"Obama's a muslim who consorts with terrorists. He'll raise your taxes."
We've all heard rhetoric of that sort, and attacks suggesting Obama will turn the IRS into, “a giant welfare agency,” during the current campaign. On Meet the Press this morning (19 Oct 2008) General Colin Powell (Ret.) cited that sort of old-school attack among the reasons that a life-long Republican who served both the Bush presidencies has decided to vote for Senator Barack Obama in the upcoming presidential election.
Will Powell's public announcement be the tipping point in the decisions made by some of the as-yet-undecided voters? Will he lead a shift of centrist Republicans who find their party no longer epitomizes their values to vote for Obama and re-consider their political affiliation(s)?
Powell was clear in his admiration and respect for Senator McCain, and stated unambiguously that, "We are still the leader of the world that wants to be free. We are still the inspiration..." With his own attention turning to Education as a priority, Powell asserted that the candidates had faced a "Final Exam" in dealing with the financial crisis that the sub-prime mortgage lending mismanagement has created in the banking industry.
How will it play in down-ticket?
Consider Minnesota: In the 3rd Congressional District a former Marine Corps Captain who served in Iraq, Ashwin Madia, is running as a Democrat. Powell's support of Obama will lend credence to the thinking that not all who support our troops align with the current values of the Republican party. That has to work in Madia's favor - and it likely helps Steve Sarvi, too.
In the lesser observed 2nd MN CD race another Iraq vet, Sargent Sarvi, is running as a Democratic challenger, too. Sarvi, who had already served in Kosovo, resigned his duties as a Minnesota Mayor to serve in Iraq. Powell's public stand isn't so much taking the lead as it is a reflection of the reality that even within the armed forces there's a sense that the country needs a new direction. The Republicans clearly no longer own "patriotism" exclusively as part of their brand.
Powell's expressed distaste for the old-school, divisive approach of those controlling the Republican party and making statements such as Congresswoman Bachmann's mirrors a significant rejection of those tactics by voters throughout the country. The memo to ease up on inflammatory, over-the-top rhetoric evidently reached her a little late. She used precisely the sort of smear which Powell this morning characterized as demagoguery, and it's changed the entire nature of her race.It will be ironic, indeed, if revealing her thoughts in one appearance on TV ends up turning the entire MN Congressional delegation Democratic. Michelle Bachmann's sudden notoriety may improve Obama's party-majority. It has certainly kept the attention on Minnesota, already thought to be a battleground in November.
To round out the Republican problems in Minnesota:
Poll numbers have even caused incumbent Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) to withdraw his negative TV ads against his challenger, Democrat Al Franken (though it should be noted he seems to have left them running against the third party candidate, oddly enough.) Coleman's tried to use that reversal to his advantage, but the excessively distorted negative ads had been such a hallmark one doubts even Coleman is safe in the current climate.
Had McCain's earlier promises to run an honest, respectful campaign guided the actions of his staff, had he exercised more of his own style in determining policies and the choice of a running mate, perhaps his weakness on the economy wouldn't have so utterly undermined his standing in the minds of the voters. Perhaps his leadership would have changed the tone of Coleman ads, or Bachmann's rhetoric, too. While Powell faults the leadership of the party as distinct from McCain, I find that the party's nominee must, in fact, bear some of the onus since he is during the campaign the de facto leader.
The Powell Doctrine
General Colin Powell, the man who has defined U.S. military strategic doctrine, who stands by his actions urging the invasion of Iraq based on the belief intelligence showed there were weapons of mass destruction, summarized his endorsement - his decision to vote for Barack Obama based on the merits of Obama's intellectual rigor and the choices of Republican leaders despite his obvious affection and admiration for John McCain - by saying, "I strongly believe at this point... we need a transformational figure." He's found the leadership of the Republican party lacking lately, and he's ready for change. I agree.
This is a funny John McCain photo that just may sum up his campaign. It's from Yahoo and Reuters and has this caption:
US Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain (R-AZ) reacts to almost heading the wrong way off the stage after shaking hands with Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) at the conclusion of the final presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, October 15, 2008. REUTERS/Jim Bourg (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008
I just looked at both the Gallup and the Rasmussen daily tracking polls and Senator Barack Obama's ahead of Senator John McCain by just three percent in the first, 47 to 44 percent and one percent in the last, 45 to 44 percent. But I can't figure out why other than racism. That's the element not adressed, but I also believe that the number of young people polled is not in proportion to their numbers or turnout.
Both polls survey "likely voters" which tend to be older than 45 years of age, and that's where McCain does better. So, we're going to see these numbers -- wrong though they are -- for awhile. John McCain's making a lot of mistakes and the media's not hammering him on them, like talking about a country that does not exist, or today, saying that Iraq is on the boarder of Afghanistan when it's no where near it.
Either someone's not paying attention or they're just plain, well, it's got to be racism -- that's the only mental illness that could explain this.
Good morning. It’s good to be home on this Father’s Day with my girls, and it’s an honor to spend some time with all of you today in the house of our Lord.
At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus closes by saying, “Whoever hears these words of mine, and does them, shall be likened to a wise man who built his house upon a rock: the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock.” [Matthew 7: 24-25]
Here at Apostolic, you are blessed to worship in a house that has been founded on the rock of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. But it is also built on another rock, another foundation – and that rock is Bishop Arthur Brazier. In forty-eight years, he has built this congregation from just a few hundred to more than 20,000 strong – a congregation that, because of his leadership, has braved the fierce winds and heavy rains of violence and poverty; joblessness and hopelessness. Because of his work and his ministry, there are more graduates and fewer gang members in the neighborhoods surrounding this church. There are more homes and fewer homeless. There is more community and less chaos because Bishop Brazier continued the march for justice that he began by Dr. King’s side all those years ago. He is the reason this house has stood tall for half a century. And on this Father’s Day, it must make him proud to know that the man now charged with keeping its foundation strong is his son and your new pastor, Reverend Byron Brazier.
Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation. They are teachers and coaches. They are mentors and role models. They are examples of success and the men who constantly push us toward it.
But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing – missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.
You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled – doubled – since we were children. We know the statistics – that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.
How many times in the last year has this city lost a child at the hands of another child? How many times have our hearts stopped in the middle of the night with the sound of a gunshot or a siren? How many teenagers have we seen hanging around on street corners when they should be sitting in a classroom? How many are sitting in prison when they should be working, or at least looking for a job? How many in this generation are we willing to lose to poverty or violence or addiction? How many?
Yes, we need more cops on the street. Yes, we need fewer guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. Yes, we need more money for our schools, and more outstanding teachers in the classroom, and more afterschool programs for our children. Yes, we need more jobs and more job training and more opportunity in our communities.
But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child – it’s the courage to raise one.
We need to help all the mothers out there who are raising these kids by themselves; the mothers who drop them off at school, go to work, pick up them up in the afternoon, work another shift, get dinner, make lunches, pay the bills, fix the house, and all the other things it takes both parents to do. So many of these women are doing a heroic job, but they need support. They need another parent. Their children need another parent. That’s what keeps their foundation strong. It’s what keeps the foundation of our country strong.
I know what it means to have an absent father, although my circumstances weren’t as tough as they are for many young people today. Even though my father left us when I was two years old, and I only knew him from the letters he wrote and the stories that my family told, I was luckier than most. I grew up in Hawaii, and had two wonderful grandparents from Kansas who poured everything they had into helping my mother raise my sister and me – who worked with her to teach us about love and respect and the obligations we have to one another. I screwed up more often than I should’ve, but I got plenty of second chances. And even though we didn’t have a lot of money, scholarships gave me the opportunity to go to some of the best schools in the country. A lot of kids don’t get these chances today. There is no margin for error in their lives. So my own story is different in that way.
Still, I know the toll that being a single parent took on my mother – how she struggled at times to the pay bills; to give us the things that other kids had; to play all the roles that both parents are supposed to play. And I know the toll it took on me. So I resolved many years ago that it was my obligation to break the cycle – that if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father to my girls; that if I could give them anything, I would give them that rock – that foundation – on which to build their lives. And that would be the greatest gift I could offer.
I say this knowing that I have been an imperfect father – knowing that I have made mistakes and will continue to make more; wishing that I could be home for my girls and my wife more than I am right now. I say this knowing all of these things because even as we are imperfect, even as we face difficult circumstances, there are still certain lessons we must strive to live and learn as fathers – whether we are black or white; rich or poor; from the South Side or the wealthiest suburb.
The first is setting an example of excellence for our children – because if we want to set high expectations for them, we’ve got to set high expectations for ourselves. It’s great if you have a job; it’s even better if you have a college degree. It’s a wonderful thing if you are married and living in a home with your children, but don’t just sit in the house and watch “SportsCenter” all weekend long. That’s why so many children are growing up in front of the television. As fathers and parents, we’ve got to spend more time with them, and help them with their homework, and replace the video game or the remote control with a book once in awhile. That’s how we build that foundation.
We know that education is everything to our children’s future. We know that they will no longer just compete for good jobs with children from Indiana, but children from India and China and all over the world. We know the work and the studying and the level of education that requires.
You know, sometimes I’ll go to an eighth-grade graduation and there’s all that pomp and circumstance and gowns and flowers. And I think to myself, it’s just eighth grade. To really compete, they need to graduate high school, and then they need to graduate college, and they probably need a graduate degree too. An eighth-grade education doesn’t cut it today. Let’s give them a handshake and tell them to get their butts back in the library!
It’s up to us – as fathers and parents – to instill this ethic of excellence in our children. It’s up to us to say to our daughters, don’t ever let images on TV tell you what you are worth, because I expect you to dream without limit and reach for those goals. It’s up to us to tell our sons, those songs on the radio may glorify violence, but in my house we live glory to achievement, self respect, and hard work. It’s up to us to set these high expectations. And that means meeting those expectations ourselves. That means setting examples of excellence in our own lives.
The second thing we need to do as fathers is pass along the value of empathy to our children. Not sympathy, but empathy – the ability to stand in somebody else’s shoes; to look at the world through their eyes. Sometimes it’s so easy to get caught up in “us,” that we forget about our obligations to one another. There’s a culture in our society that says remembering these obligations is somehow soft – that we can’t show weakness, and so therefore we can’t show kindness.
But our young boys and girls see that. They see when you are ignoring or mistreating your wife. They see when you are inconsiderate at home; or when you are distant; or when you are thinking only of yourself. And so it’s no surprise when we see that behavior in our schools or on our streets. That’s why we pass on the values of empathy and kindness to our children by living them. We need to show our kids that you’re not strong by putting other people down – you’re strong by lifting them up. That’s our responsibility as fathers.
And by the way – it’s a responsibility that also extends to Washington. Because if fathers are doing their part; if they’re taking our responsibilities seriously to be there for their children, and set high expectations for them, and instill in them a sense of excellence and empathy, then our government should meet them halfway.
We should be making it easier for fathers who make responsible choices and harder for those who avoid them. We should get rid of the financial penalties we impose on married couples right now, and start making sure that every dime of child support goes directly to helping children instead of some bureaucrat. We should reward fathers who pay that child support with job training and job opportunities and a larger Earned Income Tax Credit that can help them pay the bills. We should expand programs where registered nurses visit expectant and new mothers and help them learn how to care for themselves before the baby is born and what to do after – programs that have helped increase father involvement, women’s employment, and children’s readiness for school. We should help these new families care for their children by expanding maternity and paternity leave, and we should guarantee every worker more paid sick leave so they can stay home to take care of their child without losing their income.
We should take all of these steps to build a strong foundation for our children. But we should also know that even if we do; even if we meet our obligations as fathers and parents; even if Washington does its part too, we will still face difficult challenges in our lives. There will still be days of struggle and heartache. The rains will still come and the winds will still blow.
And that is why the final lesson we must learn as fathers is also the greatest gift we can pass on to our children – and that is the gift of hope.
I’m not talking about an idle hope that’s little more than blind optimism or willful ignorance of the problems we face. I’m talking about hope as that spirit inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better is waiting for us if we’re willing to work for it and fight for it. If we are willing to believe.
I was answering questions at a town hall meeting in Wisconsin the other day and a young man raised his hand, and I figured he’d ask about college tuition or energy or maybe the war in Iraq. But instead he looked at me very seriously and he asked, “What does life mean to you?”
Now, I have to admit that I wasn’t quite prepared for that one. I think I stammered for a little bit, but then I stopped and gave it some thought, and I said this:
When I was a young man, I thought life was all about me – how do I make my way in the world, and how do I become successful and how do I get the things that I want.
But now, my life revolves around my two little girls. And what I think about is what kind of world I’m leaving them. Are they living in a county where there’s a huge gap between a few who are wealthy and a whole bunch of people who are struggling every day? Are they living in a county that is still divided by race? A country where, because they’re girls, they don’t have as much opportunity as boys do? Are they living in a country where we are hated around the world because we don’t cooperate effectively with other nations? Are they living a world that is in grave danger because of what we’ve done to its climate?
And what I’ve realized is that life doesn’t count for much unless you’re willing to do your small part to leave our children – all of our children – a better world. Even if it’s difficult. Even if the work seems great. Even if we don’t get very far in our lifetime.
That is our ultimate responsibility as fathers and parents. We try. We hope. We do what we can to build our house upon the sturdiest rock. And when the winds come, and the rains fall, and they beat upon that house, we keep faith that our Father will be there to guide us, and watch over us, and protect us, and lead His children through the darkest of storms into light of a better day. That is my prayer for all of us on this Father’s Day, and that is my hope for this country in the years ahead. May God Bless you and your children. Thank you.
At a town hall meeting in Nashville, Tennessee Monday, this McCain supporter says -- well is this person a supporter? -- this:
My second and final question, you talk a lot about the character issue...and...like you, um, I was opposed to gay marriage, I was in always in favor of civil unions but the basic definition of marriage....but, then I get to thinking, that is based on what we consider to be the sanctity of marriage. There is nothing....you see long-term couples splitting up, it's, it's just crazy...I know that you, your own situation, you're going to have to address that in the campaign. Infidelity is just a terrible cancer on this country....and I think if we're going to talk about...gay marriage, it has to be in the context of the preservation of marriage...which I just don't see it, I think we need to make it more difficult for people to get married, or whatever we need to do..if that's...if we're going to be consistent.
From the website the book The Real McCain, we find this:
Update: From The Real McCain:
Arriving back in the United States in 1973, McCain faced not only his own lingering injuries but also those that his wife had sustained in an automobile accident in 1969. After nine months of intensive physical therapy, he was reinstated to flight status. While stationed in Jacksonville, Florida, he was instrumental in turning around the performance of a Corsair squadron.
His marriage did not recover so well. McCain has admitted to “selfishness and immaturity” and has attributed the breakup of his marriage to his own misdeeds. He has even gone out of his way to exempt Vietnam from any blame. “The blame was entirely mine,” he said.
McCain had already met and romanced, while still married to Shepp, the woman who would be his second wife — Cindy Lou Hensley, seventeen years his junior, the only child of a wealthy Anheuser-Busch distributor from Phoenix.10 Cindy’s father, Jim Hensley, had been a World War II pilot, shot down over the English Channel. In 1955 he formed his company, Hensley & Co., now the country’s sixth-largest beer distributorship. Cindy had gone from cheerleader to rodeo queen to graduate student at University of South Carolina by the time she met McCain in 1979. A year later, McCain and his first wife were granted a divorce; six weeks later, McCain married Cindy.
Then of course, there was the matter of Vicki Iseman, the powerful lobbyist McCain has a cosy relationship with that did not seem to veer into infidelity, but was enough to concern McCain aides.
As this stage of the campaign unfolds, John McCain will have to decide how he's going to adress the character issue, because it seems to result in someone, even a supporter, throwing a figurative brick at his glass house. He should get the Tennessee GOP to stop attacking Senator Obama's wife.
Senator Barack Obama asked Caroline Kennedy to head the effort to find a Vice Presidential candidate, and that move could spell the end for Senator Clinton's quest for the number two slot. The reason is simple: Ted Kennedy doesn't think Clinton would make a good fit, and has said so.
Kennedy is joined by Eric Holder, the former Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno, and Jim Johnson, the man who ran John Kerry’s veep search.
The Clinton's have not pleased Ted Kennedy, first with the whole MLK and race-bating campaign they waged, and recently with her TERRIBLE gafe regarding RFK and assassination.
Again, the term today is Popularometer, and Clinton's -- both Bill and Hillary -- is at an all time low.
I also think what may have happened is that Clinton wanted Obama to immediately ask her to be her VP and he said he was going to form a search committee and have a process. I'll bet that's what happened and explains why she didn't concede. But it all boils down to her not getting her way.
I can see the needle on the Popularometer falling yet again.
In real estate, it's "location;" in politics, it's "Timing, timing, timing!"
Senator Clinton had an optimum moment in terms of what impact her concession might have had, and the attention that was focused on her and her statement. Senator Obama managed even more gracious praise for her contributions and efforts as he spoke last night at the XCEL Center in St. Paul, Minnesota - and the crowd was with him in that sentiment, clearly. He held the 20,000 people inside the arena nearly transfixed, and they roared approval when he held forth on Senator Clinton’s strengths and character.
The press will not ignore whatever subsequent statements she makes - and obviously it’s premature for an outsider to suggest concession is the course of action she will follow - yet at this juncture it’s already clear that the effect and the interest are rapidly, moment by moment, diminishing.
There are many effective, influential women rising through the ranks of political influence, so others will run and win soon. But it is difficult to predict there will be another moment when Hillary might soar as high as she could have - should have - on Tuesday night.
Did Senator Clinton miss her moment? Yes, I'm afraid she did.
When the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. openly criticized the Democratic Candidates for forgetting about African Americans, it was taken as a slam against Senator Barack Obama by CNN and others, including me. In fact, CNN did not waste time reporting this.
Now, one week later, Jackson's son, Jesse Jr. comes out publically to tell the World that his father's wrong about Obama. He did this in the Monday Chicago Sun Times. Read below and let's see if CNN is quick to report this. If so, they're being fair. If not, it's another sign that they're trying to help Senator Clinton.
Jesse Jr. to Jesse Sr.: You're wrong on Obama, dad
December 3, 2007
During his historic run for the presidency in 1984, the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. was dubbed ''Thunder'' by the Secret Service agents assigned to protect him. It was a fitting name for Jackson, whose electrifying oratory, energy and intellect shed light on critical issues as he took the country by storm.
In his column on Tuesday, ''Thunder'' struck again, criticizing Democratic presidential candidates for having ''virtually ignored the plight of African Americans in this country.'' While causing quite a stir, Jackson's comments unfortunately dimmed -- rather than directed -- light on the facts. But, they should be clear.
» Click to enlarge image
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (left) defended his close friend Barack Obama (D-Ill.) from criticism by Jesse Jackson Sr. (right). Jesse Jr. responds to his dad's column in an open letter to the Sun-Times. (AP)
RELATED STORIES • Jesse Jackson Sr.'s column • Jackson Jr.'s relatively critical • Campaign splits Jacksons • Sweet blog: Jesse Jackson Jr. rebuts Dad As a national co-chairman of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, I've been a witness to Obama's powerful, consistent and effective advocacy for African Americans. He is deeply rooted in the black community, having fought for social justice and economic inclusion throughout his life. On the campaign trail -- as he's done in the U.S. Senate and the state Legislature before that -- Obama has addressed many of the issues facing African Americans out of personal conviction, rather than political calculation.
It is a testament to his deep commitment and new vision that Obama is poised to become the first black man to make it all the way to the White House. Taking him there will be the character, the judgment and the principles that are propelling his rise.
So often, the place where a candidate begins a campaign points to the direction where he intends to take the country. It is a hint of things to come.
Obama launched his presidential campaign at the Old State Capitol in Springfield, where Abraham Lincoln delivered his famous speech calling on a divided nation to come together. Arguing that slavery was morally wrong, Lincoln professed this: ''I believe that this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.''
Lincoln's words were not just poignant, they were prophetic. His campaign defined the challenge and changed the country, setting in motion an immortal, inevitable clash of armies and ideas. In the clamor and convulsion of the Civil War, President Lincoln rallied the nation, freed the slaves and saved our Union, ushering in ''a new birth of freedom.''
Almost a century and half later, Obama stood only steps away from where Lincoln warned of a ''house divided.'' Like Lincoln, Obama called on us to come together and ''to face the challenges of this millennium together, as one people -- as Americans.'' He called on us to join with him to conclude a war without end, to solve the health care crisis, to build better schools, to create better jobs and to provide greater opportunity and justice for all. He said, "I want us to take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union, and building a better America."
Clearly, African Americans -- as all Americans -- are listening and responding. On the same day that Jackson's column appeared, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies released the results of its latest national survey of likely black presidential primary voters. The study found that many African Americans were paying close attention, with nearly 75 percent having a favorable view of Obama.
I just got this email press release from the Obama campaign on Oprah Winfrey's scheduled tours with Senator Barack Obama.
CHICAGO, IL - The Obama for America campaign today announced that Oprah Winfrey will join Barack Obama for a tour through three early voting states on December 8th and 9th. Winfrey and Obama will hold two events in Iowa, one in South Carolina, and one in New Hampshire. All events will be free and open to the public.
TOUR SCHEDULE:
SATURDAY DECEMBER 8TH DES MOINES, IA CEDAR RAPIDS, IA
SUNDAY, DECEMBER 9TH COLUMBIA, SC MANCHESTER, NH
Locations and times for the events will be announced in the coming days. Those interested in attending can sign up online today to ensure that they receive the event details when they are announced.
Angered by the knoweldge that a difference of just $2.1 million between his third quarter fundraising tallies and those of his challenger Senator Hillary Clinton was made up of lobbyist's money, Senator Barack Obama embarked on a fund-raising campaign that consisted of a series of emails to supporters. That started on Monday evening.
Now, on Friday, as of this writing, the campaign has raised $2,044,009 and is well on its way toward meeting that $2.1 million objective.
Hey, I've got to chime in on this, too. Wearing a Flag Pin has been a symbol that you support the Iraq War, and I don't. I wore a flag pin, then stopped wearing one when it became clear that I was sending the wrong signal. Period.
Fox News Chris Wallace actually backs Senator Obama on this issue. Thank God someone at Fox has a brain!
Oakland/Northern California HQ Opening with BLACKALICIOUS (Meeting) We are extremely excited to announce our FREE Grand Opening party with special musical guest Blackalicious! Live and in person, in the middle of 14th Street in downtown Oakland!
"Like a few other West Coast rap acts, including the Pharcyde and Jurassic 5, Blackalicious has generally favored what hip-hoppers call the "positive tip"; in other words, its lyrics have often been spiritual and uplifting rather than violent or misogynous. Like a lot of experimental alternative rappers, Blackalicious can be quirky and eccentric; nonetheless, spirituality is a big part of the group's music."
It's going to be AMAZING. Don't miss it.
WHEN: Sunday, September 30, 1:00 PM
WHERE: 436 14th Street, 3rd Floor - directly in front of the 14th Street exit of the Oakland City Center BART station, between Broadway and Franklin.
WHO: Everyone! Bring your friends and families.
WHAT: A party to celebrate the opening of the first office outside of the Early 4 states! Music, speakers, and good times. Time: Sunday, September 30 at 1:00 PM Duration: 2 hours Host: Brent Messenger Location: Oakland/N. California Heaadquarters (Oakland, CA) 436 14th Street, 3rd Floor Oakland, CA 94612
More and more Senator Clinton's looking like a Neo-conservative. First she tries to slam Senator Barack Obama for taking a liberal stance on two foreign policy matters -- Bin Ladin and Third World Leaders -- that she herself took just earlier this year, and now, before a group of Vets, she says the Iraq surge is working!
We're seeing a clear pattern emerge and it's not pretty. It's a Senator who will say anything to get a vote and so often that her real stance isn't clear. At present, Senator Clinton looks like the kind of Neo-conservative we already have in the White House.
Maybe she'll so anger Cindy Sheehan, she's run against her instead of Rep. Pelosi! Whatever the case, this latest news has caused a firestorm, and will negtively impact her California Primary plans.
In an effort to play catch-up with the Barack Obama For President Campaign in California, Senator Hillary Clinton's staffers have launched the "HillStar" effort. Let's take a look at this information in relevant detail.
First, the HillStar document, which you can see in full with a click here , or see the video below or here , opens with a welcome and then text on the importance of winning California stating that California's important because of its early start date and of course the size of the population. For Senator Clinton "our election will really start on January 7 and run until February 5, a 29-day-long election" as the page reads.
Senator Clinton then tickets a list of answers to the question "Why Hillary?" The answers mostly point to her experience as Senator of New York and as First Lady. But the problem here is no one can get any information on her time as First Lady; it's sealed.
Finally, the set of reasons ends with the statement "Hillary's fight for universal health coverage did not succeed while President Clinton was in office, but her commitment to health care for every American has never wavered."
That last one's a big "whoops" in my view. First, Senator Clinton's known for taking money from the health care lobbyists. Second, to offer a statement that she failed in trying to create a universal health care system as First Lady, then come under scrutiny for having health care lobbyists as donors, and finally to have volunteers saying "Well, she didn't pass universal health care, but she's committed to the idea of health care" or words to that effect, does not bring confidence to voters seeking change that she can indeed alter the U.S. Health Care system.
The 1000 x 20 x 100 system
The HillStar Campaign has an interesting bit of math called the "1000 x 20 x 100" system. This is where "an elite group of volunteers" will recruit 5 Hillary Corps members, and manage 20 HillaryCorp members over a 5 month period. They will talk to a minimum of 200 voters in their district. Out of that, they expect to gain 100 new supporters and 5 new members.
The HillStar Timeline
The HillStar Timeline works like this in basic (the details are in the photo and the links provided to the report here):
Day one is now, this week.
Within two weeks, hold house parties
Within one month, hold a Bring Your Own Phone party.
Continue training
And by November have 20 fully trained Hillary Corps volunteers.
With all of this, it still pales in comparison to the hundreds of online groups and members of BarackObama.com who are in California. What HillStars is has been in place for a long time, but only recently honed by an effort called "Camp Obama" which is already in motion nationwide. With little effort, the Obama forces could clobber Hillary Clinton in California.
Oh and that Field Poll of "Democratic Voters most likely to vote" that reports Clinton's "lead" -- don't bet on any poll that has a sample size of just 419 people and talks to a small set folks who voted in the 2004 election. There are several problems with this step, amoung them, YouTube didn't exist in 2004. So all of these polls of "most likely to vote" Democrats -- including the rigged USA Today /Gallup Poll of June 17th -- totally miss the new netroots. If a person just turned 18 that year, and didn't vote, they're now 22 years old, ready to vote, and consume the majority of their information online.
Always one to be in fashion and like JFK, set the dress tone for an era, Senator Barack Obama's on the cover of this months' "GQ." In the article , Obama says "“I come from a varied background,” he said, without needing to remind me of his white Kansas-born mom, his black Kenyan dad, or his upbringing in Hawaii and Indonesia. “I feel that there is a piece of me in everybody.”
I'm always interested to try to tease apart and find the meta-debates operating beneath the surface of campaign debates. As I wrote a few years ago in what I called the bitch-slap theory of GOP electoral politics, the whole swift-boat saga was less about the specifics of Kerry's injuries forty years ago than whether he could defend himself from the charges today. Someone who can't defend himself is weak; and if a guy can't defend himself he can't defend you.
That's what that whole song-and-dance was about.
So what is this back and forth about Obama and Pakistan about?
What this has boiled down to -- and this became even more clear after Tuesday night's labor-hosted debate, when Biden and Dodd acted as Hillary's proxies -- is Hillary, in league with the party's foreign policy establishment, trying to make Obama, implicitly or explicitly, concede an error, that he misspoke.
Precisely what he misspoke about is largely beside the point. The key is that they get him to concede that in the complex and serious world of foreign policy big-think, where words have consequences, he made an error. Of course, it's almost good enough if most observers decide that Obama screwed up. But once he concedes it himself, if he does, he stipulates from now through the end of the Democratic primary campaign that his inexperience in foreign policy is a basic premise of the campaign upon which the battle between him and Hillary will be waged. He can learn, improve, make progress, whatever, but his inexperience compared to Hillary will continue to be the reference point throughout.
But I think he's done a pretty good job so far refusing to get put in that box. And the truth is that I think Obama's actual words are so clearly unobjectionable that this is all Kabuki theater of a particularly strained and disingenuous sort. All Obama said was that if we have actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of high-value al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, and Pakistan won't act, we will act.
Clearly, no Republican can quibble with this. They're on the record for invading countries because they might become dangers to us at some point in the future. They're hardly in a position to disagree with Obama if he says we'll hunt down people who committed mass casualty terror attacks within our borders. And I'm not sure Democrats are in much of a position to do so either.
The unspoken truth here, I suspect, is that Obama has struck on the central folly of our post-9/11 counter-terrorism defense policy -- strike hard where they aren't and go easy where they are. I think everyone can see this. But Obama got there first. So they need to attack him for saying it.
With 1,500 delegates at Yearly Kos, I only met two Hillary Clinton supporters. She is the current front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, and is hoping to get it by inevitability. But this doesn’t mean the blogosphere is “out of touch,” although blogger demographics clearly work against her. Hillary Clinton’s current lead in the polls comes from a higher name recognition, and a strategic muddling of her position on Iraq so that progressives don’t hate her.
Hillary was the biggest loser in the Convention’s August 4th Debate, as she defended taking money from Washington lobbyists and argued that we are now “safer” than on September 11th. While Iraq never came up in her pre-debate break-out session, that’s because only five people – including myself – got to ask her a question. Hillary’s response to my question about the Clinton years was the session’s “only moment of tension,” and confirmed she is a ruthless triangulator who will take progressives for granted. If Democrats realize this, she will lose the nomination.
“It is really no mystery why Hillary Clinton’s current lead is not reflected in the netroots,” said Chris Bowers of Open Left, and formerly MyDD.com. “The blogosphere is 60% male, and she does better with women. It’s 45% secular, and her voters are religious. Bloggers are younger, richer and better informed. In every single circumstance, it’s the worst demographic for Hillary Clinton.”
Of course, one media narrative to explain why bloggers don’t support the front-runner is that they are “out of touch” with Democratic voters, a common theme that is often used to marginalize progressive activists. But making the Yearly Kos Convention sound like a gathering of Naderites is absurd. When Dennis Kucinich said at the Debate that voters see “no difference” between the two major parties, he was loudly booed.
Another theory is name recognition – Hillary Clinton is a known quantity that reflects her lead in the polls, and less informed voters are most likely to pick her. Although 64% of New Hampshire Democrats recently said they are “still trying to decide” among the candidates, only 9% mark “undecided” when asked to make a choice. With voters less familiar with John Edwards and Barack Obama, Hillary’s the main beneficiary.
But while that’s a factor, Clinton has also modified her position on Iraq so that bloggers now thinks that she would make an acceptable nominee – though far from ideal. “She’s done a great job blurring on the war,” said Markos Moulitsas. Pandering on this issue is a strategy that’s been used before. In early 2004, when John Kerry was trailing Howard Dean because of the Iraq War, he started shifting his position – and it worked.
Clinton got a tame reception at the Convention – leading most of the media to wrongly conclude that it was favorable. But if the bloggers had been more aggressive in expressing their true opinions about her, Hillary would have called them rude and mean-spirited. Then she would have used that image to marginalize them as disgruntled lefties.
All things considered, I’m glad that the bloggers were polite. When Dianne Feinstein ran for Governor of California, she got booed at the state party convention for supporting the death penalty – and then used that in a commercial to prove she wasn’t a liberal. It is painfully obvious that Hillary wanted to get booed at this Convention; when she finally did, she said, “I’ve been waiting for this to happen.”
Hillary got booed during the Yearly Kos Presidential Debate because she refused to join Edwards and Obama and stop taking money from Washington lobbyists. Incredibly, she rationalized her refusal by saying that lobbyists “represent real Americans – nurses, social workers, and they represent corporations who employ a lot of people.”
Hillary dug herself in a hole with that statement, and all it took to bury her was Obama’s reminder of how the insurance lobby defeated health care reform in 1994. "You can't tell me that money did not have an influence,” he said. “You can't tell me that money was for the public good.” If anyone won that debate, it was probably Obama.
Hillary lost even further credibility when she said that we are now safer than before September 11th. Everyone knows that the invasion of Iraq has ruined our standing in the world, and her statements that “we’ve made a lot of changes” such as taking off our shoes at airports was both naïve and insulting. Edwards had a great response about how the use of torture and other attacks on our civil liberties has made us less safe.
Besides the Debate, delegates got to attend an individual break-out session with one of the candidates. None of the delegates asked Hillary about Iraq, but that’s because only five people got to ask questions. And unlike Edwards and Obama – who in their sessions blindly called on the bloggers themselves – Hillary had her Internet Director, who has heavily courted the netroots and knew who in the room was friendly, pick on people.
The first person he called upon asked a softball question about education, which Hillary proceeded to answer for nine of the session’s 30 minutes. While I don’t know if that question was a plant (and many people suggested that later), it’s clear that she chose to give a long-winded answer in order to kill time. But because I had strategically placed myself in a visible part of the room – and by dumb luck was wearing a bright red shirt that day – her Internet Director called on me during the last five minutes.
“Senator Clinton,” I said. “My name is Paul Hogarth, and I am from Beyond Chron in San Francisco. First, I’d like to thank you for having gone on the record saying that you would repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell – which passed during your husband’s administration. I want to ask you about four other pieces of legislation that happened in the Clinton years, and whether you would be willing to advocate their repeal – the Defense of Marriage Act, the Telecommunications Act, NAFTA, and the Welfare Bill.”
Her answer to my question was absolutely awful. Like her statements in the Debate, it exposed her as an anti-progressive triangulator – and was the tensest moment of the break-out session. If Democrats wake up and realize that the Bill Clinton years (although far better than the Bush years) had some serious issues and we cannot trust Hillary to be a progressive leader to get us out of the wilderness, she can be defeated.
Here’s what each of the laws did and what Hillary’s answer was to my question:
Defense of Marriage: DOMA, passed in 1996 when Bill Clinton wanted to deprive Bob Dole of a campaign issue, allows states not to recognize an out-of-state gay marriage. “DOMA served a very important purpose,” she said. “I was one of the architects in the strategy of fighting the 2004 Marriage Amendment, and DOMA gave us a bright line to be able to pull back the votes.”
Telecommunications Act of 1996: The Telecommunications Act is one of the main reasons why Clear Channel and Hillary’s new friend, Rupert Murdoch, today own most of the airwaves. “I don’t know,” she said, “ask Al Gore.”
NAFTA: The 1993 trade agreement has been absolutely devastating to labor and environmental standards. “NAFTA did not realize what was promised for a number of reasons,” she said. “We need to have an ongoing evaluation.”
Welfare Repeal: Also passed in 1996 when Bill Clinton wanted to deny Bob Dole a campaign issue, the Welfare Bill denied legal immigrants the right to get Food Stamps and SSI. It was an awful piece of legislation, and her response was that “the positive consequences outweighed the negative.”
You can watch a clip of the break-out session here.
I could have been far more confrontational in asking my question, but that would have played right into her hands because I would have sounded shrill and mean-spirited. Which is why I made a point to thank her for agreeing to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
Hillary’s campaign was ready to spin the Convention regardless of a warm or cool reception. Either she made peace with an important constituency that makes her nomination “inevitable,” or else she was harshly attacked by a group of extremists who “don’t represent” the party.
The truth – that the bloggers knew better than fall in that trap and were just being polite – is too subtle for the mainstream media to pick up. What’s news here is not what the bloggers said or did, but what Hillary did. She hung herself when asked tough questions, and exposed herself as an anti-progressive triangulator.
Readers of this website know that we are highly critical of the San Francisco Chronicle. In fact, our name – Beyond Chron – derives from the paper’s terrible coverage of state and local politics. But as someone who played a small role in this news story, I have never been angrier at the Chronicle for painting such a rosy picture of Clinton’s support at the Convention.
The Chronicle’s coverage was by far the worst coverage of Hillary Clinton and the Convention that I have read. Most newspapers like the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times led with the Clinton-Obama flap about lobbying money, and the Washington Post said she got “mixed reviews.” None was so uncritically positive about the myth that Hillary made peace with bloggers.
The Chronicle also referred to me as “one blogger with a challenging question” – and failed to mention that I happen to be from their hometown. There was no excuse for the Chronicle to claim ignorance. I stated in my question that I was with Beyond Chron, and the Washington Post mentioned that I was from San Francisco.
Hillary Clinton did not get a warm reception at the Yearly Kos Convention, nor was she attacked by a shrill minority. Through the break-out session and her own ridiculous statements during the debate, she was exposed as an anti-progressive triangulator. And this is what could put her nomination in doubt.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Stay tuned for tomorrow's Beyond Chron, where Paul Hogarth will conclude his report about the Yearly Kos Convention. Send feedback to paul@beyondchron.org
On Meet the Press this morning (19 Oct 2008) General Colin Powell (Ret.) cited that sort of old-school attack among the reasons that a life-long Republican who served both the Bush presidencies has decided to vote for Senator Barack Obama in the upcoming presidential election.
Consider Minnesota: In the 3rd Congressional District a former Marine Corps Captain who served in Iraq, Ashwin Madia, is running as a Democrat. Powell's support of Obama will lend credence to the thinking that not all who support our troops align with the current values of the Republican party. That has to work in Madia's favor - and it likely helps Steve Sarvi, too.
The only incumbent Republican Representative in Minnesota not being challenged by an Iraq War vet is Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, running for re-election in the 6th Congressional District, and she's driving people away from the party (as Zennie mentioned here earlier) with recent extremist statements widely reported in the national press. The result is nearly unprecedented levels of donation to Elwyn "El" Tinklenberg's campaign. Tinklenberg is enjoying Bachmann's discomfiture, though she's trying hard to walk back her comments that remind older voters of the worst of the Joe McCarthy era.
Senator Clinton had an optimum moment in terms of what impact her concession might have had, and the attention that was focused on her and her statement. Senator 
