Was Jeremiah Wright's Speech Set Up By a Clinton Supporter?

Is Jeremiah Wright a colossal disaster for Barack Obama or a press trick?

NYDailyNews.com
Errol Louis

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted.


Shortly before he rose to deliver his rambling, angry, sarcastic remarks at the National Press Club Monday, Wright sat next to, and chatted with, Barbara Reynolds.

A former editorial board member at USA Today, she runs something called Reynolds News Services and teaches ministry at the Howard University School of Divinity. (She is an ordained minister).

It also turns out that Reynolds - introduced Monday as a member of the National Press Club "who organized" the event - is an enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter.

On a blog linked to her Web site- reynoldsworldnews.blogspot.com
Reynolds said in a February post: "My vote for Hillary in the Maryland primary was my way of saying thank you" to Clinton and her husband for the successes of Bill Clinton's presidency.

The same post criticized Obama's "Audacity of Hope" theme: "Hope by definition is not based on facts," wrote Reynolds. It is an emotional expectation. Things hoped for may or may not come. But help based on experience trumps hope every time."

In another blog entry, Reynolds gives an ever-sharper critique of Obama: "It is a sad testimony that to protect his credentials as a unifier above the fray, the senator is fueling the media characterization that Rev. Dr. Wright is some retiring old uncle in the church basement."

I don't know if Reynolds' eagerness to help Wright stage a disastrous news conference with the national media was a way of trying to help Clinton - my queries to Reynolds by phone and e-mail weren't returned yesterday - but it's safe to say she didn't see any conflict between promoting Wright and supporting Clinton.

It's hard to exaggerate how bad the actual news conference was. Wright, steeped in an honorable, fiery tradition of Bible-based social criticism, cheapened his arguments and his movement by mugging for the cameras, rolling his eyes, heaping scorn on his critics and acting as if nobody in the room was learned enough to ask him a question.

Wright has, unquestionably, been caricatured and vilified unfairly. The feeding programs, prison outreach and other social services he has built over more than 30 years are commendable, and his reading of the Judeo-Christian tradition as an epic story of people trying to escape slavery is far more right than wrong - and not something to be caricatured or compressed into a 10-second sound bite.


But Wright should have known - and his friend and ally Reynolds, a media professional, surely knew - that bickering with the press can only harm Wright and, by extension, Obama.


I hope that wasn't their goal.

Barack Obama In Philadelphia - THE Message

Because it deserves to be heard again...It is NOT business as usual. A moving speech, and worth the listen.

Judgment Day looms for Hillary Clinton the wrecker, London Times

They endorse Barack for hope, but fear that Hillary will play on our fears as Bush did.

From The Sunday Times of London
April 20, 2008 Andrew Sullivan

Even after all the hype, this Tuesday’s vote in Pennsylvania will be a watershed primary election. This isn’t because it could determine whether Hillary Clinton’s campaign continues on its brutal, nihilistic path towards the destruction of the most promising figure in the Democratic party since Kennedy.

It isn’t because it’s been an age since the last primary vote and every nasty toxin in American culture has been drawn to the surface by the Clinton poultice. It isn’t even because Pennsylvania is an indisputably important and large state that any Democrat needs to win in November.

It is because the Clintons have turned Pennsylvania into a microcosm of what they think the general election will be in November. And the Clintons are running as the Rove Republicans. If they fail to destroy Barack Obama as effectively as Karl Rove – Bush’s master of the dark arts – destroyed Al Gore and John Kerry in 2000 and 2004, with tactics just as brutal but even more personal, then they will have driven American politics to a critical point. They will have shown that the paradigm that has reigned in US politics for at least two decades has been shattered.

That’s what is being tested this coming week. It may be the most important vote in America until the final one in November.

For a month now, Obama has been pummelled by a Democrat in ways I have never witnessed in a primary campaign. Senator Hillary Clinton has directly argued that he is less qualified to be commander-in-chief than the Republican nominee, John McCain. She has said that she doesn’t know for sure that he is not a secret Muslim. She has said his choice of church is unacceptable to her. She has said he deliberately wants many Americans to continue scraping by without health insurance.

Her campaign has insinuated that he was once a drug dealer. Her husband has equated him with the rabble-rousing preacher Jesse Jackson. The Clintons have publicly associated Obama with domestic terrorist William Ayers, with the militant Palestinian group Hamas, and with antisemitic demagogue Louis Farrakhan. And what is remarkable about all this is that most of it was not done by surrogates, but by a former president of the United States against a senator in his own party, and directly by Clinton herself. Every time you think: “Nah, they won’t go there, will they?” – they do.

Right now, in Pennsylvania, Clinton is running only negative advertisements designed to exploit Obama’s gaffe a fortnight ago, when he described some rural Pennsylvanians as bitter, and as “clinging” to some traditional identities because they feel left out of economic and social change. It was a stupid offhand comment, easily misinterpreted, and Obama deserved a hit.

But this is what the Clintons’ actual advertisement says, voiced by several unidentified Pennsylvanians: “I was very insulted by Barack Obama.” “It shows how out of touch Barack Obama is.” “The good people of Pennsylvania deserve a lot better than what Barack Obama said.”

This is a swing state. For the Clintons baldly to coopt exactly the kind of antielitist rhetoric used to marginalise Democrats by Republicans for three decades is to take the campaign warfare to a whole new level of earth-scorching.

For good measure, the ABC News debate last Wednesday night could have been crafted by Rove. For the first three-quarters of an hour, every conceivable personal attack on Obama was aired by the moderators, including former Clinton protege, George Stephanopoulos.

Obama was asked if his failure to wear an American flag lapel pin at all times was a sign that he didn’t really love America. He was asked if he was an elitist. He was asked if he secretly condoned domestic terrorism, on the grounds that an old 1960s Weather Underground radical had sponsored a fundraiser for him. He was asked whether his former pastor, an ex-marine, was a patriot. And on each occasion, Clinton jumped in to exploit the attacks by the ABC moderators. It was so brutal and unrelenting that you almost looked away.

Obama, moreover, wilted. He didn’t punch back. He seemed completely exhausted, drained, almost detached. I’ve seen him this way before, but never before 10m viewers in prime time. It was his worst performance yet.
In one debate, all the tactics deployed by Republicans since Lee Atwater ran George Bush Sr’s guns-and-flags-and-taxes campaign in 1988 were unloaded on the rookie. Clinton grinned. The next day, her husband said she “did great”. There was almost a liberated sense in the Clinton camp that, finally, they had been able to do to a Democrat what Republicans had done to them for the past two decades: insinuate treason, lack of patriotism, elitist snobbery, countercultural deviance, and every other red-blue hot-button meme that could stroke some electoral erogenous zone somewhere.

Not since the Clintons ran radio ads in 1996, bragging that they had defended American values from homosexuals, had the adoption of pure Republican tactics been so obvious. And this time, it was against a Democrat.

This, the Clintonites tell us, is what the Republicans will do to Obama this autumn. So we’re only showing you! The strategy is to persuade super-delegates that only the Clinton brand can withstand Rove-style attacks, and so foment a revolution before or at the convention to dislodge the candidate with the most pledged delegates and the greatest number of popular votes.

They are, of course, only doing this for the sake of their party, their country and the world. That the tactic also correlates with the Clintons’ recapturing control of a party that was finally moving past them is pure coincidence.

And that’s why Tuesday will be so instructive. Hillary Clinton should win Pennsylvania easily. She had a 20-point lead until relatively recently. And if the Clintons are right about their classic Atwater-Rove tactics, she will win by double-digits after throwing the kitchen sink, the boiler, the couch and the septic tank at her opponent.

However, if Obama keeps her lead to single digits, if he goes on to win in North Carolina and Indiana, if the momentum of the race does not change, something else will be shown.

It will show that the crisis America is in now has made the kind of tactics of the past two decades moot. It will show that the issues of the Iraq occupation, the teetering economy, the unsustainable debt, the collapsing dollar, the constitutional disarray and the moral collapse of the torture programme are now more salient than cultural identity. It will show that the voters actually want to debate something more than lapel pins and who is or is not a secret Muslim or patriot. It will show we are in a new era.

Maybe we’re not. Maybe the old politics and the old patterns have one more turn of the screw to go. Maybe the Clintons are right. And that’s the beauty of democracy. On Tuesday, we will go a long way towards finding out.

Was Bill Stumping for Obama Ahead of Time?

Clinton's Allentowngate? Obama Offices Laptops missing

Posted April 19, 2008 9:00 PM by Josh Drobnyk BaltimoreSun.com

Barack Obama's Allentown office was burglarized this week, and multiple laptops and cell phones were stolen, an Obama campaign aide said today. A police spokesman confirmed the incident, but couldn't provide details today because reports are kept in the department's records depository, which is closed weekends.

An Obama aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said "a couple" field laptops were taken out of the office at 1233 Linden St. The computers have demographic information that the campaign uses to target voters. "A couple" cell phones were also taken, the aide said.

Police spokesman Capt. James Stephens confirmed the break-in, but could not confirm details of what was taken because the records office is closed on weekends. When and how the break-in occurred also remained unclear. Stephens would only say that it happened "a couple days ago." The Obama campaign declined to comment officially on the incident.

Both campaigns have had their share of incidents at field offices during the race. Obama field offices in California and Iowa have also been broken into. And late last year, a man took campaign workers hostage at a Hillary Clinton field office in Rochester, N.H.

Obama's Website Hacked: People Re-directed to HillaryClinton.com

Obama's Website HACKED! Laptops stolen from campaign office! (UPDATED w/video)
by dawnt
Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:44:19 PM PDT
UPDATE II:I think they have fixed it. The links are working / not working intermittently are working. Also, watch the video if you had trouble finding the redirects. I received several reports and had trouble finding the correct blogs, so it also took me a while to verify it while it was actually happening.

Someone hacked the MyBO website!Several links were redirecting to Hillary's website instead of going to the intended pages within MyBO (MyBO is my.barackobama.com).

While the site was hijacked, if you went from the Dashboard (which, again, worked fine) to the "Community Blogs" section, you would have gotten redirected to Hillary's website from some of the links within the website. Also, if you had clicked on "My Blog" and then "View All Blogs," it would have taken you to Hillary's website.

At this time, I believe all of the redirects have been fixed. Although, if anyone sees more, post them in the comments. Follow me after the jump for more...

dawnt's diary :: ::
Lots of others are also reporting having the same problems. I actually first heard about it via an email earlier but didn't click on the right link, so I thought it was not true. After getting several more emails, I went back and meticulously looked for the exact links that people were complaining about. Sure enough, the problem was there.

This is all over the blogs, email lists, and groups now. Some others have posted verifying this in the comments below and also in the current open thread.

I've been looking at this, and I'm going to make a guess about the situation. I bet they are not sanitizing the input fields. Someone knowledgeable about web security probably managed to sneak in redirect code, which would send the user not to the link they wanted to go to, but to another link altogether. If I'm right, this is considered hacking and hijacking!

Ok, here's the video:

The most notable link was from the MyBO Dashboard page (note, the Dashboard page itself was working fine throughout the entire ordeal):


Video was provided courtesy of Zennie's blog, a friend of mine also who diaried this topic at his blog.

My friend Zennie, in the video, postulates that perhaps Clinton's campaign and/or staff may be behind the hijacking. I think it's possible, but we'll never prove it if she is. More likely, in my humble opinion, is that some overzealous supporter with a little tech knowledge and too much time on his hands (probably living in his mother's basement) was behind this.

UPDATE III: In other breaking news, according to the Baltimore Sun, the campaign office in Allentown was broken into, and the culprits took laptops and cell phones:

An Obama aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said "a couple" field laptops were taken out of the office at 1233 Linden St. The computers have demographic information that the campaign uses to target voters. "A couple" cell phones were also taken, the aide said.

Hillary Clinton's Opposing Statements on the Iraq War

So she was for it before she was against it? You can't have it both ways, and you helped get us in there, Senator Clinton.

Clinton Was Pro NAFTA before she Was Anti-Nafta, MSNBC Reports on her Untruthfulness

David Shuster reports saying that Clinton helped get NAFTA approved, 3/25. If you look at the videos, you can only conclude she was lying when she supported it, or she's lying now when she says she never supported it. But she's on record (video) as saying she fully supported it. How can she say she's always been against it? Maybe she was under sniper fire at the time.

Even Soulja Boy Gets the Issues More Than ABC

Loved this one.

<

Obama endorsed by former senators Nunn & Boren; Reich does so as well

From ON POLITICS; USA Today
By: Mark Memmott and Jill Lawrence


Obama endorsed by former senators Nunn & Boren; Reich does so as well
Two former senators with long records on foreign policy and national security issues -- and who come from "red" states where Republicans dominate -- have just endorsed Sen. Barack Obama's bid for the White House.

Sam Nunn of Georgia and David Boren of Oklahoma, both Democrats (as is Obama), will also be serving as advisers on Obama's national security foreign policy team.

Meanwhile, New York magazine reports that one-time "friend of Bill" and former Clinton administration Labor secretary Robert Reich will this afternoon also endorse Obama. Reich is set to make his announcement official around 1 p.m. ET, on his blog.

Update at 1 p.m. ET. Reich makes it official:

"My avoidance of offering a formal endorsement until now has also been affected by the pull of old friendships and my reluctance as a teacher and commentator to be openly partisan," Reich says in the post he just published. "But my conscience won't let me be silent any longer."

He adds that:

"I believe that Barack Obama should be elected President of the United States.

Although Hillary Clinton has offered solid and sensible policy proposals, Obama's strike me as even more so."

Posted by Mark Memmott at 12:38 PM/ET, April 18, 2008 in Democrats, Presidential race, 2008 Permalink

ABC Debates Biased? The Reviews Are In

.. From WashPo TV critic Tom Shales:

"It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which
hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors,
Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable
performances. For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show,
Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that
already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to
claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news
to begin with. The fact is, cable networks CNN and MSNBC both did better jobs
with earlier candidate debates. Also, neither of those cable networks, if memory
serves, rushed to a commercial break just five minutes into the proceedings,
after giving each candidate a tiny, token moment to make an opening statement.
Cable news is indeed taking over from network news, and merely by being
competent."

... even our friends across the pond, at the U.K.'s Guardian, were unimpressed with what they said was possibly "the
dumbest debate in America":

"Last night's debate -- or, more specifically, the performance of its
moderators, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos -- was by turns superficial
and disingenuous. The trouble started early. Gibson began with an utterly
fatuous inquiry about whether each candidate would pledge to ask the other to be
their vice-presidential nominee if they won, and agree to accept the veep slot
if they lost ... Stephanopoulos and Gibson deserve every bit of opprobrium being
thrown their way. They delivered a noxious blend of smear, innuendo and
diversion. But it looks like the same old political junk food no longer
satisfies an electorate hungry for real change."

... Ed Morrissey says, What were you hoping for? A game of patty-cake?

"I'm not sure what anyone expected. All of the questions asked were legitimate
questions, and the time spent on them had more to do with follow-ups by the
candidates than with the moderators. None of them had been asked in a debate before last night, and
indeed most of these issues had only been reported since the last debate. ABC
didn't break a scoop last night; all of the issues they raised in that first 50
minutes have appeared in both major media outlets and in each others'
advertising."

MSNBC Questions Clinton's Truthiness, Says She Was Pro-NAFTA

ABC Delivers Biased Debate: Obama Answers

Before last night's ABC debate, I e-mailed some questions I would like asked. I did it for the following reasons, since the debate had become debased to the point of personal attack ads by the Clinton campaign reminiscent of the Bush campaigns... complicit with a press that was afraid to press Bush on anything. This was sent out yesterday before the debate (my e-mail), and oddly enough, the debate did exactly the opposite of what I hoped it would do. It went on the offensive of one candidate, run by a former employee of the other candidate's family. The following is what I asked, followed by Senator Obama's assessment today of last night's debate, in what I thought was very accurate. I stated as follows in my e-mail:

Attacks are using fabrications or half-truths about a candidate to divide voters and cause questions in voters minds, albeit questions fabricated by the attacker.

There is a difference between that and asking direct questions of an opponent about why they actually DID do something, or why they have certain stands on issues. That is not attacking. That is winning the political fight through discussion of issues.

Facts I'D like examined are
1) Why did Hillary support the Bush's War on Iraq when Bin Laden was in Afghanistan?
2) Why did she vote to declare the Iranian Brigade a terrorist organization, thus giving Bush the ammo to go into Iran before he leaves office?
3) Why was she the ONLY Senator (Democratic or Republican) absent from the vote on granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms?
4) Why was Mark Penn on her payroll for a full year while still consulting the Colombian government on trade and jobs? - and, concurrently, how does she feel about her husband receiving an award and large sums of money from that same Colombian government as she "professes" to oppose Nafta? And Why is Mark Penn still advising, if this is an issue?
5) Why did she work so hard to support NAFTA in the beginning?
6) Why did she vote for Bush's Federal Bankruptcy Law which made it more difficult for those with mounting credit card debts to gain bankruptcy amidst the escalation of credit card rates that approaches the usury of organized crime in decades past? (30 percent in some cases)
7) How did she feel about her ultrawealthy supporters who wrote the infamous letter to the DCCC stating that they would take their money from local campaigns if the superdelegates did not go with Hillary? And, again, concurrently, how did she feel about the ties of some of those letter writers to organizations such as Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp, which Ed Rendell now calls fair and balanced, and other groups, such as the one that sold illegal weapons to the Chinese Government, was fined, and declared bankruptcy before having to pay the U.S. Government the fine?

These are not attack points. They are checkable facts that I wish and hope the newsmedia will ask her, and that the moderators in the debate will ask her. But, given my skepticism that they won't, I hope that Senator Obama DOES check the facts on these issues, and then ask her in the debate.



What we got was an hour-long questioning of Obama on such "tough" points as: Why doesn't he wear the flag pin? (Where was Hillary's, Charlie's, and George's as they asked that question?); what about someone who was on a board with him long ago who was in the Weather Underground when he was 8, while at the same time there was no follow-up with Senator Clinton as to why she didn't feel it a problem that her husband pardoned two members of the Weather Underground?; and the re-instatement of race into the campaign by our fair friends at ABC, just as Senator Obama had delivered a wonderful speech having united the various splintered groups in this country.

And why were none of the substantial questions I, as a mere blogger, could see were factual issues that needed to be addressed?

Hillary Clinton On Southern Working Class Whites In 1995: "Screw 'Em"

Sam Stein
The Huffington Post

April 16, 2008 02:21 PM

About Sam Stein
Sam Stein is a Political Reporter at the Huffington Post, based in Washington, D.C. Previously he has worked for Newsweek magazine, the New York Daily News and the investigative journalism group Center for Public Integrity. He has a masters from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and is a graduate of Dartmouth College. Sam can be reached at stein@huffingtonpost.com

During the past week, Sen. Hillary Clinton has presented herself as a working class populist, the politician in touch with small town sentiments, compared to the elitism of her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama.

But a telling anecdote from her husband's administration shows Hillary Clinton's attitudes about the "lunch-bucket Democrats" are not exactly pristine.

In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

The statement -- which author Benjamin Barber witnessed and wrote about in his book, "The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House" -- was prompted by another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching "Reagan Democrats." It stands in stark contrast to the attitude the New York Democrat has recently taken on the campaign trail, in which she has presented herself as the one candidate who understands the working-class needs.

"I don't think [Obama] really gets it that people are looking for a president who stands up for you and not looks down on you," she said this week.

But those who were at the event say the 1995 episode fits into her larger viewpoint. As Harry Boyte, the director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Democracy and Citizenship who was at the retreat, told The Huffington Post: "[Hillary Clinton] sees herself as the champion of the oppressed, but there is always a kind of good guy versus bad guy mentality. The comment before that was that 'the Reagan Democrats are our enemies and they weren't on our side,' and she was agreeing with that comment. She said we should write them off: screw them."

A spokesperson for Clinton said the quote was taken out of context and did not reflect her true political philosophy. "This quote differs from the recollection of others who were in the room at the time this comment was allegedly made," said Jay Carson. "To be clear, that's not how she felt then and it's not how she feels now, and the proof is in how she has lived her life, the work she has done and the policies she has pushed and pursued over the last 35 years."

Asked to produce a witness who would say that Clinton had been misquoted, Carson wrote: "So, you've got two guys we've barely heard of remembering a verbatim quote from 13 years ago?... Sounds totally and completely reliable."

(Carson eventually put me in touch with a source who claimed to not have heard the quote -- see below). Barber's book was published in 2001.

Perhaps even more telling than Hillary Clinton's proclamation, however, were the words from her husband that followed. As reported by Barber, Clinton "stepped in, calm and judicious, not irritated, as if rehearsing an old but honorable debate he had been having with his wife for decades."

I know how you feel. I understand Hillary's sense of outrage. It makes me mad too. Sure, we lost our base in the South; our boys voted for Gingrich. But let me tell you something. I know these boys. I grew up with them. Hardworking, poor, white boys, who feel left out, feel that our reforms always come at their expense. Think about it, every progressive advance our country has made since the Civil War has been on their backs. They're the ones asked to pay the price of progress. Now, we are the party of progress, but let me tell you, until we find a way to include these boys in our programs, until we stop making them pay the whole price of liberty for others, we are never going to unite our party, never really going to have change that sticks.
If the tone and tenor of the above sounds familiar, it's because the message, Boyte says, is remarkably similar to what Obama was trying to convey in his now controversial remarks about small town America.

"Well, yeah, absolutely," said Boyte, when asked if Obama and Bill Clinton were expressing the same political viewpoint (Boyte said he and his organization are neutral in the presidential race). "I think Obama's better-or-worse versions of this have always been that people are complicated. It comes from an organizing perspective. You don't write off people, everyone is complicated. It just depends on the issue. And that's what Bill Clinton was saying. He was a sentimental populist."

Not to be lost in all this, as Boyte notes, is that Hillary Clinton has consistently been a "champion for the people who were helpless and powerless." But there is a political component to the mindset.

"Hillary Clinton has a very strong customer view: the citizen is the customer and the government the vendor," said Boyte. "You can see it in Mark Penn's frame. In fact, last Christmas she had an ad of herself writing checks to different groups."

Update: Jake Tapper, over at ABC, had highlighted the "screw em" quote back in October. His article was in reference to comments Sen. Clinton had made about Mississippi. Considering events this past week, the issue has taken on increased relevance.

Late Update: The Clinton campaign put me in touch with Don Baer, President Clinton's speech writer at the time, who had attended the same meeting. He says: "I don't remember anything along those lines, at all. And I certainly don't remember Senator Clinton saying anything like that... they have their recollections of that, that is their business. The conversation, from my perspective, was moderated in tone."

He did not, it should be noted, directly challenge the interpretations of Barber and Boyte.

Baer's comments came at roughly the same moment that The New Republic published a blog post by Alan Wolfe, a professor of political science at Boston College, who was also at the retreat and says he too heard the quote. Noting Carson's remark -- "So, you've got two guys we've barely heard of remembering a verbatim quote from 13 years ago?... Sounds totally and completely reliable" -- Wolfe writes: "Make that three. I was there. I hope people have heard of me. And Barber and Boyte have it right."

Hillary Clinton: To Bosnia and Back Again

(A note from Greetings: I was checking my "cookies" as I always do on my regular computer. However, I don't do it as much on my laptop.. a Mac. What I found was... from all of my visits to the candidates' sites... only one put tracking cookies on my computer. HillaryClinton.com . If we get that from her campaign, what will her Presidency bring? Do watch the Jed Report below... both funny and scary.)

From The Jed Report
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/bosnia-and-back.html#disqus_thread


Presenting the newest production from The Jed Report -- Bosnia and Back Again, the story of Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. AMERICAblog declares it is "the most spectacular display of sniper fire since Tuzla." Senator Clinton plays herself in a performance The Field calls "a paid political ad for John McCain." Watch the trailer now:



The story behind Bosnia and Back Again:

A few days ago, MasterSitsu, a member of the Daily Kos community, sent me an e-mail. His subject line: "OMG I hit the video goldmine." He wasn't kidding -- he had found unbroadcast footage of Hillary Clinton from a 1992 interview on 60 Minutes. MasterSitsu suggested a video highlighting the stark contrast between her rhetoric then and her actions now, and I took his idea and ran with it.

I'd been wanting to put together a video that would serve as a bookend to Hillary in Tuzla: The Story of Bosnian Sniper Fire, but until MasterSitsu sent me the 60 Minutes footage, I hadn't felt like I had enough material to make a strong video.

Another person who helped find a key piece of video for Bosnia and Back Again is Carthage -- who found Clinton's cookies and teas comment.

One interesting side note: the 60 Minutes interview from which the outtakes were pulled was aired after the Superbowl in January 1992 shortly before the New Hampshire primary. At the time, a variety of scandals including charges of marital infidelity threatened to destroy the Clinton campaign, but in this interview the Clintons managed to get his campaign back on track, ultimately sending him to the White House. (None of the outtake footage directly deals with any of the scandals. We're not the business of doing Ken Starr's work here at The Jed Report.)

House Republican blasts Obama as "that boy"

From The War Room, Salon.com
Tuesday, April 15, 2008 08:53 EDT

Far-right efforts to define Barack Obama as The Other have been relatively subtle over the last couple of months. A little emphasis on Obama's middle name here, a little talk about flag lapel pins there. Everyone knew what was coming, but could also tell the Republican efforts hadn't started in earnest.

It appears conservatives are starting to forgo the subtleties.


U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis, a Hebron Republican, compared Obama and his message for change similar to a "snake oil salesman" [at a Northern Kentucky Lincoln Day dinner].

He said in his remarks at the GOP dinner that he also recently participated in a "highly classified, national security simulation" with Obama.

"I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," Davis said. "He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country."


According to news accounts, Davis' comments were "met by laughter and applause" with his Kentucky Republican audience.

Once reporters started calling Davis' office seeking comment, the conservative Republican lawmaker issued a written apology to Obama, saying, "[M]y poor choice of words is regrettable and was in no way meant to impugn you or your integrity. I offer my sincere apology to you and ask for your forgiveness."

Davis' remarks are so uniquely stupid, it's hard to know where to start. First, obviously, is "that boy." The racial element of the phrase is both obvious and ugly. It's not as if Davis is Obama's elder -- the senator is just three years younger than the Kentucky congressman.

Second, is the apology itself. Davis didn't mean to "impugn" Obama or his "integrity." That's a rather odd what to respond. The problem isn't that he attacked Obama's integrity -- Republicans do that all the time -- it's that he called a grown black man a "boy."

Third, I'm curious about this "highly classified, national security simulation" Davis claims to have "recently" completed with Obama. If the simulation is "highly classified," why is Davis talking about it in front of hundreds of people? Did the simulation actually happen, or is Davis making it up?

― Steve Benen

Obama Pulling Ahead in Pennsylvania?

In a new poll in PA (PPP) today Obama is ahead 45-42% in a sample of 1,095 covering April 14-15.

McCain gets donuts; Obama gets likened to a terrorist

Salon: The War Room
Tuesday, April 15, 2008 17:14 EDT

We've known for a while that so many political reporters fawn over John McCain that the media is often considered "McCain's base," but Dana Milbank's latest piece suggests news outlets are anxious to solidify the relationship.

Appearing before the nation's newspaper editors yesterday, AP chairman Dean Singleton pressed Barack Obama on whether he would send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, where "Obama bin Laden is still at large." McCain's treatment was slightly different.


McCain's moderators, the AP's Ron Fournier and Liz Sidoti, greeted McCain with a box of Dunkin' Donuts. "We spend quite a bit of time with you on the back of the Straight Talk Express asking you questions, and what we've decided to do today was invite everyone else along on the ride," Sidoti explained. "We even brought you your favorite treat."

McCain opened the offering. "Oh, yes, with sprinkles!" he said.

Sidoti passed him a cup. "A little coffee with a little cream and a little sugar," she said.


This is neither a joke nor an exaggeration. ThinkProgress even has a video.

So, in March, McCain gives political reporters free barbecue, and in April, the nation's leading newspaper editors give McCain free doughnuts (with sprinkles!) and coffee.

There's something about this that undermines the notion of objective and detached journalism.

― Steve Benen

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Endorses Barack Obama

Barack Obama: Democrats deserve a nominee for change

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08107/873625-192.stm

On Tuesday, Pennsylvanians will have the unusual luxury of voting in a Democratic presidential primary that promises to be truly relevant. Like two opposing armies marching to a new Gettysburg, the forces of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton come to this latest battlefield symbolizing two views of America -- one of the past, one of the future. Pennsylvania Democrats need to rise to the historic moment.

For us it is the candidates' vision and character that loom as the decisive factors in this race. For as dissimilar as they are, the two share much in common. It starts with their mold-breaking candidacies. Whoever wins the nomination will vie for a special place in U.S. history -- to be either the first African-American or the first female commander in chief.
•
Although their backgrounds are different, they have come to the same conclusion, one now shared by many Americans, that the Bush administration has taken the nation on a profoundly wrong course both at home and abroad. The excitement that has animated this primary season -- the surge of new voters, the change of party registrations -- is an expression of the nation's hunger for change.

For as hard as they have run against each other, both candidates are united in running vehemently against President Bush and all his works -- another common theme that came out in their visits to the Post-Gazette editorial board on successive days this week. Sen. Clinton was the more explicit in her disdain: George W. Bush "is one of the worst, if not the worst, president we have ever had."

Not surprisingly, the policies they advocate have much in common and are generally the polar opposites of those espoused by the current administration.

On the domestic front, the prescriptions they offer on issues such as health care, the environment and education declare that government must be an agent of change to benefit the lives of ordinary Americans, not a power that shrinks from regulating or directing for fear of offending a core ideology.

In their expansive plans, Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton do have their own emphases and differences -- Sen. Clinton's health-care plan, for example, would cover more Americans than Sen. Obama's, but both would be a vast improvement on the status quo that leaves 47 million Americans uninsured and continues to soar in expense.

On foreign policy, both are united in their desire to bring the troops home from Iraq while improving the strategic situation in Afghanistan, the place of unfinished business where the al-Qaida spiders first spun their deadly web for 9/11 and are coming back thanks to the Iraq diversion.

On Iraq, for those inclined to remember, Sen. Clinton carries more baggage, for she voted to approve the war in the first place. For those inclined to forgive, she would seek to repair relations with allies strained by the Iraq misadventure, as Sen. Obama also would.

There is one last common ground for these candidates: They are both uncommonly smart, thoughtful and very well-versed in the issues. They care about people and they care about the workings of government. They are prepared.

Their strengths promise, in short, the one thing that the Bush administration has so shockingly lacked: competency. There will be no intellectually lazy president in the White House if either succeeded to it, no outsourced thinking to the vice president or the secretary of defense, no cheerfully shallow praise for unqualified political appointments, no enduring cause for embarrassment by the American people.

So forget all the primary skirmishing. Sen. Obama is every bit as prepared to answer the ring of the 3 a.m. phone as Sen. Clinton. Forget this idea that Sen. Obama is all inspiration and no substance. He has detailed positions on the major issues. When the occasion demands it, he can marshal eloquence in the service of making challenging arguments, which he did to great effect in his now-famous speech putting his pastor's remarks in the greater context of race relations in America.

Nor is he any sort of elitist. As he said yesterday in effectively refuting this ridiculous charge in a meeting with Post-Gazette editors, "my life's work has been to get everybody a fair shake."

This editorial began by observing that one candidate is of the past and one of the future. The litany of criticisms heaped on Sen. Obama by the Clinton camp, simultaneously doing the work of the Republicans, is as illustrative as anything of which one is which. These are the cynical responses of the old politics to the new.

Sen. Obama has captured much of the nation's imagination for a reason. He offers real change, a vision of an America that can move past not only racial tensions but also the political partisanship that has so bedeviled it.
•
To be sure, Sen. Clinton carries the aspirations of women in particular, but even in this she is something of a throwback, a woman whose identity and public position are indelibly linked to her husband, her own considerable talents notwithstanding. It does not help that the Clinton brand is seen by many in the country as suspect and shifty, bearing the grimy stamp of political calculation counting as much as principle.

Pennsylvania -- this encrusted, change-averse commonwealth where a state liquor monopoly holds on against all reason and where municipal fiefdoms shrink from sensible consolidation -- needs to take a strong look at the new face and the new hope in this race. Because political business-as-usual is more likely to bring the usual disappointment for the Democrats this fall, the Post-Gazette endorses the nomination of Barack Obama, who has brought an excitement and an electricity to American politics not seen since the days of John F. Kennedy.

First published on April 16, 2008 at 12:00 am

Another Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Columnist Endorsement

Looking toward the future

There are plenty of reasons to vote for Barack Obama -- and against Hillary Clinton

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

By Dan Simpson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Dan Simpson, a retired U.S. ambassador, is a Post-Gazette associate editor (dsimpson@post-gazette.com).)

Six days from today, Pennsylvanians will take up their unexpectedly important obligation to express their opinions on the relative merits of the two Democratic candidates, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. I will be voting for Mr. Obama, for the following reasons:

• He represents the future of America; Mrs. Clinton, the past. Even though some might view the Clintons' previous occupancy of the White House with misty eyes, savoring the absence of the Iraq war and recalling an economy that wasn't tilted toward the oil industry, financial nongeniuses with enormous incomes and the rich in general, that was the 1990s and now is now, eight years later.

• It may seem stuffy to talk about the dignity of the White House, but it is hard to imagine that Americans really would like to see the Clintons' personal lives once again on national display. Whatever reservations one might have about the Bushes, they set a high standard of personal behavior. Michelle and Barack Obama look fine in this area, although they might want to choose their Washington church with care.

• It is fair to look at a candidate's supporters and opponents as a measure of likely behavior in office. In Pennsylvania, Mrs. Clinton has been endorsed by some of the state's harder-core professional politicians.



These include Gov. Ed Rendell, Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll, Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato, Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and former Pittsburgh Mayor Sophie Masloff. Each of these political figures may have hopes to win some spoils in another Clinton presidency, or debts to pay from a previous one. Mr. Rendell hopes for high national office; Mr. Onorato will want support for his candidacy for governor, and so forth. But they may have made a mistake in jumping so early for Mrs. Clinton, or, driven by ambition, jumping for Mrs. Clinton at all. Instead of betting on the past, they might have thought of staying neutral in the primary, letting the people vote without their advice.


• It is unfortunate, but joining some of Pennsylvania's career politicians in opposing Mr. Obama are those who simply cannot abide the idea of an African American as president of the United States. That is not to say that to support Mrs. Clinton is to be racist. But, for me, if the racists line up on one side of the line, as a matter of principle I will almost certainly find myself on the other side of it. (I did not vote for Lynn Swann for governor, however.) It is Mr. Obama's ability as a leader, not his race, that is the bottom line for me.


• Another reason to vote for Mr. Obama and against Mrs. Clinton is her sometimes shaky relationship with the truth. Maybe I am exceptionally sensitive to that quality after having been lied to systematically by the Bush administration about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and fictional links to al-Qaida, but it seems to me that Mrs. Clinton sometimes does have a problem in this area. I go way back to watching her on television in 1994 dishing up half-truths and untruths about how she had miraculously made $100,000 in profits on commodity transactions in Arkansas.


The latest round was her mis-recalled account of landing in Tuzla, Bosnia-Herzegovina, under sniper fire, well after the war there had ended. That perhaps unintended whopper stung me particularly because I lived in Tuzla in 2001 and knew some of the people involved there.


• I also want the American people to know who donated and how much to Mr. Clinton's presidential library before the Pennsylvania vote. The Clintons released their tax returns, but not the information about the library. Of course the Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain, has still not released even his tax returns.



What delightful shock still awaits us?


• An especially murky area that has prompted me to side with Mr. Obama against Mrs. Clinton is the relationship between her husband's financial arrangements and her candidacy. Labor unions, whose support Mrs. Clinton needs badly, must look closely at how she explains her husband's advocacy on behalf of Colombia as it lobbied for a free-trade agreement with the United States. She has opposed the accord as a senator and as a candidate, based on Colombia's weak record of respect for unionized workers and the risk of losing American jobs. She can't say she didn't know. Mr. Clinton was paid $800,000 for his support of the agreement and the two file a joint tax return. The other obvious question would be how such disagreements between them would be resolved if they were back in the White House together? I don't like to picture it.


The Obamas in the White House would not be troubled by these sorts of money-laden conflicts of interest.

• Finally, there is the intra-Democratic argument about which candidate would run stronger against Mr. McCain in November. There is the reported non-secret, secret strategy attributed to some Republicans of an intention to support Mrs. Clinton as the Democratic candidate because she would be easier for the senior-moment-plagued Mr. McCain to defeat in November than Mr. Obama. Even if I thought it likely that I would support Mr. McCain in November, I would find it difficult to persuade myself that it was a good idea to try to put the lesser of the two Democratic candidates on the ballot against him. Even the most partisan Republicans should favor putting the better of the two Democratic candidates into the general election.

Most important on Tuesday will be to vote. To think it through. To think of America's best interests.

Looking to the future, not betting on the past, I believe, is a course that takes one to the choice of Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton.

First published on April 16, 2008 at 12:00 am

And One More Post-Gazette Columnist/Editor Weighs In On Obama

Momma for Obama knows best

Wednesday, April 16, 2008
By Reg Henry, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08107/873671-154.stm

As a matter of full disclosure, I should tell you that my wife, a long-time Republican, has changed her party registration in advance of the Pennsylvania Primary and has appeared in public wearing "Another Momma for Obama" button.

Nothing in my life had prepared me for this. A squadron of pigs could have flown by and I would not have been as surprised. This was the woman who, when I became a citizen more than 20 years ago, strongly suggested that I might be smart to register as a Republican if I knew what was good for me. Well, I said indignantly, am I a man or a mouse? So I squeaked like any wise fellow and got with the program.

With the Momma newly converted, she pressured me to become a Democrat too, but this time I resisted. I like being one of the few remaining liberals in the Republican Party and I feel that if I hold out I'll be granted endangered species protection and I'll get my own national park and pretty female bird watchers will observe me through binoculars.

So as a person who thinks party affiliations pretty much nonsense, I can say the following to make the Momma happy, because it just happens to be the truth: This alleged controversy over Barack Obama's comments about guns and religion -- the so-called "bitter comment" -- is the biggest load of bull fertilizer ever to fall off the back of the political truck.

First of all, let us examine what Sen. Obama actually said at a San Francisco fund-raiser on April 6. It was so shocking that apparently it took five days before anyone could denounce it.

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them ..." he said. "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

What is important to remember is that Mr. Obama was speaking sympathetically about these people. And, yes, not that it seems to matter to the nattering classes, there is truth in what he said. When people feel defeated, they do feel bitter and they do cling to the cultural pillars of their lives, religion being one of them, our help in ages past and our help for years to come.

As for guns in rural Pennsylvania and the Midwest, praising the Lord and passing the ammunition is what goes on. That's a fact, not a judgment.

But if there is one industry still booming in this country, it is the controversy fabrication industry. Various political and media elitists fell over themselves to feed the production line with claims that Barack Obama was an elitist, the same fellow of humble origins who was a community organizer in Chicago, which I doubt he did to feel superior to the poor people he was helping.

Among all the elitists in the anti-Barack brigade, none outperformed Washington Post columnist George F. Will, who wrote:

"Obama may be the fulfillment of modern liberalism. Explaining why many working class voters are 'bitter,' he said they 'cling' to guns, religion and 'antipathy to people who aren't like them' because of 'frustrations.' His implication was that their primitivism, superstition and bigotry are balm for resentments they feel because of America's grinding injustice."

Really? What a mind reader. Still, I defer to superior breeding because here's a guy so snooty that he could go to the Elitist Persons Ball and guests would say, "Who's that elitist over there?" Here's a guy that when he goes to the ballpark, he may eat a hotdog but he probably has his pinkie extended. You can just imagine him denouncing Sen. Obama as an elitist over a good glass of sherry, looking down his superior nose, perhaps through a monocle. The whole thing is beyond satire.

But that is life in these United States, where a politico-media babbleocracy constantly assumes that working people are a bunch of dopes to be cynically manipulated with the scares and packaged controversies of the day -- gay marriage, illegal immigrants, unguarded comments, whatever serves to advance the interests of some sharp politician.

Talking about Hillary Clinton, I ask her supporters: Aren't you so proud that her campaign rushed to take advantage of the controversy with a TV ad that offers the reality of cynicism as an antidote to the audacity of hope? Who is their Momma anyway that they insult the people's intelligence like this?

Reg Henry
Reg Henry is the deputy editorial page editor of the Post-Gazette. He joined the Post-Gazette in 1978 as a copy editor and later was an associate editor who wrote editorials, and then city editor. He was also one of the earliest writers of the Saturday Diary, and for a time wrote a weekly humor column called "Oh Henry."
He left in 1988 to become the editor of The Monterey County (Calif.) Herald, which was then owned by the Post-Gazette's parent company. A year after The Herald was sold to Scripps Howard, he returned to Pittsburgh, in 1994, as the PG's special projects editor and later rejoined the editorial page.
Born in 1948 in Singapore, where his father managed the Reuters news agency, Reg moved to Australia as a small boy and grew up in Brisbane. He began his newspaper career at the Brisbane Courier-Mail, a period which was interrupted by service in Vietnam with the Australian Army. He moved to Britain in 1973, where he had also lived briefly as a child, and worked for a small weekly before joining The Times of London on the sports desk.

John Stewart On Clinton and Guns, Obama Taken Out of Context

You need to listen ALL the way through to get Clinton's hypocrisy on using this wedge issue.

Hillary Lands in Bosnia:Tall Tales of the Former First Lady

A Letter From Dan Rooney Of the Pittsburgh Steelers, on Obama

Dear Fellow Pennsylvanian,

Based on the experiences that I have had in my seventy-five years and my assessment of what I think our nation needs to make real the change that is so needed, I am proud and now feel compelled to endorse Senator Barack Obama.

This is not something that I do regularly but as I listen to the candidates in this race, I am struck that we continue to hear about the problems and the same challenges that we have been talking about for decades.

Protecting jobs here in Pennsylvania, breaking our dangerous and costly addiction to foreign oil, making health care accessible and affordable " these are neither new issues nor new ideas. And yet we have failed to make real progress. As a grandfather and a citizen of this community I think Barack Obama's, thoughtful, strategic approach is important for America.

When I hear how excited young people seem to be when they talk about this man, I believe he will do what is best for them which is to inspire them to be great Americans.

This time, we can't afford to wait. Our country needs a new direction and a new kind of leadership " the kind of leadership, judgment and experience that Senator Obama has demonstrated in more than 20 years of public service, and in a particularly impressive way in this campaign. Senator Obama has rejected the say-and-do anything tactics that puts winning elections ahead of governing the country.

And he has rejected the back-room politics in favor of opening government up to the people. Barack Obama is the one candidate in this race who can finally put an end to business as usual in Washington and bring about real change for Pittsburgh and the country as a whole. He has inspired me and so many other people around our country with new ideas and fresh perspectives.

True sports fans know that you support your team even when they are the underdogs. Barack Obama is the underdog here but it is with great pride that I join his team. When I think of Barack Obama's America I have great hope. I support his candidacy and look forward to his Presidency

Sincerely, Daniel M. Rooney,

Owner and Chairman, Pittsburgh Steelers

Are Pennsylvanians Bitter? You bet! A letter from the mayor of Braddock, PA

My name is John Fetterman, and I'm the Mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania.

A few days ago, Barack Obama spoke about our economy and about the frustration that folks across our state are feeling.

Now -- instead of actually addressing the challenges facing our communities -- Barack's opponents are taking these comments out of context to score political points.

This is exactly the kind of Washington politics that you and I want to stop.

Across Pennsylvania, in towns and small cities like mine, people are signing on to a letter to show their support for Barack and to say they're frustrated with politicians putting Wall Street before Main Street.

Check out the video of Barack's response about the economy and what people are feeling -- and sign on to the letter now:



In my town, Braddock, we have been hurt by job loss and economic downturn for decades. Barack is right on, and he understands how we feel. We need a leader who will fight for us, not the special interests.

As Mayor, I enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama because he understands the needs of communities like mine -- and has the strength and vision to offer real solutions.

Please forward this message to your family, friends, and neighbors and tell them you know that Barack is the one candidate who will fight for our working families and bring about the change this country needs.

Thank you,

Mayor John Fetterman
Braddock, Pennsylvania

What will a Hillary Clinton presidency look like?

By Carl Bernstein

Editor’s Note: Carl Bernstein is a CNN analyst and author of A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton. He is also the author, with Bob Woodward, of All the President’s Men and The Final Days, and, with Marco Politi, of His Holiness: John Paul II and the History of Our Time. Here, he writes a commentary on the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

The answer by now seems obvious: It will look like her presidential campaign, which in turn looks increasingly like the first Clinton presidency.

Which is to say, high-minded ideals, lowered execution, half truths, outright lies (and imaginary flights), take-no prisoners politics, some very good policy ideas, a presidential spouse given to wallowing in anger and self-pity, and a succession of aides and surrogates pushed under the bus when things don’t go right. Which is to say, often.

And endless psychodrama: the essential Clintonian experience that mesmerizes the press, confuses the citizenry, confounds members of both parties in Congress (not to mention the Clintons themselves, at times) and pretty much keeps the rest of the world constantly amused and fixated.

Such a picture of Clinton Redux is, by definition, speculation. But it is speculation based on the best evidence at hand: the demonstrable and familiar record of Hillary and Bill Clinton coupled together in Permanent Campaign-mode for a generation, waging a continuous fight on the national political stage since 1992, an unceasing campaign for the White House, for redemption, for their ideas (sometimes) and for themselves (almost always), especially in 2008.

The basic dynamics of the campaign, except for the Clintons’ vast new- found personal wealth and its challenges, have been near-constant since they arrived in Washington: through Whitewater, health care, the battle of the budget, the culture wars, the tax returns released only under duress, the travel office, Monica, impeachment, the pardons and through Hillary Clinton’s often repu gnant presidential campaign.

In many ways, the characteristic tone, secrecy, and resilience of the Clinton political march have been determined more by Hillary Clinton than by her husband, reflecting her deepest attributes and attitudes, fermented in recognition of the antipathy held against both of them, and often, the foul tactics of their enemies. As an aide put it (quoted in my book, A Woman In Charge: the Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton):

“She doesn’t look at her life as a series of crises but rather a series of battles. I think of her viewing herself in more heroic terms, an epic character like in The Iliad, fighting battle after battle. Yes, she succumbs to victimization sometimes, in that when the truth becomes too painful, when she is faced with the repercussions of her own mistakes or flaws, she falls into victimhood. But that’s a last resort and when she does allow the wa llowing it’s only in the warm glow of martyrdom—as a laudable victim—a martyr in the tradition of Joan of Arc, a martyr in the religious sense. She would muchrather play the woman warrior—whether it’s against the bimbos, the press, the other party, the other candidate, the right-wing.

She’s happiest when she’s fighting, when she has identified the enemy and goes into attack mode. . . . That’s what she thrives on more than anything—the battle.”

The latest transmutation of leadership in the campaign of Hillary Clinton for president –- Mark Penn’s departure or non-departure, be it window dressing or window cleaning –- is perhaps the best index we have of the more absurd aspects of her candidacy and evidence of its increasing bankruptcy.

The Clinton folks asserted to donors and reporters alike that this second “shake-up” in eight weeks at the very top of the campaign apparat represents some kind of great electoral moment, an opportunity for Hillary to state her case “more positively,” as if the negative approach had been forced on her; the beginning of yet another “turnaround” as if Penn, rather than Hillary (and Bill), has been the big problem.

As if Penn were not an appendage of his two patrons, as if he were some kind of independent contractor twisting the candidate’s arm to do what comes unnaturally to her. The willingness of so much of the press, sensitized to the Clintons’ off-center complaints about one-sided coverage, to buy into this line is stunning.

In fact, the demotion of Penn –- like the departure of Hillary’s acolyte Patty Solis Doyle as campaign manager –- is a confession that, for all her claims of “experience” and leadership abilities, Hillary Clinton has now presided over two disastrous national enterprises, the most important professional undertakings of her adult life, both of which she began with ample wind at her back: the healthcare reform of her husband’s presidency, and now her own campaign for the White House.

These two failures -– and the demonizing of her opponents in both instances –- may be the best indication of the kind of President she would be, especially when confronted (inevitably) by unanticipated difficulty and/or entrenched opposition to her ideas and programs.

It is exactly under such circumstances that she usually resorts to the worst excesses that mark her in full warrior-mode — and all its scorched-earth, truth-be-damned manifestations. Bosnia, anyone? Smearing the women involved (or even thought to be involved) sexually with her husband.

Responding to Barack Obama with the same mindset, disdain, and arsenal as she did Karl Rove and Lee Atwater, as if Obama’s politics and methodologies were as mendacious and vicious as theirs–and her own. Tax information kept secret (in 1992 to hide her profits from trading in cattle futures; in 2008 to shield the identities of Bill’s foreign clients.)

A campaign that openly boasts of throwing “the kitchen sink” at her opponent. What you see is what you get: Hillary’s cynical view of the larger interests of the Democratic Party, exhibited in her 3 a. m. red telephone ad.

And her simultaneous, incongruous suggestion that Barack Obama –- notwithstanding his supposed lack of national security qualifications to be commander-in-chief -– would make a good vice president on her ticket.

And, yes, a sense of entitlement that veritably shouts, “Look, because I believe in good things, and because of all I’ve been through, I deserve to win this.”

And yet, there is no denying that, compared to the Bush years, the accomplishments of the Clinton presidency, in which she was an elemental force (and generalissimo in the often successful fight against the forces of “the vast right-wing conspiracy”) are prodigious, marked by peace and prosperity, whatever the price of the Clintons’ methodologies and personal failings.

In projecting what a Hillary Clinton presidency would look like, there is the conundrum of her senatorial tenure and what had appeared to be a surcease in her Pavlovian resort to trench warfare: a period in which -– until the day drew near for her to announce her presidential candidacy –- she seemed (to her oldest friends, certainly) happier and more at ease, and straightforward in her public dealings, and less guarded, than at any point in her life since she followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas.

Hillary Clinton’s unique star power, her performance as a senator and fundraiser on behalf of her party are what gave legitimacy to the idea that she might be a credible presidential candidate: all premised on her changed demeanor in the Senate years, compared to her embattled tenure as first lady. As a steward of her state’s interest, and a patient student of senatorial compromise and collegiality, she was widely commended by former skeptics in Congress and the press.

True, her most revealing m oment as a senator of national consequence was the vote she cast to authorize George W. Bush to go to war, which she’s been trying to explain since with dubious credibility. (“If I knew now what I knew then,” etc.) Twenty-one of her fellow Democratic senators had no doubts about what Bush intended, and voted against the authorization.

The second most revealing moment was her endorsement of legislation to make flag-burning illegal, the kind of pandering she once attacked right-wing Republicans of practicing. Meanwhile, she and her husband have regularly misrepresented their own postures and statements in the run-up to the war, as well as Obama’s record, with Bill Clinton claiming to have been against the war from the start, and Hillary saying she has consistently been more adamant in her opposition than Obama -– except for the matter of his single “speech” against the war before it started.

The assumption of many senatorial colleagues, former Clinton aides, and reporters (including this one) was that her presidential campaign would be much different from the one she and Bill Clinton waged through the White House years.

In A Woman in Charge, I wrote about her ability to evolve, observable especially in the years before she met Bill Clinton and in the Senate: to learn from her mistakes. Events have proven me wrong on that count.

The 2008 Clinton campaign, in fact, has been an exercise in devolution, back to the angry, demonizing, accusatory Hillary Clinton of the worst days of the Clinton presidency, flailing, and furtive, and disingenuous; and, as in the White House years, putting forth programs and ideas worthy of respect and deserving of the kind of substantive debate she claims sh e wants her race against Barrack Obama to be based upon.

Bill, meanwhile, has taken up Hillary’s old role as defender and apologist, with disinformation and misinformation, but (far less effectively than she defended him). Also with near-apoplectic tirades that have left their friends worried and wondering.

In the process of their search-and-destroy mission against Barack Obama, the Clintons have pursued a strategy that at times seems deliberately aimed at undermining Obama’s credibility if he becomes John McCain’s opponent — heresy in the view of an increasing number of the Clintons’ former suppporters and aides, a suprising number of whom now back Obama.

The choice ahead -– in Pennsylvania, and the remaining primary states, and for the super delegates, and perhaps even the arbiters of a deadlocked convention -– is cle ar enough at this point, at least in terms of what the 2008 Clinton campaign is about: the Clintons — plural. Theirs is a campaign for Restoration to the White House, not simply the election of Hillary Clinton. Theirs is, has always been, a joint enterprise, a see-saw routine in which the psyches and actions of each balances the board according to the personal dynamics of the moment.

A long-time associate of the Clintons, with whom Hillary has consulted in their quest to return to the White House, said early in her campaign: “She has a very plausible case for president. She had an eight-year super-graduate course in the presidency, a progressive platform…” He paused, and added: “[But] I’m not sure I want the circus back in town.”

That is what the Hillary for President campaign has become: the whole Clinton three-ring circus, w ith little evidence that moving back to the White House will alter that most basic fact.

Are We Bitter in Pennsylvania? Hell, Yes. Thanks Senator Obama for Voicing It

And to Senator Clinton, Please Stop the Rove/Bush Tactics to Divide Us

I am going to forward to you, as journalists (in separate e-mails) ... from a Pennsylvanian, and an older, working class white male.... some letters I think you.. as journalists, if you choose to be... should read.

They will give you a better take on how we feel here in Pennsylvania. They come from 1) the mayors of many of our small towns who have lost jobs overseas; 2) Dan Rooney, the owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers, who has been around a long time, seen a lot, and judged what it takes to win very well; and 3) Carl Bernstein, a journalist who apparently does not use the daily attack ads from various candidates as something to be reported, but, rather put some thought into a piece.

(This is to the press who continue to dwell on the Clintons' misrepresentations of Obama's remarks, rather than the rather scary issues still hovering around her campaign, and the change in McCain's finance plan. If you're on this list, you're likely not one of those who have taken the easy way out, but I encourage you to pressure your fellow writers to be journalists, not pundits.. for the sake of the country.)

Some you may have read them already, but I DO hope you read them if you have not. Are we bitter in Pennsylvania? Yes. Our jobs went overseas for a NAFTA agreement that Hillary and Bill Clinton helped to get passed. She continues to have Mark Penn on her staff, even though he advises a Colombian government that has shown POSSIBLE links to the murder of Union activists; and she sat on the board of Walmart saying how she was "proud of the Walmart Way", while their chief lawyer/strategist called unions a blight on the working class, all the while shipping those jobs overseas.

And what do many in the press report currently? What's easy. What's spoonfed. By the Clintons in attack ads. By McCain in attack ads. Words taken out of context in a speech by Obama that DID express the bitterness of working class Pennsylvanians. Words "misremembererd" in much the same way as she "misremembered" her trip to Bosnia.

(And I am working class, but not a union member, so please do not use that as a potential motive for this letter.) Who is the elitist? Those who take money from the ultrawealthy. Senator Clinton's list of letter writers who ascribed to taking money from the Democratic coffers if the superdelegates did not vote for Clinton regardless, is a who's who of the ultrawealthy. Obama's money comes from each and every one of us.

Please do not ascribe his following to the supereducated elite. I did go to college, but I think many of my generation did... working class or not. I'm not a professor. I'm not a think tank person. I put on blue jeans every day and go to work for a living.

As for Bill, Hill and John, with their hundred million dollar lifestyles, trying to call the only candidate from a truly humble beginning an elitist...well as they say in rural America...THAT DOG WON'T HUNT! And please, Senator Clinton, don't be so condescending to us in thinking that we are dumb enough to buy it.

So to your fellow journalists...please... stop taking the easy way out.

Lastly, I have to tell you... I was always an Edwards supporter, not an Obama supporter or a Hilllary supporter, but I am disillusioned by how the Clintons' have taken a page from the Bush campaigns, and how many in the press (not you, most likely if you're on this list) have done the same as they did in the Bush era... use that as the gospel, rather than act as journalists and investigate and report the real issues, rather than nuances and misrepresentations coming from the campaigns.

I have become an Obama supporter as I see the nihilistic campaign of the Clintons and the acquiescence of many in the press begin to drive this country down again, just as people like Edwards and Obama were finding ways to buoy it up again.

So are we bitter? Hell, yes! But thank you Barack Obama and John Edwards for both chanelling that anger into positive movements that have brought people together as never before. And thanks to both of you for so eloquently (most of the time) putting that anger of ours into words, along with the hope we all have (and have had) for your campaigns for the real working class. No half-truths by others can get us to vote against our best interests and turn our anger on the wrong people, nor destroy our hope that Obama and Edwards have brought to us since the first time in my life during the years of Bobby Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy.

Please, encourage your fellow journalists to remember not to ascribe to the same journalistic tendencies of the Bush years that caused this country so much trouble.

And have you reported that many of the small town newspapers that Hillary claims are bitter, such as Allentown and her "hometown" of Scranton, have officially endorsed Obama? (letters from the mayors of PA towns, Dan Rooney, and Carl Berstein to follow in separate e-mails)

CNN Discusses Who the Elitists are - probably NOT Obama

With Hillary Clinton and John McCain teaming up to call Barack Obama "elitist", CNN panel brings out who the elitists really are. Clinton's $108 million income... McCain, 8 houses... Obama, growing up in poverty. Clinton voted for the Credit Card bill that gave more power to credit card companies to get blood from stones in the bankruptcy bill...her surrogates work for Colombia to bring jobs from Pennsylvania and other states to Colombia...she served on Walmart's board while it shipped manufacturing overseas and called unions vultures... McCain wants to give fewer benefits to Veterans.

As a Pennsylvanian.. I AM Mad as Hell at the Clintons, Bushes, and McCains for allowing our jobs to go overseas. And Obama told it as it was. Don't let them fool you to vote against your best interests. Listen to the CNN discussion. It says it all.

Hillary's Reverend Wright? Her Time on the Board of Walmart with John Tate

John Tate says "Labor Unions are Blood Sucking Parasites", during the time Hillary served on Walmart's board. And never did she speak up to defend America's labor unions. Hillary says" I'm always proud of Walmart and the way we do it better than anybody else." Her double-speak "Buy American" plan let Walmart use overseas sweatshops that displaced American workers and took advantage of young workers overseas.

Hillary unable to answer CAFTA/Colombian ties

Hillary unable to answer questions about CAFTA and Colombian ties to her administration and husband

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyuSYzCqXPQ

Obama's 2004 Speech - a Precursor to 2008

The Clinton-Colombia Connection

Did Clinton know that Mark Penn was selling out Colombia's labor movement?

(From Greetings:) The Wall Street Journal wrote, what I felt was a biased editorial on the Mark Penn/Colombian government representation scandal. (As a working American, I couldn't call it any less.

I felt that this op-ed in today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, written by the legal counsel to the United Steelworkers (albeit as an individual and not a representative of the union), expressed succinctly the problems with Penn having represented Colombia, Colombia presenting Bill Clinton an award while simultaneously endorsing Senator Clinton and expressing doubts about Senator Obama, and all of the fallout from that - as well as that government's history of ties to "hit squads" on union activists. This Op-Ed should be in front of every working person and journalist in PA and the U.S., as well as as many voters as possible. This is only an excerpt. Click on the link below for the full content. Very well laid out. I don't see this as attacking, but as presenting facts as to who Senator Clinton has running things for her and possible situations that have arisen and will arise from it in the future. It also addressed the Wall Street Journal I mention. I will be adding it to my blog and sending it to any journalists I know.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008 By Daniel Kovalik

(Daniel Kovalik is a labor and human rights lawyer who lives in Highland Park (dkovalik@usw.org). He also works as counsel for the United Steelworkers but this article reflects his personal views.)

For years, Colombia has been the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists. More than 2,300 were killed there since 1991, including 17 in the first three months of this year, according to Colombia's well-respected Semana magazine.

Four of this year's victims were murdered over a four-day period after a spokesman for President Alvaro Uribe characterized a nonviolent march they helped to organize as being "convened" by the Marxist FARC guerillas who have battled the government for decades. Such a characterization, while untrue, is a well-known signal for right-wing paramilitary groups aligned with the government to attack its political opponents.

In the five years of Mr. Uribe's tenure, more than 955 civilians have been murdered directly by the government's soldiers, as well -- a 65 percent increase over the prior five-year period.

Among these also have been union leaders.

As a result of this unprecedented violence against the labor movement, and in light of Mr. Uribe's aggressive anti-union legislation and decrees, fewer than 1 percent of Colombia's workers have the right to bargain collectively with their employers for decent wages or working conditions. This is the lowest level in the Western Hemisphere and a quarter of what it was in Colombia 10 years ago.

Given Mr. Uribe's horrible record on worker and human rights, the U.S. labor movement has joined Colombia's trade unionists in opposing the proposed Free Trade Agreement with Colombia, which would reward Colombia with special trade preferences.

It is against this backdrop that the controversy has arisen over the revelation that Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's now-departed chief campaign adviser, met with Colombian officials in Washington, D.C., last week to plot strategy for gaining passage of the Colombia trade agreement -- even though Mrs. Clinton has claimed for some time to be adamantly opposed to it. President Bush on Monday sent the agreement to Congress for ratification.

While Mr. Penn resigned as chief strategist for the Clinton campaign over the weekend -- after having been fired by the Colombian government -- he remains an adviser. And it is now clear that for more than a year, he had been working simultaneously for the Clinton campaign and the Colombian government, having signed a one-year contract with Colombia last March to help it win passage of the free trade agreement.

As one commentator noted, Mr. Penn's firm had "set up a campaign-style operation to respond immediately to any critical news about Colombia." And in June 2007, while Mr. Penn was advising both the Colombian government and the Clinton campaign, President Uribe came to Washington to lobby for the trade agreement.

During that visit, Mr. Uribe awarded a "Colombia is passion" award "for believing in our country and encouraging others to do the same" to former President Bill Clinton. As the Associated Press reported at the time, the award was given to Mr. Clinton "for his efforts to reverse the country's image for violence and drugs." In other words, Mr. Clinton was awarded for doing the same kind of public relations work for Colombia as Mr. Penn.

All of this makes it more than just a coincidence that Mr. Uribe last week publicly expressed his concern about the prospects of a Barack Obama presidency, effectively endorsing Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Uribe's visit to Washington followed that of a government delegation led by his vice president, Francisco Santos, last May that also was advised by Mr. Penn. Mr. Santos' main mission was to convince members of Congress that the former head of Colombia's FBI (the DAS) had nothing to do with providing paramilitary groups with a hit list of unionists. This turned out to be a lie. As the Miami Herald reported after the Santos delegation left Washington, Mr. Uribe's own attorney general had investigated the allegation and concluded that the head of the DAS had indeed provided the paramilitaries with names of union targets.

What all this means is that Mrs. Clinton's chief adviser had been working aggressively against the U.S. labor movement in its efforts to prevent passage of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement and discover the truth about those responsible for the killing of trade unionists in Colombia.

That Mrs. Clinton, at a minimum, ignored Mr. Penn's role in such mendacious lobbying efforts for a year should be of great concern to those concerned about labor and human rights and who worry about her bona fides on union issues. Even more worrying is the prospect that while Mrs. Clinton says publicly she is against the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, she may have knowingly allowed Mr. Penn to give a wink and a nod to the Colombian government to allay any concern it might have about her public position should she become president.

There is some evidence to support this scenario. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the Colombian embassy was uncertain as to whether Mr. Penn was working with Colombian officials in his personal capacity or on behalf of the Clinton campaign. It might be that he was doing both.

There Were Orders to Follow

April 4, 2008, NY Times Editorial


Correction Appended


You can often tell if someone understands how wrong their actions are by the lengths to which they go to rationalize them. It took 81 pages of twisted legal reasoning to justify President Bush’s decision to ignore federal law and international treaties and authorize the abuse and torture of prisoners.


Eighty-one spine-crawling pages in a memo that might have been unearthed from the dusty archives of some authoritarian regime and has no place in the annals of the United States. It is must reading for anyone who still doubts whether the abuse of prisoners were rogue acts rather than calculated policy.


The March 14, 2003, memo was written by John C. Yoo, then a lawyer for the Justice Department. He earlier helped draft a memo that redefined torture to justify repugnant, clearly illegal acts against Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners.


The purpose of the March 14 memo was equally insidious: to make sure that the policy makers who authorized those acts, or the subordinates who carried out the orders, were not convicted of any crime. The list of laws that Mr. Yoo’s memo sought to circumvent is long: federal laws against assault, maiming, interstate stalking, war crimes and torture; international laws against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; and the Geneva Conventions.


Mr. Yoo, who, inexplicably, teaches law at the University of California, Berkeley, never directly argues that it is legal to chain prisoners to the ceiling for days, sexually abuse them or subject them to waterboarding — all things done by American jailers.


His primary argument, in which he reaches back to 19th-century legal opinions justifying the execution of Indians who rejected the reservation, is that the laws didn’t apply to Mr. Bush because he is commander in chief. He cited an earlier opinion from Bush administration lawyers that Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners were not covered by the Geneva Conventions — a decision that put every captured American soldier at grave risk.


Then, should someone reject his legal reasoning and decide to file charges, Mr. Yoo offered a detailed blueprint for escaping accountability.


American and international laws against torture prohibit making a prisoner fear “imminent death.” For most people, waterboarding — making a prisoner feel as if he is about to drown — would fit. But Mr. Yoo argues that the statutes apply only if the interrogators actually intended to kill the prisoner. Since waterboarding simulates drowning, there is no “threat of imminent death.”


After the memo’s general contents were first reported, the Pentagon said in early 2004 that it was “no longer operative.” Reading the full text, released this week, makes it startlingly clear how deeply the Bush administration corrupted the law and the role of lawyers to give cover to existing and plainly illegal policies.

The memo is also a reminder of how many secrets about this administration’s cynical and abusive policies still need to be revealed. As Senator Edward M. Kennedy noted, the release of the Yoo memo is a reminder that neither Congress nor the American people have seen the policy memos that govern interrogations today. We know of at least two being kept secret for supposed reasons of national security, including one authorizing waterboarding.

When the abuses at Abu Ghraib became public, we were told these were the depraved actions of a few soldiers.

The Yoo memo makes it chillingly apparent that senior officials authorized unspeakable acts and went to great lengths to shield themselves from prosecution.

Correction: April 4, 2008 An earlier version of this editorial referred to John C. Yoo as a former lawyer for the Pentagon, instead of for the Department of Justice.