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 (77172)3/18/2008 5:33:50 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Some reactions to the Obama speech:

Andrew Sullivan: "I have never felt more convinced that this man's candidacy - not this man, his candidacy - and what he can bring us to achieve - is an historic opportunity. This was a testing; and he did not merely pass it by uttering safe bromides. He addressed the intimate, painful love he has for an imperfect and sometimes embittered man. And how that love enables him to see that man's faults and pain as well as his promise. This is what my faith is about. It is what the Gospels are about. This is a candidate who does not merely speak as a Christian. He acts like a Christian."

Charles Murray: "Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant -- rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols."

Ben Smith: "A smart colleague notes that this speech is the polar opposite of this year's other big speech on faith, in which Mitt Romney went to Texas to talk about Mormonism, but made just one reference to his Mormon faith. Obama mentions Wright by name 14 times."

MSNBC's First Read: "His tone throughout was quiet and thoughtful. The same speech could have been delivered in a fiery tone. But Obama chose one that was quiet and thoughtful. It did little to lessen the impact and may have added to the weight of his words."

Marc Ambinder: "How it plays will determine how it plays. If the media focuses more on the Wright defense-by-renouncements and then juxtaposes them with clips of Wright's comments, then I think the trouble remains. The seeds of doubt about who this guy really is may be nourished. I know that Obama believes that a discussion about race plays to his benefit, no matter what people think about white working class voters and their latent feelings. Perhaps this is the beginning of his opportunity to lift the veil and get everyone -- not just himself and the media -- to talk openly."



To: American Spirit who wrote (77172)3/19/2008 12:50:20 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Our Joshua

huffingtonpost.com

By Mary Lyon*

Posted March 18, 2008 | 11:47 PM (EST)

"I may not get there with you..."

So said Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., once upon a time, talking about a figurative Promised Land that he himself would indeed never reach. It was a Moses reference, with the Promised Land in this case being the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave -- in its most perfect form, evolved, open, transcendent, every inch the land of opportunity for ALL -- not just those well-heeled, well-positioned, or exclusively white-skinned. It was a portrait of a Promised Land that he envisioned for everyone in the dream he had for America.

Moses never made the transition to the Biblical Promised Land with his people. It was left to Joshua to lead the Israelites there. Perhaps we in early 21st-Century America have our own latter-day Joshua, finally? Or at least the hint of one?

I suspect the younger ones among us will someday point to the Philadelphia speech of Barack Obama as their latter-day version of the "I Have a Dream" speech. This will have become a watershed moment that signifies a leap forward. It will render all those yammering empty-heads, fear-mongers, and hatred-hawks -- who insist on obsessing on selected clips of Pastor Wright in full-eruption mode -- suddenly passe, so yesterday, so last century or more, so pitiful, small, and small-minded. It's as though they can't make the leap. Their feet, like their minds, are fixed and fixated, embedded in a sociological concrete, leaving them unable to rise to the next level. They'll forever be philosophical groundlings, as though evolution did not allow them to transcend their lizard phase and sprout wings or sailing skins. We all certainly could go there and wallow in that, Obama said. And the Swiftboat 2.0 crowd surely will. But if they insist on embracing the past, the old, the stale, the obsolete, the increasingly irrelevant, fine. Let them. And let's leave them there, where they're sadly comfortable. The rest of us need not join them.

There were many reasons why I loved Barack Obama's speech about "a more perfect union."

Suddenly, I realized that we had the mindset available and ready to lead us toward the world that Star Trek visionary Gene Roddenberry once sketched out -- one in which all of us were represented in warp-speed ships that zipped through the known portions of our galaxy. That version of us had slipped the surly bonds of prejudice long ago. We were living up to our best and highest selves. All races, genders, even species, had a place in that world. Nobody was hamstrung by how they looked or what blend of blood flowed beneath their skin. It was an ideal we all loved -- that inspired Mae Jamison to reach for the stars as the first black woman in the astronaut corps, inspired by Roddenberry's black female communications officer, Uhura. Listening to Obama speak made me feel, for the first time, that maybe we might be ready to jump the first hurdle toward that better, broader, freer future.

It spoke to my own conflicts about my church, and why I won't renounce my Roman Catholic background, or abandon my church even while some of the preachers and speakers in its pulpits still speak of the need to deprive me of my right to choose, to deny my right to have the last word over what happens to my body, and to aver the status of women in general as terminally second-class. I can see why Barack wouldn't walk out on Pastor Wright. I never would have done that to Father Murray, either, even while I disagreed strongly with his teachings and his biases.

It was a speech that took guts to deliver, on a premise that took guts to confront so publicly. It's about time we admit to ourselves our own inner prejudices, especially those mumbled under one's breath in the privacy of one's own car or living room or barber shop. Bringing these last taboos out into the open is the first step toward facing, understanding, overcoming, and outgrowing them. It is humanizing, and unifying, to realize that we all have those moments, those ghosts in our closets, those unspoken fears and dreads that keep us divided from and suspicious of each other. And it's the point from which we can reach, with the courage of recognition, toward redemption.

It also demonstrated how wise, circumspect, measured, and even-tempered this man is while meeting a crisis (and meeting it head-on, too). It would be reassuring to know that this is the mindset of the person who might actually have to answer "that" phone call at 3:00 am -- FAR more comforting than the alternative, the Republican opponent whose own Senate colleagues dread his kind of hair-trigger temper inches away from "pushing the button."

It showed the generous and diplomatic spirit of a speaker who singled out blunders by a colleague of a Democratic competitor without naming names, while referencing her with admiration in his description of the white woman trying to break the glass ceiling. He behaved honorably when talking about his political adversaries, avoiding finger-pointing, scolding, or insults. Might it not be easier to get opposing sides in an international dispute to the bargaining table if no one in either camp is derided, marginalized, demonized, or otherwise put on the defensive?

And what if we really had a grown-up mindset at the helm, one not afraid to look at where we've been for the sake of understanding where we're headed, and what we might have done to contribute to the mess we're in now? One willing to examine logically and dispassionately that quintessential national security dilemma -- "Why they hate us" -- without stumbling over a lot of unnecessary baggage? There is a disappointing and rather infantile tendency among some of our political leaders and opinion-makers to shy away from examining the whole picture. It's far easier to embrace an artificial victimization, to point fingers and yell about what "they" did to us without bothering to try to figure out why "they" felt driven to it. Unless we grow up about that, we are doomed to taste again the fruits of that arrogance and neglect. If we don't go back and review blunders in the past, whether they involve generations of old prejudices or the lies that dragged us into war, or the wilfull ignorance that led to 9/11, if all we can do is dismiss that as "old news" from which we should just "move on," we'll never get to the heart of what got us into those tragedies. As it is with any addict turning toward some serious rehab or 12-step program, we first have to admit we have a problem if we ever hope to begin to grope towards a solution. And make no mistake. This is no shallow, simplistic, "blame America first" avoidance maneuver. This is what it means to be a grown-up -- where the adults REALLY are back in charge. If we're really going to deal with some of our society's ills, we're going to have to ask ourselves some mighty difficult questions, and we can't shy away from their answers or make excuses. We're bigger than that. Or at least, we should be.

I see harbingers of all these possibilities in Barack Obama's speech. To form that ideal, that more perfect union, it's going to take growing up a little and looking at ourselves and what we bring to the table with very clear and open eyes. It's those same eyes that are capable of seeing past surface differences and suspicions and other superficialities that keep us divided.

I saw a man who presented his case in a most presidential manner, who was willing to outline the job ahead with a gentle, non-accusatory voice, wisdom, and a wide-ranging forgiveness in his heart. It made me want to stand up straighter. It made my son want to change out of his ratty shorts and put on a suit. It made confused and fearful neighbors turn and start talking to each other. It made strident partisans set down their verbal arms and embrace the common good in each.

That isn't a half-bad starting point. And if it doesn't result in a more-perfect union outright, it will at least lead us toward one.
_________________________

*Mary Lyon is a veteran broadcaster and five-time Golden Mike Award winner who has anchored, reported, and written for the Associated Press Radio Network, NBC Radio "The Source," and many Los Angeles-area stations including KRTH-FM/AM, KLOS-FM, KFWB-AM, and KTLA-TV, and occasional media analyst for ABC Radio News.



To: American Spirit who wrote (77172)3/20/2008 6:45:53 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Read about how Jeb Bush and Lehman brothers ripped off Florida taxpayers with these questionable securities. Here's the link:

bloomberg.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (77172)3/20/2008 12:24:08 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
The uncommon candidate

chicagotribune.com

March 20, 2008

It's not exactly like answering the phone at 3 a.m. to handle a national security crisis, but Sen. Barack Obama's handling of two incendiary political controversies in the last week has shown he is calm and confident under pressure.

On Friday, Obama sat down with the Tribune and Sun-Times and said, in effect, "ask me anything you want about my dealings with Tony Rezko," the politically connected developer who is now on trial on corruption charges. No shortcuts. No unanswered questions. He answered, patiently and in detail. We can't recall a similar discussion with any political figure.

Obama took a risk. He's now on the record in minute detail about every aspect of his relationship with Rezko. Every possible inconsistency, every shading, can now be picked apart. But by choosing to be utterly transparent, he established a level of trust.

At that same meeting, and again in an astonishing speech on Tuesday, Obama confronted an issue that carries even greater risk for him: the incendiary remarks of his long-time pastor and spiritual mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. By now you've heard some of the things Wright has said.

Obama could have done the customary political thing, denounce the utterings of Wright and move on. Obama did say without equivocation that he "vehemently condemns" Wright's diatribes. He disconnected Wright from his campaign, just as Hillary Clinton disconnected former Rep. Geraldine Ferraro from hers after Ferraro said Obama wouldn't be running for president if he were white.

Damage control. If you're not good at it, you don't survive as a politician.

But Obama got beyond damage control and created the most remarkable moment in this presidential campaign. He delivered one of the most profound speeches in memory on a subject that creates peril in American politics and society: how we deal with race.

If you saw it, if you read it, you won't forget it. He talked about the anger many black Americans have over centuries of discrimination, "the reality in which Rev. Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up." He talked about the anger harbored by many whites: "So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear an African- American is getting an advantage in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time."

And he said, as he has before: everyone, your anger is understandable, now rise above it. He gambled again. It's hard to imagine any other national candidate who could—or would—deliver that speech.

It has been an unusual few days in the presidential campaign. You might have expected a lull. There were no votes to be counted. It seemed a perfect time, after a pounding run of primaries and caucuses, for each candidate to catch a breath. But if anything the pace and pulse has quickened, putting even more pressure on these candidates.

These events may not benefit Obama's campaign. He surely hasn't heard the last about Tony Rezko and Jeremiah Wright. The speech on race had plenty of critics. But these events remind us that Obama is an uncommon politician, an uncommon leader.

Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune



To: American Spirit who wrote (77172)3/20/2008 11:45:35 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Rev. Jeremiah Wright Was Bill and Hillary Clinton White House Guest

thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (77172)3/21/2008 10:43:37 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Poll: Obama Receives High Marks for Race Speech

thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com

By Dalia Sussman

A new national poll released Friday showed voters who heard or read about Barack Obama’s speech on his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and race relations, broadly approved of it.

Seven in 10 said he did a good job talking about race relations and as many said he did a good job explaining his relationship with Reverend Wright, according to a CBS News poll conducted Thursday.

More than six in 10, moreover, said they mostly agreed with what he said about race relations in this country, including a broad majority of Democrats and independents, but fewer — four in 10 — Republicans.

How the issue will ultimately affect Mr. Obama’s presidential aspirations remains to be seen. But seven in 10 voters nationwide who have followed the issue said it will make no difference in their vote decision, while the rest evenly divided over whether they will be more or less likely to vote for him.

Still, the poll found that public perceptions that Mr. Obama would be able to unite the country as president have fallen. Just over half of registered voters now say he would be that kind of president, down from two-thirds who said so a month ago.

The CBS News poll was conducted March 20 among 542 registered voters who were initially interviewed in a March 15-18 CBS News poll. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.



To: American Spirit who wrote (77172)3/21/2008 11:46:12 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Al Gore's Plan Goes Far Beyond What Congress Envisions

politicalcortex.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (77172)3/22/2008 5:36:32 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
The Democratic race is like a CD stuck on a scratch, just waiting for the superdelegates to give it a kick and put it back on track. Bill Richardson took his shot. Now Obama has to hope that the other superdelegates hear the music and join in.

~John Dickerson from Slate.com

slate.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (77172)3/25/2008 6:24:42 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Hillary Clinton's Religion and Politics

motherjones.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (77172)3/26/2008 11:55:06 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Revisiting David Geffen on Hillary Clinton

dailykos.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (77172)3/27/2008 10:23:16 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
GOP Looks to ‘McCain Democrats'
______________________________________________________________

By: David Paul Kuhn
POLITICO
March 27, 2008 05:28 AM EST

A new analysis of March polling data suggests that John McCain's cross-party support surpasses that of either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

According to data provided by the Gallup Organization at Politico’s request, in a hypothetical contest between McCain and Obama, McCain wins 17 percent of Democrats and those leaning Democratic, while Obama wins 10 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaners.

In a potential contest with Clinton, McCain wins 14 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaners while Clinton wins 8 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaners.

By way of comparison, exit polls in 2004 reported that George W. Bush won 11 percent of Democrats and John F. Kerry won 6 percent of Republicans.

The new analysis, calculated from a compilation of the Gallup Organization’s daily polls between March 7 and 22, seems to indicate that there are more “McCain Democrats” than the much-ballyhooed “Obama Republicans” — or “Obamacans,” as they are sometimes referred to.

The polls were aggregated at Politico’s request as part of an effort to assess the cross-party appeal of each candidate. The compilation created a larger sample size, allowing pollsters to more accurately decipher voting patterns by party affiliation.

McCain’s potential to win more crossover votes than either of the Democrats, a finding that also surfaces in surveys conducted by Fox News/Opinion Dynamics and in private GOP polls, could upend the political calculus for the November general election.

Equally important, Gallup finds that McCain wins independents against either Democrat—48 to 23 percent against Clinton, and 40 to 31 percent against Obama.

In 2004, exit polls showed independents cast 26 percent of the vote, splitting their support evenly between Bush and Kerry.

Both the Republican National Committee and the McCain campaign are depending upon McCain’s potential appeal to Democrats and independents to compensate for the depleted Republican ranks.

“Democrats currently have a lead in voter identification; it’s axiomatic that you have to look beyond your party’s base to get to 50 percent,” said Frank Donatelli, the deputy chairman of the RNC.

Late February polling by the RNC, passed along to top officials in the McCain campaign, also found that more Democrats said they would vote for McCain than Republicans said they would vote for Obama, according to an RNC operative and a senior adviser to the McCain campaign.

“There will be something in the range of a quarter of Democrats available or accessible to him when the this Democratic contest is over but that doesn’t mean we won’t have to work for them,” said a senior McCain adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

That estimate may prove optimistic, though not wildly.

A Fox News poll released last week also found that McCain wins 18 percent of Democrats while Obama wins 11 percent of Republicans. McCain maintains his advantage among independents in the Fox poll as well.

Clinton, according to the Gallup findings, hemorrhages slightly less Democrats than Obama. But Obama more than compensates for Clinton’s strength among Democrats with his greater capacity to narrow McCain’s advantage among independents. Private polling conducted by Republican strategist Tony Fabrizio reflects the same trend.

“There’s going to be McCain Democrats,” Fabrizio said, adding that it was only a question of whether they will be a small sliver of the political left or a movement toward McCain.

If Obama is the Democratic nominee, the McCain adviser said the campaign will target male and female blue collar white Democrats, a group viewed by Republicans as Obama’s soft spot.

“They already sense that he may be too liberal,” the adviser added. “They tend to also agree with McCain on the war and on social issues and we’ll have to satisfy them that McCain agrees with them on the economy.”

McCain’s appeal to Democrats has some Republican strategists envisioning a Ronald Reagan-like road map for the 2008 race. Today, most of the so-called Reagan Democrats have become independents.

“One similarity between 1980 and 2008 is you have a very tough Democratic primary,” said the RNC’s Donatelli, who served as the political director in the Reagan White House. “After that ended, there were a lot of bruised feelings and Democrats who would not vote for the winner.”

Gallup published results Wednesday that showed evidence supporting a similar scenario for 2008. Twenty-eight percent of Clinton’s supporters say they would vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee. The data, aggregating the same period of March polling, also showed 19 percent of Obama’s supporters pledging to back McCain if Clinton wins the nomination.

“The bulk of the Democrats you would try to appeal to are not Harvard-educated lawyers who are feminists. They’re working class Democrats that you have more of a shot at getting. And the core of that appeal is social conservatism, right to life, Second Amendment, and obviously national security,” Donatelli said.

Comparing Reagan to McCain, Donatelli said “both of them were and are viewed as mavericks, and a lot of that is character, and a lot of that is the persona of the individual. And it’s issue based too, because you’ve challenged the orthodoxy on occasion.”

Democrats say they must undercut McCain’s maverick image in order to shore up their flank.

“People tend to confuse maverick with moderate,” said Steve Rosenthal, a Democratic leader in mobilizing voters. Rosenthal said Democrats must position McCain as a conservative and introduce them to the “real John McCain” on issues ranging from abortion to the war in Iraq to the environment.

“If Republicans are successful in defining John McCain as a moderate who can work across party lines and is a straight talker, then we will be in a real battle to win Democrats in some of these swing states,” he continued.

“Against McCain,” Rosenthal said, “it’s clear this is going to be an extremely close race. Anybody who thought that Democrats were going to waltz to the White House in 2008 is crazy.”



To: American Spirit who wrote (77172)3/28/2008 1:29:38 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Peggy Noonan on Hillary Clinton

online.wsj.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (77172)3/29/2008 11:32:32 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Hillary's team crosses the line
______________________________________________________________

The Clinton campaign's circulation of right-wing materials to denigrate a top Obama advisor reeks of cynicism.

By Joe Conason
Columnist
Salon.com
Mar. 28, 2008

Over the past few months, the emotional trajectory of the Democratic presidential primary has dropped precipitously, from inspiring to enervating, turning into a chronicle of petty sniping and amplified nastiness that will harm the party, the nation and the eventual nominee. Neither side is innocent of driving the discourse downward -- and everyone observing the process knows that both sides have crossed lines of decency and decorum, whether by accident or design.

Having watched many nasty political campaigns, however, including some far worse than this one, I tend to discount the constant hysteria over "dirty tactics" that is now background noise in almost every election. But Hillary Clinton's campaign crossed a symbolic boundary this week when its operatives sent around clips from the notoriously Clinton-hating extreme-right press to denigrate Barack Obama and his advisors. It was slightly eerie to watch those items arrive in the mailbox along with photos of Sen. Clinton at an editorial meeting of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review -- where she was seated next to that newspaper's owner, a certain Richard Mellon Scaife.

Although the reported encounter between Scaife and Clinton was mildly startling, it represented normal political behavior and nothing remarkable. Actually, they have even met before at least once, when the right-wing billionaire attended a White House dinner for donors to the Executive Mansion's beautification fund on Jan. 21, 1998 -- the same day that the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke on the front pages. (Clinton describes their encounter on the receiving line that night rather acidly in her autobiography, "Living History.")

Clinton did not look happy to be meeting him again in Pittsburgh, but his newspaper there boasts a circulation of about 150,000 on weekdays and nearly 200,000 on Sundays -- which means that any candidate is likely to respond to an invitation from its editorial board. One of Clinton's best qualities is her fearlessness, and it is hard to imagine her shrinking from the challenge of a meeting with Scaife and his staff. She may well have felt that in the presence of the man who had more or less accused her of conniving in the death of Vince Foster, she clearly held the moral high ground.

If so, however, her campaign plunged from that plateau by dispatching a pair of articles from the American Spectator and World Net Daily in an attack on Merrill "Tony" McPeak, the retired Air Force general and chief of staff who now serves as one of Obama's principal military advisors. Both stories sought to create the impression that McPeak is not only anti-Israel but anti-Semitic -- and thus taints Obama -- because of crude comments he made during a 2003 interview with the Portland Oregonian. The obstacle to a more balanced Mideast policy, he said, resides in "New York City and Miami." In those cities, he said, "we have a large vote -- vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it." He went on to apportion a share of blame to the religious right as well.

What McPeak's remarks revealed is less an anti-Semitic mind-set than an ignorant reading of the Jewish community's attitudes toward Israel, the Palestinians and the peace process. In fact, most Jewish voters here, like most in Israel, have long supported a two-state solution. Actual anti-Semites have far more insulting and conspiratorial ways to describe Jewish support for Israel. And in any case, to dredge up a single comment made by an advisor five years ago to inflame doubts about Obama's bona fides is cheap. It was reminiscent of the character attacks endured by Clinton when she ran for the Senate in 2000 and her enemies tried to persuade New Yorkers that she secretly hates Jews. Perhaps the Clinton campaign felt justified in slamming McPeak because of his own recent assault on Bill Clinton, whom he accused of "McCarthyism" over an innocent comment praising the patriotism of Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Indeed, McPeak was required to apologize for an ugly sexist statement about Sen. Clinton, and he sometimes sounds like a loose cannon who should be locked up in the policy shop. Whatever McPeak's offenses, however, the Clinton campaign went too far in responding. When it starts circulating material from the same ultra-right rags that have routinely accused the Clintons of felonies and treason, its behavior reeks of cynicism. Shall we all start reading World Net Daily for news and guidance? If so, we could learn the "real story behind the Clinton body count," how Hillary plans to "snatch wages" from uninsured workers, the latest developments in "Hollywood mogul" Peter Paul's fraud lawsuit against Bill Clinton, and hot new charges by both former impeachment counsel David Schippers and former White House employee Kathleen Willey that the Clintons burglarized their homes. That latter story appeared in World Net Daily a few weeks ago under the permanent slug "All the Ex-President's Scandals."

As for the American Spectator, once the secret headquarters of the Arkansas Project and still edited by the imaginative R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., there is no shortage of educational material in that publication either. Without even entering the archives, where stories can be found recounting Bill Clinton's collusion in the cocaine-importing industry with the CIA, it is possible to learn about the "vast record of Hillary's joint misdeeds with her spouse," beginning with their highly profitable Whitewater investment. That column, which appeared last October, said both Clintons are "so corrupt it is frightening"; said that Hillary is "unfit for elective office," let alone the presidency; and concluded passionately: "If Obama and Company are too frightened to say those things, and to make them stick, then they are cowards, pure and simple.?"

Of course "Obama and company" have said much that is unkind and untrue about the Clintons before and since, but it is all too easy to imagine the outrage of the Clinton spokespersons if the Illinois senator had started mailing around old clips from the American Spectator. This incident offers Hillary Clinton an opportunity to consider how she wants this campaign to end. If she beats the odds and wins, this kind of behavior will taint her victory. And if she loses, as seems more likely now, is this how she wants her historic campaign to be remembered?

-- By Joe Conason

tinyurl.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (77172)3/29/2008 11:43:01 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Hillary’s St. Patrick’s Day Massacre
___________________________________________________________

By FRANK RICH
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
March 30, 2008

Most politicians lie. Most people over 50, as I know all too well, misremember things. So here is the one compelling mystery still unresolved about Hillary Clinton’s Bosnia fairy tale: Why did she keep repeating this whopper for nearly three months, well after it had been publicly debunked by journalists and eyewitnesses?

In January, after Senator Clinton first inserted the threat of “sniper fire” into her stump speech, Elizabeth Sullivan of The Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote that the story couldn’t be true because by the time of the first lady’s visit in March 1996, “the war was over.” Meredith Vieira asked Mrs. Clinton on the “Today” show why, if she was on the front lines, she took along a U.S.O. performer like Sinbad. Earlier this month, a week before Mrs. Clinton fatefully rearmed those snipers one time too many, Sinbad himself spoke up to The Washington Post: “I think the only ‘red phone’ moment was: Do we eat here or at the next place?”

Yet Mrs. Clinton was undeterred. She dismissed Sinbad as a “comedian” and recycled her fiction once more on St. Patrick’s Day. When Michael Dobbs fact-checked it for The Post last weekend and proclaimed it worthy of “four Pinocchios,” her campaign pushed back. The Clinton camp enforcer Howard Wolfson phoned in to “Morning Joe” on MSNBC Monday and truculently quoted a sheaf of news stories that he said supported her account. Only later that day, a full week after her speech, did he start to retreat, suggesting it was “possible” she “misspoke” in the “most recent instance” of her retelling of her excellent Bosnia adventure.

Since Mrs. Clinton had told a similar story in previous instances, this was misleading at best. It was also dishonest to characterize what she had done as misspeaking — or as a result of sleep deprivation, as the candidate herself would soon assert. The Bosnia anecdote was part of her prepared remarks, scripted and vetted with her staff. Not that it mattered anymore. The self-inflicted damage had been done. The debate about Barack Obama’s relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was almost smothered in the rubble of Mrs. Clinton’s Bosnian bridge too far.

Which brings us back to our question: Why would so smart a candidate play political Russian roulette with virtually all the bullet chambers loaded?

Sometimes only a shrink can decipher why some politicians persist in flagrantly taking giant risks, all but daring others to catch them in the act (see: Spitzer, Eliot). Carl Bernstein, a sometimes admiring Hillary Clinton biographer, has called the Bosnia debacle “a watershed event” for her campaign because it revives her long history of balancing good works with “ ‘misstatements’ and elisions,” from the health-care task force fiasco onward.

But this event may be a watershed for two other reasons that have implications beyond Mrs. Clinton’s character and candidacy, spilling over into the 2008 campaign as a whole. It reveals both the continued salience of that supposedly receding issue, the Iraq war, and the accelerating power of viral politics, as exemplified by YouTube, to override the retail politics still venerated by the Beltway establishment.

What’s been lost in the furor over Mrs. Clinton’s Bosnia fairy tale is that her disastrous last recycling of it, the one that blew up in her face, kicked off her major address on the war, timed to its fifth anniversary. Still unable to escape the stain of the single most damaging stand in her public career, she felt compelled to cloak herself, however fictionally, in an American humanitarian intervention that is not synonymous with quagmire.

Perhaps she thought that by taking the huge gamble of misspeaking one more time about her narrow escape on the tarmac at Tulza, she could compensate for misvoting on Iraq. Instead, her fictionalized derring-do may have stirred national trace memories of two of the signature propaganda stunts of the war: the Rambo myth the Pentagon concocted for Pvt. Jessica Lynch and President Bush’s flyboy antics on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln during “Mission Accomplished.”

That Mrs. Clinton’s campaign kept insisting her Bosnia tale was the truth two days after The Post exposed it as utter fiction also shows the political perils of 20th-century analog arrogance in a digital age. Incredible as it seems, the professionals around Mrs. Clinton — though surely knowing her story was false — thought she could tough it out. They ignored the likelihood that a television network would broadcast the inevitable press pool video of a first lady’s foreign trip — as the CBS Evening News did on Monday night — and that this smoking gun would then become an unstoppable assault weapon once harnessed to the Web.

The Drudge Report’s link to the YouTube iteration of the CBS News piece transformed it into a cultural phenomenon reaching far beyond a third-place network news program’s nightly audience. It had more YouTube views than the inflammatory Wright sermons, more than even the promotional video of Britney Spears making her latest “comeback” on a TV sitcom. It was as this digital avalanche crashed down that Mrs. Clinton, backed into a corner, started offering the alibi of “sleep deprivation” and then tried to reignite the racial fires around Mr. Wright.

The Clinton campaign’s cluelessness about the Web has been apparent from the start, and not just in its lagging fund-raising. Witness the canned Hillary Web “chats” and “Hillcasts,” the soupy Web contest to choose a campaign song (the winner, an Air Canada advertising jingle sung by Celine Dion, was quickly dumped), and the little-watched electronic national town-hall meeting on the eve of Super Tuesday. Web surfers have rejected these stunts as the old-school infomercials they so blatantly are.

Senator Obama, for all his campaign’s Internet prowess, made his own media mistake by not getting ahead of the inevitable emergence of commercially available Wright videos on both cable TV and the Web. But he got lucky. YouTube videos of a candidate in full tilt or full humiliation, we’re learning, can outdraw videos of a candidate’s fire-breathing pastor. Both the CBS News piece on Mrs. Clinton in Bosnia and the full video of Mr. Obama’s speech on race have drawn more views than the most popular clips of a raging Mr. Wright.

But the political power of the Bosnia incident speaks at least as much to the passions aroused by the war as to the media dynamics of the Web. For all the economic anxiety roiling Americans, they have not forgotten Iraq. The anger can rise again in a flash when stoked by events on the ground or politicians at home, as it has throughout the rites surrounding the fifth anniversary of the invasion and 4,000th American combat death. This will keep happening as it becomes more apparent that the surge is a stalemate, bringing neither lower troop levels nor anything more than a fragile temporary stability to Iraq. John McCain’s apparent obliviousness to this fact remains a boon to the Democrats.

The war is certainly a bigger issue in 2008 than race. Yet it remains a persistent Beltway refrain that race will hinder Mr. Obama at every turn, no matter how often reality contradicts the thesis. Whites wouldn’t vote for a black man in states like Iowa and New Hampshire; whites wouldn’t vote for blacks in South Carolina; blacks wouldn’t vote for a black man who wasn’t black enough. The newest incessantly repeated scenario has it that Mr. Obama’s fate now all depends on a stereotypical white blue-collar male voter in the apotheosized rust belt town of Deer Hunter, Pa.

Well, Mr. Obama isn’t going to win every white vote. But two big national polls late last week, both conducted since he addressed the Wright controversy, found scant change in Mr. Obama’s support. In The Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey, his white support was slightly up. As the pollster Peter Hart put it, this result was “a myth buster.” The noisy race wars have failed to stop Mr. Obama just as immigration hysteria didn’t defeat Senator McCain, the one candidate in his party who refused to pander to the Lou Dobbs brigades.

The myth that’s been busted is one that Mr. Obama talked about in his speech — the perennial given that American racial relations are doomed to stew eternally in the Jim Crow poisons that forged generations like Mr. Wright’s. Yet if you sampled much political commentary of the past two weeks, you’d think it’s still 1968, or at least 1988. The default assumptions are that the number of racists in America remains fixed, no matter what the generational turnover, and that the Wright videos will terrorize white folks just as the Willie Horton ads did when the G.O.P. took out Michael Dukakis.

But politically and culturally we’re not in the 1980s — or pre-YouTube 2004 — anymore. An unending war abroad is upstaging the old domestic racial ghosts. A new bottom-up media culture is challenging any candidate’s control of a message.

The 2008 campaign is, unsurprisingly enough, mostly of a piece with 2006, when Iraq cost Republicans the Congress. In that year’s signature race, a popular Senate incumbent, George Allen, was defeated by a war opponent in the former Confederate bastion of Virginia after being caught race-baiting in a video posted on the Web. Last week Mrs. Clinton learned the hard way that Iraq, racial gamesmanship and viral video can destroy a Democrat, too.



To: American Spirit who wrote (77172)3/31/2008 7:42:44 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Clinton Antics Will Make Bill and Hill the Next American Idles

realclearpolitics.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (77172)4/3/2008 8:07:55 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
A hint from Carter that he's for Obama?

blogs.usatoday.com

<<...A Nigerian news report about something former president Jimmy Carter said yesterday has led to speculation that he's at least leaning toward supporting Sen. Barack Obama in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Here's the quote:

"We are very interested in the primaries. Don't forget that Obama won in my state of Georgia. My town, which is home to 625 people, is for Obama. My children and their spouses are pro-Obama. My grandchildren are also pro-Obama. As a superdelegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for, but I leave you to make that guess."...>>