clinton and Obama will square off in Mississippi, with Obama heavily favored. Next on the calendar is Pennsylvania, whose April 22 primary offers the single biggest delegate haul of the remaining contests. The Keystone State tilts toward Clinton at this point.

Party rules allocating delegates on a proportional basis make it virtually certain that Obama will finish the primary season with more pledged delegates than Clinton. But neither he nor his rival can clinch the nomination without the superdelegates.

So far Clinton, with 242 superdelegates, has had more success soliciting their support than Obama, who has the backing of 210. In addition to the 719 superdelegates whose identities are already known, a group of 77 "add-ons" will be named later by state party leaders.

In interviews, superdelegates described calls from the candidates or from Clinton's husband, former president Bill Clinton. They described pressure to endorse coming in e-mails, phone calls and even old-fashioned letters from allies of the campaigns.

"I'm thinking of changing my phone number," joked Doyle, who had supported New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson but is now uncommitted. He said he got a surprise call from Bill Clinton on Super Bowl Sunday while cooking osso buco for his family. Tony Podesta, a Washington lobbyist who is one of Clinton's top organizers in Pennsylvania, called from Istanbul at midnight recently inviting Doyle to dinner.

Doyle continues to resist the overtures.

The potential power of these superdelegates to decide the race has conjured up fears of party bosses repairing to smoke-filled rooms to pick a nominee, but the reality is far different. These delegates have never met as a group, and the first time they do may be on the floor of the convention, along with more than 4,000 pledged delegates.

The superdelegates are a cross-section of the party, young and old, women and men, of all races and creeds, famous and obscure. They approach the role with more caution than gusto -- and they are now among the most closely monitored Americans on the planet, the focus of elaborate courting and tracking inside the Clinton and Obama campaigns.

By one analysis provided to The Post, half of the uncommitted delegates are elected officials, almost a third come from states that have not yet held primaries or caucuses, a third are women, and about a fifth are black or Hispanic. Others say there is no real pattern to who has taken sides and who remains on the fence.

Clinton jumped into an early lead in the superdelegate battle, leveraging her connections and a belief among party regulars early in the process that she was the all-but-inevitable nominee.

When Obama went on his February winning streak, the tide shifted and he began to catch up. He gained new endorsements and converted a few Clinton supporters, most prominently Rep. John Lewis (Ga.). Now, after Clinton's victories in Texas and Ohio, the two candidates are fiercely competing for the backing of these delegates. But the superdelegates are resisting.

Jenny Greenleaf, a Democratic National Committee member from Oregon, is one of these reluctant powerbrokers who is in no hurry to declare her allegiance. "I'm maybe a little utopian," she said, "but I would like to wait for the process to play out and hope there will be a clear leader."

While these delegates might prefer to see the race determined by the results of the primaries and caucuses, many said they do not feel bound to support the candidate who has more pledged delegates, especially if the race is close.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (N.M.) said the decision to create the superdelegate category assumed they would use their own judgment. "If superdelegates were just intended to automatically vote for the preference someone else expressed, there wouldn't be any purpose," he said.

Don Bivens, the party chair in Arizona, said he feels a responsibility to help keep peace in the Democratic family and will wait before choosing sides, and then only after touching various bases within the party. But he added, "I do not feel bound by the popular vote; otherwise there would be no reason to have superdelegates, just to rubber-stamp" the outcomes of primaries and caucuses.

Key senators who remain uncommitted are especially torn. Sen. Ken Salazar (Colo.) noted that he entered the Senate in 2005 with Obama, and has shared numerous dinners and workouts at the congressional gym with him. As a moderate Democrat, he has also worked often with Clinton.

Sen. Herb Kohl (Wis.) said that he has a much deeper relationship with Clinton but that he counts Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, as a "dear" friend. Obama won Wisconsin in a landslide.

"The dynamics of a general election are very different from either a primary or a caucus," Salazar said. "The question will become, for my state -- and this will be my calculation -- how can I best deliver the nine electoral votes from Colorado to the nominee?"

Kohl added another criterion, which he called "perhaps the most important" one: Who would make the best president? "It's a judgment based on my knowledge of the two candidates," he said. "It's an intuitive thing, a feel thing, based on all the things that make Obama who he is and Hillary who she is. It's mysterious."

Salazar said waiting until after the primaries makes sense for the superdelegates, but he added that they should sort out the nomination long before the convention. "The sooner it gets resolved, the better," he said.

Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (Pa.) said that, as a moderate, he sees his role as helping to bring the party together. "The winner of this nomination will be the president," he said. "When you have that much at stake and you have two historic figures, it's going to be difficult to unify the party, and I think we're going to need people in the middle who can bring people together."

Dayton, Ohio, Mayor Rhine McLin decided to support Obama after he won her county in Tuesday's primary, following a courtship that included calls from Clinton, her husband, their daughter Chelsea and her campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe, as well as from Obama and his wife, Michelle.

"I think that I made it clear I was supporting the way Dayton and Montgomery County went," McLin said Friday. Should neither candidate reach the 2,025 delegates needed to secure the nomination before the convention, she said, she hopes that her fellow superdelegates will look closely at who has received the most votes at that point. "I think that popular vote should weigh very heavily in this decision," she said.

When reached late last week, superdelegate Diane Glasser of Florida offered a seemingly surprising answer when asked what she had heard from the campaigns. "I have heard from a lot of reporters all over this country, but I haven't heard from either one of those camps," she said. "That's the truth. They may be taking me for granted. I'm a white, older woman. They may be assuming I'm obviously going one way. I've got neighbors, friends, family trying to convince me, but nobody from the campaigns."

She may not have long to wait. Because the Florida and Michigan delegations have been stripped of their right to be seated at the convention, the campaigns have avoided calling them. But as interest grows in finding a compromise that would allow both states' delegates to attend the convention, Glasser can expect the barrage soon.



To: American Spirit who wrote (76923)3/14/2008 5:24:27 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
On My Faith and My Church

realclearpolitics.com

By Barack Obama

The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He's drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.

As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It's a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.

Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

With Rev. Wright's retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright's statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.

*Barack Obama is a Democratic Senator from Illinois and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.



To: American Spirit who wrote (76923)3/14/2008 5:44:39 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Obama Blogs on Wright, Church at HuffPo; Going on FOX/CNN/MSNBC

dailykos.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (76923)3/14/2008 8:32:20 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
“All Roads Lead to Rove.” - Siegelman

dailykos.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (76923)3/15/2008 7:04:00 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Media Hold McCain & Obama to Different Standards

fair.org

3/14/08

Media coverage of the presidential campaign has lately been dominated by discussions of videotaped comments made by Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's pastor at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Pundits and reporters are questioning to what lengths Obama must go to distance himself from some of Wright's more controversial remarks. This is not the first time that the press has devoted significant time to raising questions about Obama’s associations or connections with various public figures, but it is something the press seems far less interested in doing with John McCain.

One example is Chicago real-estate developer Tony Rezko, now on trial for bribery charges. Referring to Rezko, conservative columnist Robert Novak reported on March 3 that "Sen. Hillary Clinton's operatives have tried frantically, but not effectively, to interest U.S. news media outside Chicago in Obama's possible connection with his home state's latest major scandal." But if media aren't interested in Senator Obama's relationship to Rezko, one would hate to see what interest would look like.

A search of U.S. newspapers and wires in the Nexis news database turned up 946 stories containing "Obama" and "Rezko" between January 1 and March 14, 2008. This in a matter where, as blogger Glenn Greenwald pointed out (Salon, 3/5/08), not only is there "no credible evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Obama...there aren't even any theoretical allegations or suggestions as to what he might have done wrong at all."With Obama, simply being connected to a person with what Time columnist Joe Klein called (3/6/08) a "suspicious visage" (is that code for "Syrian-born"?) merits being mentioned over and over again.

By contrast, when Republican presidential candidate John McCain was accused of doing political favors for a lobbyist, Vicki Iseman (New York Times, 2/21/08), the controversy generated only 352 stories in the same Nexis file over the same time period--and many of these stories focused on criticism of the New York Times for invading McCain's private life.

Likewise, both Obama and McCain have been endorsed by religious figures with a history of intolerant statements--Obama by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who called Judaism a "gutter religion," and McCain by John Hagee, who has called Roman Catholicism a "false cult system," an "apostate church" and a "Great Whore." Hagee has also stated (NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06) that the Quran mandates Muslims to kill Christians and Jews, and has blamed Hurricane Katrina on a New Orleans gay pride parade. So far this year, U.S. media have found Farrakhan's Obama endorsement much more interesting than Hagee's McCain endorsement: The Nexis file had 478 stories on Obama and Farrakhan, 123 on McCain and Hagee.

Obama was grilled over the issue by MSNBC moderator Tim Russert at the February 26 Democratic debate, even after the senator stated that he denounced Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments as "unacceptable and reprehensible," "did not solicit this support" and gave assurances that his campaign was "not doing anything, formally or informally, with Minister Farrakhan." In response to Obama's clear denunciation of Farrakhan, Russert nevertheless pressed on, reiterating Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments and asking whether Obama was "in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness." Only after Obama declared "if the word 'reject'... is stronger than the word 'denounce,' then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce," did Russert drop the issue. Even then, MSNBC either aired or discussed the exchange at least nine different times occasions the day after the debate (Media Matters, 2/28/08).

Other media pundits showed great interest in exactly how Obama distanced himself from Farrakhan. The distinction between "denunciation" and "rejection" was taken up that weekend in the New York Times (3/2/08). The L.A. Times (2/27/08) referred to Obama as having "hedged about whether he would reject his support." The exchange was dubbed Obama's "worst moment" of the February 26 debate (Newsday, 3/3/08). And according to Joe Klein (Time, 3/6/08), Obama's repeated denunciations of Farrakhan's anti-Semitism constituted unacceptable "political word games" the candidate allegedly "played before rejecting the support of the bigot Louis Farrakhan."

On the other hand, McCain actively solicited Hagee's support, and did not initially repudiate Hagee's intolerant remarks. On February 29, McCain stated that Hagee "supports what I stand for and believe in." He added that he was "proud" of Hagee's spiritual leadership. Yet the media response to McCain's enthusiastic embrace of Hagee's endorsement was considerably more favorable than it had been in the case of Obama's repudiation of Farrakhan's endorsement. A brief Washington Post news article (2/28/08) about the endorsement failed to note that Hagee was even a controversial figure, merely noting that "Hagee's endorsement could be of particular help to McCain in Texas, where the Arizona senator will face former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee on Tuesday."

The comparability of the two controversial endorsements was acknowledged in some media reports. CNN host Wolf Blitzer (3/2/08) asked the obvious question when he stated, "Should John McCain repudiate and reject the comments, the support from John Hagee, just as Barack Obama has done that with the Rev. Louis Farrakhan?" Yet for most of the media, the answer seemed to be no.

In contrast to Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama's campaign, the endorsement of McCain by a religious figure with a history of intolerant statements was framed as a matter of complex political strategy, rather than a moral outrage. As NPR's Scott Horsley put it (Morning Edition, 3/1/08), the endorsement was a "mixed blessing": "The episode underscores the fine line McCain is walking as he tries to reach out to social conservatives without losing the moderates and independent voters who fueled his campaign so far."

CNN news correspondent Brian Todd introduced a segment (3/1/08) about the Hagee endorsement by saying, "On the surface, it seemed like a much-needed conservative endorsement for John McCain." Commenting on McCain's initial failure to reject Hagee's endorsement, Todd continued, "Analysts say that may not move the ball far enough with Catholic voters in key states like Pennsylvania and Ohio." CNN's Bill Schneider commented that "if John McCain is saying or accepting an endorsement that is offensive to Catholics and doesn't repudiate it, he risks alienating a crucial swing group."

Meanwhile, CNN commentator Bill Bennett (3/3/08) urged McCain to "denounce the statements that deserve denunciation. But, understand, the guy's career and his work and his ministry has done a lot of good." This is not an approach pundits urged Obama to take with respect to Farrakhan.

When McCain finally responded (3/7/08) to the pressure from Catholic groups by saying (Boston Globe, 3/8/08) that he "categorically reject[ed] and repudiate[d] any statement that was made that was anti-Catholic"--without saying that he regretted soliciting Hagee's support--the issue of Hagee's endorsement was more or less dropped by the media, in a way that Obama's alleged initial "equivocation" was not. Unlike Obama, McCain was allowed to denounce his endorser's comments and not reject his support.

As Deborah Douglas wrote (Chicago Sun Times, 2/29/08), this double standard is part of a long-standing pattern that posits "the renunciation of Farrakhan as a litmus test for black leaders." Indeed, the media's calls for Obama to dissociate himself from Farrakhan began even before the controversial minister endorsed the candidate. In a January 15 column headlined "Obama's Farrakhan Test," Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen was already talking about Obama's "obligation to speak out" on Farrakhan.

But media's inclination to hold Obama to a different standard from McCain seems to cut across many issue areas. Obama was criticized for supposedly going back on a pledge to accept public financing for his campaign, even though what he had actually promised to do if he became the nominee (which he so far is not) was negotiate an agreement to accept public financing with his Republican opponent--an agreement that would take into account the possibility of outside spending on the race. The L.A. Times inaccurately reported (2/27/08) that Obama "agreed last year to accept public financing--and the attendant spending limits," but now "seem[ed] to be waffling."

In contrast, McCain, who actually had accepted public financing for his primary campaign before deciding that he would be better off with unlimited fundraising, has gotten little criticism for this questionably legal maneuver (Washington Wire, 2/26/08). A New York Times story (2/28/08) seemed to acknowledge that Obama was getting more criticism on this issue than McCain was. In an attempt at an explanation, reporter David D. Kirkpatrick explained, "The issue may be more sensitive for Mr. Obama, though, because [he] has run in part on his record as an advocate of stricter government integrity rules, including the public financing system."

It would surely be difficult for the New York Times to explain why it feels that John McCain is not running in part on his reputation as a campaign-finance reformer. But perhaps it would be harder to admit that the corporate media just has a bias for McCain.