Texas Congressman and Presidential Candidate Ron Paul is really giving great questions to Ben Bernanke on Federal Reserve Policy, particularly dealing with exchange rates. Watch for yourself.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Ron Paul Questions Ben Bernanke On Fed Policy
Texas Congressman and Presidential Candidate Ron Paul is really giving great questions to Ben Bernanke on Federal Reserve Policy, particularly dealing with exchange rates. Watch for yourself.
Barack Obama - CBS News Reports A Surging Obama Campaign
Hillary Clinton's slips in the last debate caused this shift, aiong with the Obama campaign's constant focus.
(CBS) The crowds are enthusiastic, and the candidate is pumped.
A week of mostly positive press coverage, a star-turn last Saturday night and a tougher, more competitive tone in the debates and on the stump have convinced Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., there’s a chance now to reshape his political destiny, CBS News correspondent Dean Reynolds reports.
“I disagree with Senator Clinton,” he's said on the campaign trail. “Just remember who got it right and who got it wrong in the most important decision! I strongly disagree with Sen. Clinton on her commitment to block a war in Iran.”
For Obama, the roll-out is over and the rumble is on.
“It’s changed the dynamic in the race,” Obama told CBS News. “I think there was a period of time when things were static and people liked what they were hearing from me, but they didn't have a sense that there were significant differences between me and Sen. Clinton.”
At stop after stop, Obama tries to draw even sharper distinctions with Clinton on Iraq, on Iran, on immigration and on who could better unite the country.
Voters are taking notice.
“He's sharpening himself and honing himself and I think that's more effective than being Mr. Nice Guy,” said Iowa caucus voter Nancy Nieland.
But it’s not a risk-free strategy.
“The question is whether Sen. Obama is gonna be comfortable attacking and in fact, the more he attacks, whether that causes some damage to his reputation, in his image and frankly, in his message,” said political analyst Stuart Rothenberg.
Obama says playing it safe is for others - Clinton for example.
“I don’t fault her for that. That is how people have been taught politics in Washington. That’s conventional wisdom, right?” Obama said. “You make yourself a small target by avoiding being definitive about anything.”
Democrats have tried that before, he says - and lost.
(CBS) The crowds are enthusiastic, and the candidate is pumped.
A week of mostly positive press coverage, a star-turn last Saturday night and a tougher, more competitive tone in the debates and on the stump have convinced Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., there’s a chance now to reshape his political destiny, CBS News correspondent Dean Reynolds reports.
“I disagree with Senator Clinton,” he's said on the campaign trail. “Just remember who got it right and who got it wrong in the most important decision! I strongly disagree with Sen. Clinton on her commitment to block a war in Iran.”
For Obama, the roll-out is over and the rumble is on.
“It’s changed the dynamic in the race,” Obama told CBS News. “I think there was a period of time when things were static and people liked what they were hearing from me, but they didn't have a sense that there were significant differences between me and Sen. Clinton.”
At stop after stop, Obama tries to draw even sharper distinctions with Clinton on Iraq, on Iran, on immigration and on who could better unite the country.
Voters are taking notice.
“He's sharpening himself and honing himself and I think that's more effective than being Mr. Nice Guy,” said Iowa caucus voter Nancy Nieland.
But it’s not a risk-free strategy.
“The question is whether Sen. Obama is gonna be comfortable attacking and in fact, the more he attacks, whether that causes some damage to his reputation, in his image and frankly, in his message,” said political analyst Stuart Rothenberg.
Obama says playing it safe is for others - Clinton for example.
“I don’t fault her for that. That is how people have been taught politics in Washington. That’s conventional wisdom, right?” Obama said. “You make yourself a small target by avoiding being definitive about anything.”
Democrats have tried that before, he says - and lost.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Zogby Poll Has Iowa Race Near Dead-Heat - Clinton Two Points Over Obama
It's getting tighter. The latest Zogby Poll has Clinton just three points ahead of Obama, 28 to 25 percent with Edwards at 21 percent.
San Francisco DA Kamela Harris Wins Seat Unopposed
Congratulations to Kamela Harris on her election victory as San Francisco DA! She will be a great Mayor of SF, too!
Hillary Clinton Gets Max Donations From Pakistan Lobbyist
This is from a Huff Post Blogger Zephyr Teachout.
Zephyr reports...
"Like others in the race for the White House, Hillary Clinton has strong words for Pakistan, but has yet to propose the United States seriously consider limiting its aid to the country. But unlike the other leading Democratic presidential hopefuls, Edwards and Obama, she has accepted tens of thousands of dollars from Pakistan's lobbyists, Cassidy & Associates. Its founder, Gerald Cassidy, long ago maxed out his donations to her.
According to the Foreign Agents Registration Act website, Pakistan recently hired Cassidy and Associates for a one year, $1.2 million/year contract. The Cassidy contract with Pakistan makes for good reading. For the $1.2 million, "target audiences will be identified for critical message reception," and Cassidy will inventively move beyond pushing pieces in the mainstream media, also focusing on blog outreach. In other words, Cassidy will shill and propagandize for one year, and use its contacts in Washington--presumably including Clinton--to ensure that the billions in aid are not diminished, regardless of what the government does to its citizens and its elections. According to The Hill, Pakistan's lead lobbyist is Robin Raphel, who served in the Clinton administration."
Read the rest here.
Zephyr reports...
"Like others in the race for the White House, Hillary Clinton has strong words for Pakistan, but has yet to propose the United States seriously consider limiting its aid to the country. But unlike the other leading Democratic presidential hopefuls, Edwards and Obama, she has accepted tens of thousands of dollars from Pakistan's lobbyists, Cassidy & Associates. Its founder, Gerald Cassidy, long ago maxed out his donations to her.
According to the Foreign Agents Registration Act website, Pakistan recently hired Cassidy and Associates for a one year, $1.2 million/year contract. The Cassidy contract with Pakistan makes for good reading. For the $1.2 million, "target audiences will be identified for critical message reception," and Cassidy will inventively move beyond pushing pieces in the mainstream media, also focusing on blog outreach. In other words, Cassidy will shill and propagandize for one year, and use its contacts in Washington--presumably including Clinton--to ensure that the billions in aid are not diminished, regardless of what the government does to its citizens and its elections. According to The Hill, Pakistan's lead lobbyist is Robin Raphel, who served in the Clinton administration."
Read the rest here.
Barack Obama - Right About Pakistan; Clinton, Giuliani Wrong - Ruben Navarrette Jr, CNN
Barack Obama's call regarding our Pakistan policy was timely, and shows that his judgement is better than that of Clinton or Giuliani or Edwards or Romney. CNN's Ruben Navarrette Jr. agrees.
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- This week, like a lot of Americans, I have Pakistan on my mind -- again.
Ruben Navarrette Jr.: The United States has leverage with Pakistan in the form of military and economic aid.
The last time was in August when that country made a cameo appearance in the 2008 presidential campaign. When Sen. Barack Obama suggested getting out of Iraq and moving "onto the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan," and then pledged, if elected president, to go into Pakistan if our military was in hot pursuit of "high-value terrorist targets" (read: Osama bin Laden), his opponents pounced.
Rudy Giuliani suggested that Obama should be more accommodating of Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Mitt Romney said that Obama was "confused as to who are our friends and who are our enemies." Sen. John McCain called Obama's remarks "kind of typical of his naivete." And Sen. Hillary Clinton said that Obama's foreign policy views were "irresponsible and frankly naive."
And while U.S. intelligence agencies put bin Laden in the remote tribal areas of western Pakistan, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States insisted that, if the U.S. military went into his country after bin Laden, it would destabilize the region.
You don't say. What do you call what is happening now?
In a power grab intended to head off a likely decision by the country's Supreme Court declaring him ineligible to serve another term, Musharraf has declared a state of emergency, suspended the constitution, limited freedom of the press, detained more than 1,000 lawyers and opposition leaders, and put the next round of elections on hold indefinitely. With that, a key U.S. ally in the war on terror -- and a nuclear power to boot -- seems to be spinning out of control.
Now for the really depressing part: The United States seems powerless to stop it. Speaking for his administration, President Bush said Monday that it is "our hope" that Musharraf will "restore democracy as quickly as possible."
Hope? Easy, Mr. President. You don't want to be too aggressive. You might scare him off. Is hope all we have left when dealing with Pakistan? What about the leverage that should come from providing the country with military and economic aid to the tune of -- according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies -- at least $10 billion since September 11, 2001?
By comparison, the amount of aid that Great Britain plans to give Pakistan -- $493 million over the next three years -- seems like a pittance. And yet the Brits say that they're reviewing their aid package in light of the crackdown and demanding that Pakistan's government release all detainees.
That's a splash of moral leadership -- and a good example for the United States to follow. After all, what good is having a friend in that part of the world if it is no friend of freedom and democracy? And, if expedience has us cozying up to a petty dictator who puts his interests before those of his country, what makes us think that -- when push comes to shove -- he won't put his interests before ours? And, if that's true, tell me again why this relationship is worth preserving.
Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist. You can read his column here.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer. E-mail to a friend
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- This week, like a lot of Americans, I have Pakistan on my mind -- again.
Ruben Navarrette Jr.: The United States has leverage with Pakistan in the form of military and economic aid.
The last time was in August when that country made a cameo appearance in the 2008 presidential campaign. When Sen. Barack Obama suggested getting out of Iraq and moving "onto the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan," and then pledged, if elected president, to go into Pakistan if our military was in hot pursuit of "high-value terrorist targets" (read: Osama bin Laden), his opponents pounced.
Rudy Giuliani suggested that Obama should be more accommodating of Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Mitt Romney said that Obama was "confused as to who are our friends and who are our enemies." Sen. John McCain called Obama's remarks "kind of typical of his naivete." And Sen. Hillary Clinton said that Obama's foreign policy views were "irresponsible and frankly naive."
And while U.S. intelligence agencies put bin Laden in the remote tribal areas of western Pakistan, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States insisted that, if the U.S. military went into his country after bin Laden, it would destabilize the region.
You don't say. What do you call what is happening now?
In a power grab intended to head off a likely decision by the country's Supreme Court declaring him ineligible to serve another term, Musharraf has declared a state of emergency, suspended the constitution, limited freedom of the press, detained more than 1,000 lawyers and opposition leaders, and put the next round of elections on hold indefinitely. With that, a key U.S. ally in the war on terror -- and a nuclear power to boot -- seems to be spinning out of control.
Now for the really depressing part: The United States seems powerless to stop it. Speaking for his administration, President Bush said Monday that it is "our hope" that Musharraf will "restore democracy as quickly as possible."
Hope? Easy, Mr. President. You don't want to be too aggressive. You might scare him off. Is hope all we have left when dealing with Pakistan? What about the leverage that should come from providing the country with military and economic aid to the tune of -- according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies -- at least $10 billion since September 11, 2001?
By comparison, the amount of aid that Great Britain plans to give Pakistan -- $493 million over the next three years -- seems like a pittance. And yet the Brits say that they're reviewing their aid package in light of the crackdown and demanding that Pakistan's government release all detainees.
That's a splash of moral leadership -- and a good example for the United States to follow. After all, what good is having a friend in that part of the world if it is no friend of freedom and democracy? And, if expedience has us cozying up to a petty dictator who puts his interests before those of his country, what makes us think that -- when push comes to shove -- he won't put his interests before ours? And, if that's true, tell me again why this relationship is worth preserving.
Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist. You can read his column here.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer. E-mail to a friend
SpinVox Live Ad in San Francisco Market St. Dancing Boxes
This is an interesting ad approach. Personally it did not thing for me. Few stopped to figure-out what was going on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)