The Note: Greek Drama

Everybody's favorite battle is back: Hillary Clinton's refusal to rule out having her name put up for a convention roll call ensures another chapter (at least) of the drama that is the Clinton-Obama relationship.."

"At this point, it is as likely as not that Clinton will be formally nominated at the convention, individuals close to the negotiations said," per The Washington Post's Anne Kornblut.

By RICK KLEIN with HOPE DITTO, ALEXA AINSWORTH and JASON VOLACK
August 7, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama is set to leave for his much-deserved vacation with one very big loose end that doesn't want to be tied -- and that's not counting the veepstakes. More...

It's the drama that won't go away, the storyline that's too delicious to recede, the symbol of a party's divisions the very mention of which brings smiles to the faces of editors and producers: Obama vs. Clinton. (Welcome back.)

Everybody's favorite battle is back: Hillary Clinton's refusal to rule out having her name put up for a convention roll call ensures another chapter (at least) of the drama that is the Clinton-Obama relationship.

To former President Bill Clinton's missing praise (to say nothing of what he is saying), we add this: A steadfast refusal by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to rule out allowing her delegates to vent in the peculiar fashion of voting for her on the convention floor, instead of the candidate she's campaigning for.

"I happen to believe that we will come out stronger if people feel that their voices were heard and their views were respected," Clinton, D-N.Y., told a gathering of supporters last week, ABC News reported Wednesday. "We do not want any Democrat either in the hall or in the stadium or at home walking away saying, well, you know, I'm just not satisfied, I'm not happy."

"It's as old as, you know, Greek drama," Clinton said. (We couldn't agree more.)

Clinton gets a chance to clear the air with a noon ET Web chat Thursday organized for supporters (hope you weren't expecting softballs -- or donations that don't come with a price). What does it say about the most important relationship in the Democratic Party that this is still an unresolved issue, three weeks before Obama is set to formally claim the nomination? Can a party heal if one of its principal players -- and a few million of her supporters -- aren't ready for it?

"The refusal to publicly announce her intentions is widely seen as a bargaining chip Clinton is holding on to as party officials negotiate logistics regarding her convention speech and other activities," per ABC News.

Said Clinton friend Lanny Davis(who, like most inside Camp Clinton, don't want a roll call): "It's a reflection of genuine frustration by Hillary Clinton supporters that Sen. Obama seems to have forgotten about 18 million voters."

Think of how much the joint Obama-Clinton statement released late Wednesday doesn't say: "We are working together to make sure the fall campaign and the convention are a success. At the Democratic Convention, we will ensure that the voices of everyone who participated in this historic process are respected and our party will be fully unified heading into the November election."

This is the individual who'll be hitting the trail for Obama on Friday?

"Embedded in those remarks, say friends and advisers, are hints of Clinton's own feelings in the aftermath of a race in which she fought so hard and still fell short," Time's Karen Tumulty reports. "Behind the united front, says an adviser, 'it's not a great relationship, and it's probably not going to become one.' "

More from Tumulty: "In private conversations, associates say, Clinton remains skeptical that Obama can win in the fall."

"At this point, it is as likely as not that Clinton will be formally nominated at the convention, individuals close to the negotiations said," per The Washington Post's Anne Kornblut. "Officials have firmly denied a report last week that Clinton had decided not to have her name put into the record. Advisers on both sides also said that relations between the two are improving." (But still have a ways to go?)

"You only thought it was over," ABC's John Berman said on "Good Morning America" Thursday.

The Clintons, you'll recall, are very good lawyers: "The possibility provides her with a strategic advantage in negotiations with the Obama campaign about her role at the convention and fund-raising to relieve her debt," Sarah Wheaton writes in The New York Times.

Even if it's just a bargaining chip -- does that mean it has to be on the table?

Politico's Ben Smith: "A veteran of Democratic Convention mechanics, Matt Seyfang, explained that Clinton holds some real procedural power, and could probably -- if she chooses -- force a symbolic vote at which her supporters could express their public dissent with the Democratic Party's decision."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Clinton_Obama_reiterate_unity.html

Who needs this? "I feel there's hope now that Hillary may get the nomination," one organizer of the marches in Denver tells Newsday's Janie Lorber.

This is all drama Obama can afford to lose. Fifty never looked so far away: New CBS numbers have the race at Obama 45, McCain 39.

It's Obama 46, McCain 41 in the new Time poll. "On specific issues, Obama is treading water or sinking a bit," Massimo Calabresi writes.

Cue the Democratic angst: "Such attacks [by Sen. John McCain] have raised worries among Democratic strategists -- haunted by John F. Kerry's 2004 run and Al Gore's razor-thin loss in 2000 -- that Obama has not responded in kind with a parallel assault on McCain's character," Jonathan Weisman and Perry Bacon Jr. write in The Washington Post.

"Interviews with nearly a dozen Democratic strategists found those concerns to be widespread, although few wished to be quoted by name while Obama's campaign is demanding unity." (Does anyone remember Kerry inspiring the same courtesy/respect/cowering?)

"Democrats are worried," said Tad Devine, a veteran of those Kerry efforts.

The most important point in that story: "Most of the independent groups that would have taken the lead in such an independent campaign have been sidelined by Obama's insistence that Democratic donors channel their money to him," Weisman and Bacon write.


Such serenity from Obamaland, except: "Tom Daschle, the former Democratic Senate majority leader, said in an interview with the Financial Times that the Mr Obama's Republican rival John McCain was seeing a 'short-term blip' as a result of the advertising," per the Financial Times' Stephanie Kirchgaessner and Edward Luce.

Said Daschle: "To a certain extent the ads are having some effect. . . . But you can't be thrown off your game plan by a momentary dip in polls."

Some analysis from the other side: "At least temporarily, Mr. Obama's tactics have raised a damning political question: Who is this man?" Michael Gerson writes in his column. "And the McCain campaign has begun to cleverly exploit these concerns, not with a frontal attack on his liberalism or his flip-flops, but with a humorous attack on his 'celebrity' -- really a proxy for shallowness."

Bad for the brand: The New York Times follows The Washington Post's reporting on some rather questionable donations flowing McCain's way (and this story is building, slowly, into Hsu part two).

"Amid a sea of contributions to the McCain campaign, the Abdullahs stand out. The checks come not from the usual exclusive coastal addresses, but from relatively hardscrabble inland towns like Downey and Colton," the Times' Michael Luo reports. "The donations are also startling because of their size: several donors initially wrote checks of $9,200, exceeding the $2,300 limit for an individual gift."

"[Harry] Sargeant's business dealings have caused controversy. Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, opened an investigation last month into whether his company has been overcharging the military for its contract in Iraq, although Mr. Sargeant said Mr. Waxman's office had an erroneous understanding of what the company was billing," Luo continues.

Veepstakes implications? "Democrats pounced on reports Wednesday that a major fundraiser for Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and Republican presidential candidate John McCain had tapped suspiciously apolitical Californians of modest means for thousands of dollars in campaign contributions over the past two years," Wes Allison and Steve Bousquet writes the St. Petersburg Times.

Yet this is as good a metric as any: "Over the past two weeks, his "celebrity" attacks have stomped Democratic presidential opponent Sen. Barack Obama in YouTube hits," Stephen Dinan writes in the Washington Times. "Mr. McCain has beat Mr. Obama's channel for seven straight days and 11 of the past 14 days, in a signal he intends to compete for the YouTube vote. That is a giant reversal. Mr. Obama had been quadrupling Mr. McCain's YouTube views and beat him every day since February, according to TubeMogul, which tracks online video viewing."

Next phase of the messaging isn't all that different from the last phase: "Is the biggest celebrity in the world ready to help your family?" the new McCain ad (one that's actually running in battleground states) says.

Point taken: "By going after Obama for celebrity, [McCain strategist Steve] Schmidt is taking a page out of the failed playbook of [Arnold] Schwarzenegger's opponent, Phil Angelides. Very odd," Todd Beeton blogs at myDD.com. http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/8/6/14717/11279
It doesn't make it right, but it's not hard to envision how Obama's choice of vacation destinations fits with the frame being built around him. (If you have trouble imagining this, stay tuned to the RNC's Barackbook.com page on Thursday.)

Not that it's a fair one: "It's funny to have anybody characterize Barack as an elitist," Michelle Obama told ABC's Robin Roberts in a "Good Morning America" interview Thursday morning. "This is the kid who was raised by a single mother, who didn't have access to many resources who, you know, has walked away his entire life from lucrative careers to work in the community."

Michelle, on her thoughts on the famous New Yorker cover: "This is tacky."
This doesn't help: "Barack Obama, heavily reliant on major donors and celebrities despite his public emphasis on small contributors, upped the ante this week to enter his VIP donor world," Lynn Sweet reports in the Chicago Sun-Times. "A new high was set Monday for hosting or chairing an Obama event; chairs of his birthday fund-raiser in Boston had to raise $285,000; co-chairs needed to collect $142,500."

Bold-faced name alert: "A string of celebrities from the entertainment world are helping Obama raise campaign money in August and September: Bruce Hornsby, Luciana and Matt Damon, Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck, Star Jones, Kal Penn, Mira Nair, Ellen Pompeo, Justin Chambers and Scarlett Johansson. Leon Fleisher, Yo-Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman will perform at an Obama fund-raiser in Phoenix next month," Sweet reports.

Whose vacation is it again? "There has always been a fine line in politics between fame and success," Peter Nicholas writes for the Los Angeles Times. "According to the latest poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, nearly half of those surveyed said they are tired of hearing about Obama; about one-quarter said the same about McCain."

"Obamamania may be filling Barack Obama's campaign coffers and making him a global celebrity, but Americans are getting tired of hearing so much about him," Charles Hurt writes in the New York Post.

How conventional can we get? "In a presidential campaign billed as 'the maverick vs. the outsider,' this was supposed to be a different sort of election," John McCormick writes in the Chicago Tribune. "So far, however, the nastiness is just as intense as in previous contests, with tire gauges, pop stars and some choice adjectives being tossed about in recent days."

David Broder remains optimistic: "The first question I asked John McCain and then Barack Obama was: How do you feel about the tone and direction of the campaign so far?" Broder writes in his column. "No surprise. Both men pronounced themselves thoroughly frustrated by the personal bitterness and negativism they have seen in the two months since they learned they would be running against each other."

It's not just Democrats who are worried about their candidate. More advice from Karl Rove, in his Wall Street Journal column: "Mr. McCain must also make a compelling case for electing John McCain. Voters trust him on terrorism and Iraq and they see him as a patriot who puts country first. But they want to know for what purpose?"

Rove continues: "Mr. Obama has the easier path to victory: reassure a restive electorate that he's up to the job. Mr. McCain must both educate voters to his opponent's weaknesses and persuade them that he has a vision for the coming four years. This will require a disciplined, focused effort. Mr. McCain has gotten this far fighting an unscripted guerrilla campaign. But it won't get him all the way to the White House."

(But Rove likes the tire-gauge gag: "What is the president of the United States going to do, send out the tire police to make certain we all have inflated our tires to the proper level?" Rove said on Fox News Wednesday.)

McCain Thursday tries to get control of a damaging Ohio storyline: "Republican presidential candidate John McCain is taking up the issue of possible job losses due to the closure of a DHL shipping site in Ohio, the result of a corporate merger aided by his campaign manager during his work as a lobbyist," per the AP's Beth Fouhy. "McCain on Thursday was to discuss DHL's plans with local officials and others affected by the potential job losses."

Still not sorted out: McCain on the Social Security payroll tax.Bloomberg's Ed Chen: "These contradictions reflect a central conundrum for the Arizona senator: He's seeking to both placate conservatives -- suspicious of him because of his willingness to buck the party in areas from climate change and campaign finance to President George W. Bush's tax cuts -- and project himself as an independent ready to work with Democrats on many of these issues."

Since the surge "worked" . . . "John McCain called for an 'economic surge' Wednesday, marrying key language from the war in Iraq with the economic troubles facing the United States," ABC's Bret Hovell reports. "Our surge has succeeded in Iraq militarily, now we need an economic surge," McCain said at a cabinet manufacturer in Southeastern Ohio, "to keep jobs here at home and create new ones." (Anyone clear on what this means?)

"The Surge is so much a part of his mantra that it is now on the verge of becoming McCain's cure-all for America's problems," ABC's David Wright reports.

Those House protests are great optics, but are missing just a few pieces. "It turns out [House Minority Leader John] Boehner was at Muirfield for his annual Freedom Project fundraiser/golf tournament," Ben Pershing writes for The Washington Post. "As for McCain, it would be a big deal indeed if Congress came back into session for an energy vote and the Arizonan actually showed up. This Friday will mark the four-month anniversary of the last time McCain actually cast a vote in the Senate."

Gas gaffes abound: "This morning, officials from Sen. Barack Obama's campaign proudly announced its cool new way to wage the political energy war -- it would run TV advertisements on the subject, starting today, on Gas Station TV, a network of televisions in gas pumps in Florida," per ABC's Jake Tapper. "How cool, how cutting edge, how innovative and unique. Except for the fact that the ads never ran."

"The Obama campaign was apologetic, maintains the ads were confirmed and offered back-up; the company says otherwise. Regardless, it's a major gaffe by a campaign that is typically well-organized," Beth Reinhard writes for the Miami Herald.

The Sked:
A light summer Thursday. McCain has an 11:30 am ET town-hall meeting in Lima, Ohio (GOP territory).

Obama is in Minneapolis and Chicago for private meetings (and a whole lot of Hawaii packing, we can only assume by the need to take a pre-vacation vacation day).

President Bush is in Thailand.

Get the full political schedule in The Note's "Sneak Peek."

The Veepstakes:
Let's hug it out. "It was almost a double man-hug. But just what does it mean?" ABC's John Berman, Sunlen Miller, and Andy Fies report. After Indiana Senator Evan Bayh gave a rousing 12-minute introduction to Barack Obama in Elkhart, Ind., this morning, Senator Barack Obama bounded on stage for an embrace. The two men held each other for a moment, speaking words no one else could hear. And just when it looked like it was over, they went in for more."

"The reasons for Mr. Bayh's apparent presence in the inner circle of potential ticketmates are varied, and they say something about the nature of the 2008 race and the correlation of forces within the Democratic Party," Larry Rohter writes in The New York Times.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn., had his day in the limelight Wednesday -- and he had something to say (and just maybe one too many kind things to say about Obama).

The words he probably wanted back (and didn't repeat in the afternoon): "Say what you will about Barack Obama, people gravitate when you have something positive to say."

But he comes with his own catchphrase! "We want to be the party of Sam's Club, not just the country club," Pawlenty said in his veep's audition at the National Press Club. "People deserve and expect a more effective government at a better price."

What's the most important trait in a vice president? "Discretion," Pawlenty said.

"Sketching a profile that in many ways describes himself, the 47-year-old governor said a new generation of Republican leadership is needed to find new ways to engage voters who are worried about the future but who see the GOP as a party of business elites," Kevin Diaz writes in the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

"Even if Gov. Pawlenty doesn't wind up on Sen. McCain's ticket, some believe the Minnesota governor represents the party's future, along with a handful of other relatively young governors, including Louisiana's Bobby Jindal," John D. McKinnon and Douglas Belkin write in The Wall Street Journal. "They have become the public face of what is seen as the party's reformist wing."

Terrible timing for the Mittster: "A former executive who says his boss pressured him to contribute to Republican Mitt Romney's presidential campaign has filed an employment-bias complaint that offers a rare glimpse behind the curtain of big-money corporate fund raising," JoAnn S. Lubin and Mary Jacoby write in The Wall Street Journal. "Emails from [Gary] Holdren refer to conversations with Mr. Romney, deals Huron supposedly won from Romney supporters at other firms and promises to reward Huron executives with 'business for your contributions.' "

Also in the news:
A small item that could mean a whole lot: "Bob Barr and Ralph Nader, the best-known third-party presidential candidates, are on their way to getting onto most state ballots," USA Today's David Jackson reports.

Obama isn't the black candidate Nader wants him to be. "People who have fought the civil rights battle -- politically, economically, legally -- as we have since the 50's would often talk about, 'Look what would happen if we had an African-American president or chairpersons of major congressional committees,'" Nader said at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, per ABC's Teddy Davis. "It doesn't look like it's going to be what we all thought it would be."

Mr. Nader isn't black. From Matt Bai's stellar piece in the forthcoming New York Times magazine: "The generational transition that is reordering black politics didn't start this year. It has been happening, gradually and quietly, for at least a decade, as younger African-Americans, Barack Obama among them, have challenged their elders in traditionally black districts. What this year's Democratic nomination fight did was to accelerate that transition and thrust it into the open as never before, exposing and intensifying friction that was already there."

Cue the campaign issue: "An election-year standstill in Senate confirmation of George W. Bush's judicial nominees will give the next president a chance to tip the ideological balance of U.S. appeals courts that decide such issues as job discrimination, national security and pollution-cleanup disputes," Bloomberg's James Rowley reports.

Seriously -- scalping? "The good news for Barack Obama supporters on Wednesday was the highly anticipated announcement of the plan for distributing free tickets to see his nomination speech at Invesco Field at Mile High during the Democratic National Convention," David Montero writes in the Rocky Mountain News. "The bad news was that party officials left many questions unanswered -- including how early people should get to Invesco Field to clear security, what items could be brought into the stadium and details about how fraud or ticket scalping would be prevented." Another piece of convention programming to figure out (and another rebuke to Clinton?): "The party is considering giving a speaking slot at the convention to Mr. Casey's son, Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who like his late father is a Roman Catholic who opposes abortion rights," John M. Broder writes in The New York Times. "Mr. Casey's appearance would be an important signal to Catholics, especially those who follow church teachings and oppose abortion."

The Kicker:
"There can be mean games of Scrabble. He and his sister Maya -- oh, they are deadly, in fact. Sometimes we all just walk away and let them, you know, compete into the night." -- Michelle Obama, to ABC's Robin Roberts, on an Obama family tradition.

"Extreme sexism." -- Scarlett Johansson's explanation for the hubbub over her supposed e-mail relationship with Barack Obama.

"We have the most multiply impeachable presidency in American history." -- Ralph Nader.

Bookmark The Note at http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105288&page=1

News You Watch Says a Lot About How You’ll Vote

Rasmussen
Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Fox News viewers say they are likely to vote for John McCain, while those who watch CNN and MSNBC plan to support Barack Obama in November by more than two to one. More...

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of CNN voters plan to vote for the Democratic candidate versus 26% who intend to go for the Republican. Similarly, MSNBC watchers plan to vote for Obama over McCain 63% to 30%.

Only nine percent of those who watch Fox News say they will vote for Obama.
Nationally the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll continues to show a very close race for the White House.

Nationally the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll continues to show a very close race for the White House.

In a separate survey, 52% of Americans say they watch local television news for information on the campaign at least several times a week, including 37% who say they watch it every day. Half (50%) say they watch cable news for that information during the week, including 26% who watch daily.

Among those who get their information on the presidential campaign from local television, the new survey finds that the amount of time one watches impacts how they plan to vote. Those who watch local news every day support Obama over McCain 52% to 42%. But for those who say they watch several days a week but not every day, it’s McCain over Obama 50% to 43%.

McCain has the edge among all viewers who tune into cable news of any kind at least once a week.

Those who read a print newspaper during the week are fairly evenly divided between the two candidates, but among those who read the same papers online, Obama has the edge. Among those who get their campaign information from online sources in general, again time spent is the key. Those who go online every day are evenly divided, but over half of those who go online one or more times a week plan to vote for McCain.

While McCain is regarded favorably by 88% of Fox News viewers, only 43% of CNN viewers and 38% of those who watch MSNBC agree. But just 14% of Fox viewers have a favorable opinion of Obama, as opposed to 70% of CNN watchers and 72% of those watching MSNBC.

How voters rate the importance of issues is also reflected in the cable news programming they prefer. For 36% of Fox viewers, national security is the most important issue in the campaign, followed by 32% who say economic issues are number one. By contrast, those who watch CNN rate economic issues over national security 56% to 13%, and MSNBC viewers agree 50% to 12%.

Nationally voters in this election cycle rank economic issues as their primary concern versus national security which was the leading issue in the 2004 election. Those who get their campaign information from local television mirror this view, with nearly half rating economic issues most important versus around one-quarter who put national security first.

Talk radio is also McCain territory. More than 60% of those who listen at least several times a week plan to vote for the Republican versus less than a third who say they will vote for Obama. National security also polls as a much stronger concern among those who listen regularly to talk radio than it does to voters overall.

For Obama there is good news -- and bad news -- in the findings among those who watch the anchors of the three major television networks. Seventy percent (70%) of those who watch CBS’ Katie Couric every day plan to vote for Obama, as do 71% of the daily viewers of ABC’s Charles Gibson and 67% of those watching NBC’s Brian Williams.

The bad news is when asked specifically about the networks and their star news anchors, well over half of Americans say they rarely or never watch Couric or Gibson for information on the presidential campaign. Just under half (49%) say they rarely or never watch Williams.

In a separate survey last month, 49% of voters believed that most reporters are trying to help Obama win the presidency. Only 14% thought they are trying to help McCain win.

In the 2004 election cycle, most Americans felt the three major television networks – ABC, CBS and NBC – and the two chief cable networks, Fox News and CNN, were all biased in their coverage to help the candidate of their choice – Fox for President Bush, the other four for his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry.

MAUREEN DOWD AND THE CRISIS OF THE “SORE WINNERS”

August 6, 2008
by Amy Siskind

I coach young children in team sports. I teach them that there are two important life lessons which you will learn playing sports. One is the notion of “teamwork” – working with and depending on others. The second lesson is that in each game there is a winning team and a losing team. When you walk off the field or the court, act with grace and dignity whatever the outcome.

Maureen Dowd’s coach missed the second lesson. Apparently, many of Senator Obama’s other surrogates seem to have missed out on this life lesson as well. More...

We all have our struggles in life. We have good times and bad. We do things that we later regret. We make mistakes.

But there is one thing that cannot be forgiven – the hubris that comes along with being a sore winner.

I have been at a loss since Senator Clinton suspended her campaign. I could not understand how Senator Obama and his surrogates could think that by belittling , degrading and bullying millions of Democratic men and women, that this would somehow unite the party? I just could not grasp where they were coming from.

And the polls bore out the same. When Senator Clinton first suspended her campaign, a CNN poll showed that 60% of her 18 million voters would move to Senator Obama. A month later, in early July, that number had actually dropped to 54% - meaning that 46% of Senator Clinton’s voters were not planning to vote for Senator Obama – shocking? Well, no.

Instead of reaching out and unifying the party, Senator Obama told us: “get over it.” He acted aloof towards Senator Clinton’s donors in meetings. At a house party in New York in late June, one of Senator Obama’s top female aides told a group of women: “We’re not used to this drama.” He selected Patty Solis Doyle to be chief of staff to his yet to be named vice president. Salt and more salt in open wounds.

But the degradation did not stop there. There was the letter from Don Fowler and Alice Germond in mid July about their “fatigue and irritation.” There were the daily diatribes by Obama surrogates calling us: “childish,” “move on already,” “angry bunch of women.”

Hmmm. I find myself still puzzled by this Obama Campaign strategy; but I continued to read the polls.

Senator Obama is the first Democratic candidate for president in 20 years that is actually BEHIND the Republican nominee with women over 40. Typically, a Democratic candidate can count on a 10-15 point lead with this demographic; but Senator Obama is BEHIND Senator McCain by 4 points in a recent Fox Poll. And in a Zogby Poll done in early August, among all women, Senator McCain closed 10 points on Senator Obama since early July.

But, okay. Clearly the Obama Campaign knows something that I don’t. They must have a strategy here. Surely degrading, belittling and bullying voters will make them want to come aboard. Right?

And now back to our gal Maureen Dowd, who this past Sunday came out with yet another of her blistering attacks on women. This time rather than vilify Senator Clinton herself, we Clinton supporters got a turn to be the target. The first sentence of her editorial reads: “It is a truth universally acknowledged that Barack Obama must continue to grovel to Hillary Clinton’s dead-enders, some of whom mutter darkly that they will not only not vote for him, they will never vote for a man again.” First off, I would like to point out that Maureen copied the words “Clinton dead-enders” from a much younger and more talented writer, Michelle Goldberg of The New Republic who wrote an article in early June titled 3 A.M For Feminism: Clinton dead-enders and the crisis of the women’s movement. Michelle’s piece is thoughtful and insightful – not a sling full of mud. Second, Barack Obama does not have to continue anything – he and his surrogates need to START acting with dignity and grace – not act like sore winners. And lastly, we are hardly muttering that we will never vote for a man again. We are ready, willing and able to vote for a qualified man. We voted for Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry to name a few. And, if Maureen et al continue to degrade us, belittle us, bully us, and act as sore winners, we will once again be voting for a man – Senator McCain!

Have the Clintons Gotten Over It?

The July 31 cocktail reception outside Palo Alto, Calif., had been billed as an evening for letting bygones be bygones, a coming together of Hillary Clinton's Silicon Valley backers with Barack Obama's to help the New York Senator retire her campaign debt. But as Clinton took questions from the 150 or so people who had paid $500 and up a head to listen, it became clear that the healing process was far from over. "For so many of my supporters, just like so many of Barack's supporters, this was a first-time investment of heart and soul and money and effort and sleepless nights and miles of travel," Clinton said. "You just don't turn it off like that."

More...

Those comments — now playing in clips on YouTube—speak to not only the bruised feelings of Clinton's many supporters. Embedded in those remarks, say friends and advisers, are hints of Clinton's own feelings in the aftermath of a race in which she fought so hard and still fell short. In public, Clinton is doing everything she is asked — and then some — to help the man who defeated her get elected to the White House. She raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Obama from her extensive network of donors and has spoken to many of the groups, including key unions, that backed her in the primaries. She is set to hit the campaign trail on his behalf, starting with rallies and voter-registration drives this month in Nevada and Florida. "I'm doing all I know to do," she insists.

But behind the united front, says an adviser, "it's not a great relationship, and it's probably not going to become one." In private conversations, associates say, Clinton remains skeptical that Obama can win in the fall. That's a sentiment some other Democrats believe is not just a prediction but a wish, because it would prove her right about his weaknesses as a general-election candidate and possibly pave the way for her to run again in 2012. Clinton is also annoyed that Obama has yet to deliver on his end of an informal bargain, reached as part of their truce, that each would raise $500,000 for the other. "Hillary has done her part in that regard," says an adviser. "Obama has not."

Underlying it all is a feeling on Clinton's part that Obama has never shown proper regard for a campaign she believes was as historic an achievement as his. True, Obama has asked Clinton to give a prime-time speech on the second night of the convention later this month. But as the odds that she will be Obama's running mate have faded, there are signs that Clinton's backers could demand one last show of respect before Obama claims the nomination in Denver. Clinton has been giving tacit encouragement to suggestions that her name be placed in nomination at the convention, a symbolic move that would be a reminder of the bruising primary battle. "No decisions have been made," Clinton said when asked in California — to whoops and applause — about that possibility. Still, it was hard to miss what Clinton would like to see in the pointed way she added, "Delegates can decide to do this on their own. They don't need permission." Some of her allies are not so enthusiastic about that kind of gesture. Says Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz: "We really need to focus at the convention on unifying the party behind Senator Obama."

Meanwhile, if Hillary Clinton's feelings are still bruised, her husband's are positively raw. The former President is particularly resentful of suggestions—which he believes were fueled by the Obama camp—that he attempted to play upon racial fears during the primaries. Not helping is the fact that Obama has yet to follow up on the tentative dinner plans he and Bill Clinton made at the end of the primary season. "It's personal with him, in terms of his own legacy," says a friend of Bill Clinton's. "And the race stuff really left a bad taste in his mouth."

Bill Clinton's resentment came through in an interview with ABC News during his recent trip to Africa. Asked what regrets he might have about his role in his wife's campaign, he bristled and then shot back, "I am not a racist. I never made a racist comment." He struggled to render a positive comment about Obama's qualifications for his old job. "You could argue that nobody is ever ready to be President," Clinton said. "You could argue that even if you've been Vice President for eight years, that no one can ever be fully ready for the pressures of the office." Pressed again, he responded with an endorsement that could hardly have been a weaker cup of tea: "I never said he wasn't qualified. The Constitution sets qualification for the President. And then the people decide who they think would be the better President. I think we have two choices. I think he should win, and I think he will win."

Mindful of the lingering bitterness, the Obama camp has tried to reach out to the sizable professional political class that has surrounded the Clintons for a generation. In late July, for instance, the campaign hosted what was by all accounts a well-received session at former Senator Tom Daschle's downtown Washington office for about 50 of the Clintons' most prominent backers. But it was telling that only a handful of their leading female supporters showed up. Will a genuine reconciliation ever occur? Said a longtime Democrat with a foot in both camps: "Yes, but only at the convention." Democrats worried about unifying the party before November are hoping that's not too late. — With reporting by Mark Halperin / New York City

Backers to salute Hillary Clinton with a parade and rally at DNC

Katherine Vincent, a staunch supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton, sits on the porch of her Louisville home. Vincent is organizing a parade in Denver during the Democrats' convention "to celebrate Hillary's accomplishments and what she's done for the country."

By Sara Burnett, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Hillary Clinton supporters will march through Denver during the Democratic National Convention to show appreciation for the New York senator's historic primary run and urge the party to place her name in nomination. More...

The city issued a permit Tuesday to Colorado Women Count/Women Vote for a parade on Aug. 26 - the 88th anniversary of women's suffrage and the date Clinton is rumored to be speaking at the DNC.

The group also will team with 18 Million Voices, a national organization of Clinton supporters, for a rally in a yet-to-be-determined Denver park.

"We just want to celebrate Hillary's accomplishments and what she's done for the country as a whole and women in particular," said Katherine Vincent, 55, of Louisville, who is organizing the parade and rally.

Vincent is among those passionate followers who believe Clinton's delegates have a right to vote for her at the convention.

"That's why they were selected," she said. "We think it would actually bring the party together."

Nationwide, Clinton's staunchest supporters refer to themselves as "PUMAs," short for "Party Unity My A--."

They are raising money to pay for buses to Denver, and setting up a headquarters at The Broker restaurant downtown, where people can "check-in" when they arrive in town.

But the efforts to put Clinton's name to a vote may be meaningless. Clinton, who conceded to Sen. Barack Obama in June, must submit a request in writing to be nominated at the convention. According to published reports, Clinton has decided against doing so and has been urging her delegates to vote for Obama.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign said Clinton will campaign for the Illinois senator this month in Nevada and Florida.

Jenny Backus, a senior adviser to the Obama campaign, said Clinton is working closely with the Obama camp, and will continue to be "a tremendous asset."

"Senator Clinton is going to play a critical role in the convention," Backus said.

Clinton is scheduled to speak at an Emily's List gala at the Sheraton Denver Hotel at 2 p.m. on Aug. 26. She will join Michelle Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the event, a celebration of women's suffrage.

Vincent said she is hopeful Clinton's schedule that day also will include a stop by the rally, which she says will not include any messages that are anti-Obama or pro-John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee.

"We're keeping it positive," she said. "It's a way of saying 'Thank you Hillary, we appreciate what you've done.' "

"This Is Not the Barrack Obama I Knew"

Posted by Jackie Verbowski on Facebook:

This is for any Obama supporters still haunting these boards. Any of you not completely besotted by the Koolaid must be feeling a little uneasy by now. How you could not be? Here you voted for, campaigned for, donated money to, and cheered for a canadidate you thought shared your values, only to find out that was not the case. FISA, offshore drilling, abortion rights, gun control, and many other Democratic issues have been sacrificed at the alter of Senator Obama's political ambition. It's time to face the facts. He lied. More...

He told you he was a new kind of politician, the "unpolitican" if you will. You thought that meant he wouldn't pander and flip flop but he did. As the most liberal US Senator, you thought he was a progressive and would act like a progressive moving forward but he didn't. He was new, he was cool, he was charming and you believed in him and thought you knew him but you didn't.

Maybe you still want to believe. Who wouldn't, really. Maybe you're trying hard to ignore that annoying queasy feeling in your gut, or that nagging little voice in your head that keeps pointing out all the ways he is failing to live up to his former image. Here's an experiment to try and help you sort things out for yourself. For the next 7 days, turn off MSNBC and CNN. Stay away from Daily Kos, barackobama.com, Huffington Post and all the other pro-Obama media sources. Then, with an open mind, do some real research.

For example, you might want to look at some of the reports by investigative journalists about Obama's early political career in Chicago. Closely examine his connections to people like William Ayers and Ayer's father, and look into why fellow Chicagoan Alice Palmer campaigned for Hillary Clinton instead of Barack Obama. Look at some of the claims made by the anti-Obama sites but search for documentation on your own. Ask yourself why a 47 year old man in excellent health would refuse the press access to his medical records. Ask why Senator Obama refuses to release a hard copy of his birth certificate.

You can't expect the mainstream media to bring Obama's past to you, you will have to search it out. That doesn't mean that you should believe the rumor mongers, just as we that are for Hillary don't believe the likes of Dick Morris or his despicable cohorts. You can find a great deal of information from reputable sources. The Chicago newspapers, for example, and older stories from before the mainstream media was fully indoctrinated.

So spend the next 7 days really researching your candidate with an open mind. At the end of that time you may come away from the experience energized with a refreshed commitment to your candidate. On the other hand you may end up having to make a clean break. The good news is that Barack Obama has shown us one thing, and that is how we can turn our backs on people without ever admitting we were even one iota to blame for trusting them or associating with in the first place.

Repeat after me:

"This is not the Barack Obama I knew."

The 3 A.M. AD is Back!

Click here to watch.

Abc News Confirms PUMA's Statement: Sen. Hillary Clinton Seeks Democratic Convention Voice!

By RICK KLEIN and DAVID CHALIAN
Aug. 6, 2008

Sen. Hillary Clinton told a gathering of supporters last week that she's looking for a "strategy" for her delegates to have their voices heard and "respected" at the Democratic National Convention -- and did not rule out the possibility of having her name placed into nomination at the convention alongside Sen. Barack Obama's. More...

"I happen to believe that we will come out stronger if people feel that their voices were heard and their views were respected. I think that is a very big part of how we actually come out unified," Clinton, D-N.Y., said at a California fundraiser last Thursday, in a video clip captured by an attendee and posted on YouTube.

"Because I know from just what I'm hearing, that there's incredible pent-up desire. And I think that people want to feel like, 'OK, it's a catharsis, we're here, we did it, and then everybody get behind Sen. Obama.' That is what most people believe is the best way to go," she said.

"No decisions have been made. And so we are trying to work all this through with the DNC and with the Obama campaign."

From Savage Politics: CNN is Guilty of Censorship!

Yesterday was an interesting day in the history of this BlogZine. CNN, who has been notorious for their biased and Liberal reporting when dealing with Barack Hussein Obama, decided to inform the McCain Campaign that their automated Google ads were running on our site and that they should be quickly removed. CNN somehow must presume that we depend on advertising money to sustain this site, and thus took it upon themselves to specifically make sure that SavagePolitics.com was ostracized and rebuked by the candidate that many of our readers have come to support and that our site’s pockets were robbed of much needed revenue. Let’s first look at how CNN described this site, and in what context, and then we can further discuss what it all means. Here is an excerpt that specifically pertains to our site: More...

SavagePolitics.com, another anti-Obama site that has run McCain ads, has called Obama a “bold faced liar, a thief, a sexist and a racist.”

The McCain campaign pulled the ads after being notified by CNN.

Rogers said the campaign often has no control over where their ads show up on the Web. That’s because the campaign uses a third-party vendor — in this case, Google — to distribute their banner ads across a broad array of political Web sites by searching for certain key words.

When the campaign is made aware of ads appearing on offensive or irrelevant Web sites, Rogers said, they notify the ad distributor and have the sites added to a list of blocked URLs. He noted the McCain campaign has already blocked “tens of thousands” of such sites. (CLICK HERE TO READ)

In other words, per the second line in the excerpt above, CNN NOTIFIED the McCain campaign that SavagePolitics.com was running their ads. Of course, they conveniently obviated the McCain link on our right column and the fact that there is a fundraising tool underneath it that even directs donors to the John McCain campaign. The reason for ignoring these details is quite simple; the links that they are complaining about appear to make a ‘profit’ for our site, while the second category doesn’t (it actually deviates funds away from it!). This, of course, proves that CNN’s sole intention in their ‘reporting’ is to directly stifle the alternative voice that this BlogZine represents and thus limit the American populace to their brand of “unfiltered” information.

But, for the sake of personal entertainment, I will first tackle some of their charges against our site and then discuss the importance of boycotting this “news” agency.

CNN claims that SavagePolitics.com is “negative” because we have called Mr. Obama a “bold faced liar, a thief, a sexist and a racist.” The question that any reasonable and intelligent person should ask themselves is: Are any of these claims untrue? If the Mainstream Media spent more time doing their job and less time looking for ways to attack ‘irrelevant and offensive’ BlogZines like ours, they would have figured out a long time ago that our claims are not only ENTIRELY TRUE but even mildly stated.

What makes Obama a BOLD FACED LIAR? His already well established record of outright reversals, misdirections, dishonesty and LIES. These words are not “negative” or “smears” but simple allocations of appropriate descriptive labels to a person that CNN and their corrupt lackeys have been all too willing to give a ‘pass’ from their critical scopes. If you wish to feel nauseated by the impressive amount of proven lies that this Illinois Senator has passed underneath your noses, please study our classic read “The Truth vs. Barack Obama“, but let me point out a few of the most recent ones below:

1. Barack Obama stated, not only verbally (through his debates with Senator Clinton and via diverse interviews) but in written form, that he would take PUBLIC FINANCING for his general election campaign. As we all know, he plainly LIED to the American people about this commitment and decided to continue his accumulation of special interest money, not from recognized Federal PACs, but directly from the corrupt CEO’s and their personal corporate slaves. If this ‘flip flopping’ is not BOLD FACED LYING, I don’t know what is.

2. Barack Obama stated, not only through countless campaign surrogates but by his own words in many interviews, that he thought that the D.C. Gun Ban was CONSTITUTIONAL. But, after the Supreme Court decided that it wasn’t and Obama was confronted with the reality of looking foolishly ignorant on legal matters, he told a reporter that he “never said that” and that he always knew that it was not going to pass the Supreme Court’s scrutiny. (WATCH EVIDENCE HERE) If this is not BOLD FACED LYING, I don’t know what is.

3. Barack Obama’s FIRST GENERAL ELECTION Advertisement actually claims that he “extended health care for wounded troops” and cites Public Law 110-181 as the evidence of said action. The problem is, Obama NEVER VOTED for said bill and was not even near Washington DC at the time. When asked about this lie, Obama defended himself by claiming that McCain was also missing for said vote and should then not criticize him for being absent. The difference is that McCain never claimed that he voted for this bill, Obama did. If this is not BOLD FACED LYING, I don’t know what is.

The sad reality of this election is that I could literally continue this list to infinity, and this would only encompass this month’s news. Is it not shameful that our American political system has reached this low level? Is there then any question that our affirmative labeling of Mr. Obama as a LIAR is not only accurate but painfully constrained? Most people would agree that a person who lies with such impunity, sloppiness and frequency should be called much harsher names than “bold faced liar”.

The other ‘less dramatic’ descriptors that CNN chastises our site for are also quite easy to understand.

We openly call Obama a racist, not only because of his association with Rev. Wright and the Liberation Theology cesspool that is his Trinity United Church, but because Barack’s own books are infested with hundreds of racialist affirmations and sentiments. Among them is the now infamous “white folks greed runs a world in need” line that when put into context is even more damaging that what the single line implies. Many of these “wonderfully” racially charged comments can be easily found in his ‘Dreams from My Father’ book. In this same ethnocentric spirit, there is also that now infamous radio interview where he described his own grandmother as a “typical white person” who feels threatened by black men when they walk down the street (CLICK HERE TO HEAR OBAMA). If these circumstances do not categorize you in the realm of “racist” (or “racially insensitive”) then we should have sent that memo to David Duke, since we have socially ostracized him for many years for saying milder things than this (and for actually being honest about it!). Can you even imagine John McCain utilizing the term “typical black person” without getting viciously attacked for being a ‘racist’?

But the ‘big picture’ aspect of CNN’s action has nothing to do with Obama nor his well recorded dishonesty and unpreparedness to become President of the United States. This entire controversy is about our freedom of speech and the ability of every citizen to dictate his own conscience. CNN is upset at the idea of having to compete with independent blogs that DO NOT depend on advertisement, nor on corporate interests, but merely on the support of each individual reader. Of course, the mere fact that SavagePolitics.com was even mentioned as a ‘problem’ for the Obama campaign is quite flattering, and it obviously means that we are doing our job, but it also signals a new step in their assault on our freedom and independent thought. Since when did the Press and their surrogates began to dedicate their valuable time to destroy the earning potential of other sources of information and speech? Since when is it their job to inform on others, as if we were living inside the Soviet Union, and they were part of the ‘thought police’? What is next, snitch on your own parents for not ‘following the party line’?

In this regard, the McCain campaign should also receive some of the blame for this disrespectful and overt action against the right of ALL citizens to express their views and read whatever they feel is relevant, irregardless of how unpopular or inconvenient it may appear to some. We have never seen CNN calling the advertisers of any anti-McCain blogs for their “offensive” nature, even though many of them even claim that McCain lied about being injured in Vietnam (among countless silly allegations)! Why would the McCain campaign stoop so low as to allow the Liberal press to dictate their path to victory? The answer lies in FEAR. Many inside McCain’s campaign (and for this I am willing to give a temporary pass to J. McCain himself) fear to be branded as “mean”, “negative”, “racists”, etc. by an overtly socialist, corrupt albeit powerful news agency like CNN. To take control of this situation, and appear ‘above the fray’, they will thus continuously pontificate about “positive campaigning”, “not questioning the patriotism of others”, fighting the “smears”, and other euphemism that hide the truth behind their assertion.

If they honestly feel that this is a coherent strategy to beat Obama, and that it will somehow ‘out change’ the Change candidate, then we all hope that they are right in this approach and we would then be all too willing to comply. But, just like I warned the Hillary Clinton campaign during many occasions I will now directly warn the McCain camp. You may be preaching to the wrong choir! Many of these imbeciles who love “change” and “hope” are either Liberal fanatics, foolish youngsters, or racist African Americans. These individuals could care less if McCain attacks Obama or he does not, they will not vote for his candidacy anyway, irrespective of the “good nature”, “logic”, “reasonableness”, and/or “fairness” that he may represent.

Because of this, and more often than not, a campaign has to OPENLY engage in ruthless tactics if they wish to achieve victory, and in this election, not doing so from an EARLY stage is what directly destroyed Hillary Clinton’s chances of becoming the first female President in our history. We must then all presume that the McCain campaign does not wish to fall into this same ditch and that they are right now tightly strapping their thinking caps as they face the Obama machine, if not, they must quickly realize that they are in trouble. Most of us ‘political savages’ understand that common Americans do not understand subtleties and that going along with CNN’s Liberal “love fest” ploy, with the aim of somehow ‘take them from the inside’ may backfire. For the sake of our entire Nation, we hope that John McCain’s campaign quickly learns these realities or we will be facing the disturbing possibility of an Obama administration (as unlikely as it is at this point).

At the end of the day, SavagePolitics.com has proven to be morally stronger than any Mainstream Media source. This is so because we DO NOT depend on any corporate money to survive and instead depend on the support of our loyal readers. Those who subscribe and continuously donate to this site have always been the ones in charge, and thus the newly christened Communist News Network (a fitting name when you consider their ‘informant’ and liberal tendencies) is utterly powerless to influence or stop this site from doing its job in the SAVAGE advocacy of freedom, justice and truth.

To our readers, please know that if the THOUSANDS of you who already visit this site want to effect REAL CHANGE in the way American politics functions in our Country, you should personally make it a point to boycott many of these corporate (and corrupt) news networks. This can only be done by donating, and/or subscribing to alternative sources of information like this site. This is truly the only way to actually influence our public discourse and force our press to once and for all break their bondage from corporate and special interests. Spending small amounts of cash on alternative thoughts is as crucial as investing in ‘alternative fuels’, or even giving your cash away to Hollywood films and their other mindless agendas.

UNDERSTAND that the day that our News Media starts ’snitching’ on it’s own citizens, is the day that our freedom will begin its slippery slope towards its collapse. Nonetheless, I want you to know that I am NOT afraid of the Corporate Media and their nefarious intentions. If they want war, then war it is. Our aim has never been to only stop political corruption and speak truth to power, it has also been to utterly destroy the American Mainstream Media and permanently eradicate their influence from the political discussion. It therefore high time for an old fashioned political mutiny, and the conditions are ripe for their taking.

This 4th of July will henceforth also represent OUR independence from corporate manipulation and their dictatorial tactics. We will nevermore be led astray by their lies and hidden agendas and we will take back what can never be stolen from us; our FREEDOM.

©2008 J. Cifre, J.D., of SAVAGEPOLITICS.com. All Rights Reserved.

How’d This Happen?

Jennifer Rubin - 08.06.2008 - 12:08 PM

The debate over energy is going full tilt. Somehow Barack Obama is now reduced to arguing that tire inflation is a substitute for domestic energy development. I am not sure how calling your opponent “ignorant” qualifies as “the high road,” but I do agree with this take from the Left that “Obama will lose this exchange and wind up sounding like a Dukakisian know-it-all.” More...

Obama does have a few problems on the subject of energy: he is flip-flopping (or maybe not) on drilling and on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), he is saddled with his recalcitrant Democratic Congressional colleagues who fled rather than vote on drilling, public opinion is overwhelmingly against him, and he has his facts wrong (at least on oil savings from inflated tires). Mainstream media outlets frown at his windfall profits tax and SPR flip-flop which are seen as ham-handed, very old school gimmicks.

This episode is classic Obama: he was slow to recognize he had a problem, he looks alternately recalcitrant and then irresolute (as with the surge) as be bobs and weaves between his base and political reality, and he condescends to voters. And then he doesn’t have a good answer for his own voting record. But it is really a failure of common sense: why not include domestic drilling as a significant part of our energy approach? (After several weeks someone seems to have explained this to The One.)

The haphazard and delinquent effort to catch up to McCain’s energy policy blitz (which has been going on for weeks now) also tells us something else: Obama thinks he can ignore whatever McCain is doing. It is not surprising for the candidate who considers himself already President to disregard what his opponent is up to. The temptation is great to try to run out the clock and get by on pablum and pretty pictures.

But Obama does it at his peril . He is now struggling to find a way to counteract the McCain energy offensive. You have the feeling that each day will bring a new challenge/gambit from the McCain camp (What’s next? Jiffy Lube tune-ups for the entire press corps?) and the rest of the day will be spent watching Obama and his media allies trying to swat away the incoming fire. It is what happens when you take a victory lap months before the first votes are cast.

Obama's Muslim-Outreach Adviser Resigns

By GLENN R. SIMPSON and AMY CHOZICK
August 6, 2008

The Muslim-outreach coordinator to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama has resigned amid questions about his involvement in an Islamic investment fund and various Islamic groups.

Chicago lawyer Mazen Asbahi, who was appointed volunteer national coordinator for Muslim American affairs by the Obama campaign on July 26, stepped down Monday after an Internet newsletter wrote about his brief stint on the fund's board, which also included a fundamentalist imam.
More...

"Mr. Asbahi has informed the campaign that he no longer wishes to serve in his volunteer position, and we are in the process of searching for a new national Arab American and Muslim American outreach coordinator," spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a statement.

A corporate lawyer at the firm of Schiff Hardin LLP, Mr. Asbahi tendered his resignation after he and the Obama campaign received emailed inquiries about his background from The Wall Street Journal. He did not respond to the email or a message left at his law office; the campaign released a letter in which Mr. Asbahi said he did not want to be a distraction.

The Obama campaign is trying to strike a balance between courting Muslim American voters and dispelling rumors intended by some to link the candidate to radical Islam. Sen. Obama is a Christian.

Until Mr. Asbahi joined the campaign, Sen. Obama did not have a Muslim-outreach coordinator and had relied on the Democratic National Committee's efforts. The campaign has long had its own outreach efforts to Catholic, evangelical Christian and Jewish voters. Some Muslim voters have complained about the disparity. An Obama aide says Mr. Asbahi was brought on in part to bridge that perceived gap and to reach out to Muslim communities in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia, states seen as among the most competitive this fall.

"We need Muslim Americans to get excited about the Campaign, and there's a lot to get excited about!" Mr. Asbahi wrote in a statement posted on a blog when he was appointed. "Sure, there have been mis-steps," he added.

In 2000, Mr. Asbahi briefly served on the board of Allied Assets Advisors Fund, a Delaware-registered trust. Its other board members at the time included Jamal Said, the imam at a fundamentalist-controlled mosque in Illinois.
[faith and obama]

"I served on that board for only a few weeks before resigning as soon as I became aware of public allegations against another member of the board," Mr. Asbahi said in his resignation letter. "Since concerns have been raised about that brief time, I am stepping down...to avoid distracting from Barack Obama's message of change."

The eight-year-old connection between Mr. Asbahi and Mr. Said was raised last week by the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report, which is published by a Washington think tank and chronicles the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, a world-wide fundamentalist group based in Egypt. Other Web sites, some pro-Republican and others critical of fundamentalist Islam, also have reported on the background of Mr. Asbahi. He is a frequent speaker before several groups in the U.S. that scholars have associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Justice Department named Mr. Said an unindicted co-conspirator in the racketeering trial last year of several alleged Hamas fund-raisers, which ended in a mistrial. He has also been identified as a leading member of the group in news reports going back to 1993.

Mr. Said is the imam at the Bridgeview Mosque in Bridge-view, Ill., outside Chicago. He left the board of the Islamic fund in 2005, Securities and Exchange Commission filings state. A message left for Mr. Said at the mosque was not returned.

Allied Asset Advisors is a subsidiary of the North American Islamic Trust. The trust, which is supported financially by the government of Saudi Arabia, holds title to many mosques in the U.S. and promotes a conservative brand of Islam compatible with the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and also akin to the fundamentalist style predominant in Saudi Arabia. Allied executives did not respond to inquiries.

Write to Glenn R. Simpson at glenn.simpson@wsj.com1 and Amy Chozick at amy.chozick@wsj.com2
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121797906741214995.html

Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) mailto:glenn.simpson@wsj.com
(2) mailto:amy.chozick@wsj.com

A list of the Top Obama Fund-Raisers

More...

join Hillary on Thursday, August 7, at 12:00 PM EDT for an online web chat

Hillary will be hosting a web chat tomorrow at 12pm EDT on BlogHillary.

She will be answering questions from the people most important to her - you.

Please watch her short message and join us tomorrow at http://blog.hillaryclinton.com.

Click Here to watch her message.

Obama Accuses Reporter of Serving as McCain's 'Proxy'

By Noel Sheppard
August 6, 2008 - 10:54 ET

Aside from being tagged a racist, it now appears that any press member who dares ask presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama a tough question will be accused of acting as a proxy for John McCain.

Such was the case Tuesday when the junior senator from Illinois was being interviewed on Las Vegas's CBS affiliate. To read the full article, click here.

Jon Voight Blasts Obama

Jon Voight Blasts Obama, Says He’d Usher In Socialism And Is Weak On Terror. Some of the same story in this article.

Hillary Clinton: No Crisis Is Immune From Exploitation Under Bush

By HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
August 6, 2008; Page A15

Tucked away on the Cayman Islands sits Ugland House, an unassuming, nondescript building of modest scale and size. However, according to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), this five-story office building is home to more than 18,000 corporate entities, nearly half of which have U.S. ties.

In the past few years, the number of corporations flocking to places like the Cayman Islands to evade U.S. taxes has exploded. One of these companies, former Halliburton subsidiary KBR, has used offshore tax havens to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in federal taxes. To no one's surprise, instead of cracking down on KBR, the Bush administration has rewarded the company in April of this year with a 10-year, $150 billion contract in Iraq. More...

There appears to be no crisis, tragedy or disaster immune from exploitation under the Bush administration. The examples of the waste, fraud and abuse are legion -- from KBR performing shoddy electrical work in Iraq that has resulted in the electrocution of our military personnel according to Pentagon and Congressional investigators, to the firing of an Army official who dared to refuse a $1 billion payout for questionable charges to the same company. In another scam, the Pentagon awarded a $300 million contract to AEY, Inc., a company run by a 22-year-old who fulfilled an ammunition deal in Afghanistan by supplying rotting Chinese-made munitions to our allies.

But the fraud and waste are not limited to the war. In the weeks after Hurricane Katrina, for example, FEMA awarded a contract worth more than $500 million for trailers to serve as temporary housing. The contractor, Gulf Stream, collected all of its money even though they knew at the time that its trailers were contaminated with formaldehyde.

While touting fiscal responsibility, President Bush and his administration have lined the pockets of political cronies like Halliburton and Blackwater. While calling for earmark reform, the president has allowed no-bid and questionable contracting throughout the federal government to dwarf earmark spending by a 10-to-1 ratio.

If we're going to get serious about putting our nation's fiscal house in order, let's talk about putting an end to billions in no-bid contract awards to unaccountable contractors. Let's talk about the number of lucrative contracts and bonuses being paid for duties never performed, promises never fulfilled, and contracts falsely described as complete. And let's talk about reforming the federal contracting system so that we can take on the real waste, fraud and abuse in our federal government.

I've proposed a comprehensive overhaul to root out corruption in no-bid contracts and other shady deals. Reforms must include the following:

- Instead of rewarding companies that exploit tax shelters and incorporate in tax havens, let's ban the federal government from contracting with companies that hide profits offshore.

- We should put in place safeguards so that contracts are awarded to responsible companies that abide by the law and complete the work they're hired to do.

- Let's put a stop to the disgraceful practice of giving bonuses to contractors for work never performed, which has been allowed to happen in Iraq and throughout the federal government according to the GAO and inspectors general.

- We need to increase transparency and competition in the contracting system, and to stop the ideological privatization of critical governmental functions.

In 1941, as the U.S. mobilized and entered World War II, then Sen. Harry Truman proposed and chaired the Senate Special Committee to investigate the National Defense Program. Over the course of three years, Truman set about investigating a president of his own party in order to discover and eliminate wasteful and fraudulent spending. By some estimates, the "Truman Committee" saved the American people some $15 billion -- more than $165 billion in today's dollars.

Truman took on the war profiteers because he understood that when the lives of Americans hang in the balance, we cannot afford to misuse even a single dollar. In the Democratic Congress, we've proposed a new Truman Committee to address the waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan that has already taken place, a proposal stymied by the president and his allies. And my proposal would prevent waste, fraud and abuse in future contracting.

Of course, we need far more than a Truman Committee. We need the Truman spirit in the White House, where the buck finally stops.

SOURCE: online.wsj.com/article/SB121798030763715107.html

CLINTON DEMS.COM ACTION ALERT!

Dear Clinton Dem,

As you may be aware, John McCain has slipped ahead of Barack Obama in a few key polls. It is very unusual for this to be the case at this stage of a presidential campaign, and much more unusual in a year when it appeared all factors played into the hands of Democrats. A "generic" Democrat performs much better against McCain than Obama himself does.

Since we would like very much for the delegates to get a chance to see what a nomination for Hillary Clinton could bring to the party, we ask that you contact each of the polling organizations below and ask them to include Hillary Clinton's name in their polling data. More...

Dear Pollster X,

In light of Barack Obama's lagging performance in the polls against John McCain, and the fact that nearly 60% of Americans want a Democrat for president, I ask you to please place Hillary Clinton's name in your presidential polls from now until at least the convention.

There is currently no certified nominee. It is not too late for the party to re-evaluate (or validate) their choice with a viable comparision. Maybe it is time for the pulse of the American people to be taken again?

Hillary was ahead when the last polls like this were done soon after she suspended her campaign.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Your Name
Pollsters

Rasmussen Reports, LLC
Phone: 732-776-9777
Email: info@rasmussenreports.com

Quinnipiac University
CONTACT THE POLLING INSTITUTE
275 Mount Carmel Ave.
Hamden, CT 06518-1908
203-582-5201
pollinginstitute@quinnipiac.edu

Gallup
Sarah Van Allen
Phone: 877-242-5587
Alt: 202-715-3030
Fax: 202-715-3045
901 F Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20004
email: sarah_van_allen@gallup.com

QUICK LINKS:

Contact Delegates

Contact Howard Dean

Keep Fighting!

"Of course, we need far more than a Truman Committee. We need the Truman spirit in the White House, where the buck finally stops.''

~ Hillary Clinton

Obama Needs to Make Nice on All Sides

Great Article by Susan Estrich on how you don’t win by denouncing people on your own side (or even the other side), by questioning their motives, impugning their integrity, and making clear that there is no room for anyone who views this as a political contest rather than a test of faithMore...


Wednesday, July 30, 2008

By Susan Estrich

Spare me the true believers.

I don’t mean the people who support Barack Obama for president. I support Barack Obama for president. I mean the people who worship him to the point that anyone who says anything raising questions about the inevitability of his rise to sainthood, much less the perfection of him and his wife and his campaign, is deserving of damnation.

I wrote a column last week about how the Obama campaign needed to guard against the arrogance that many people tell me they have detected in dealing with them. I didn’t condemn the candidate. I didn’t say he doesn’t deserve to be president. I just made the point, which seems almost obvious to me, that he isn’t president yet, that even with the great speeches and adoring crowds he found abroad, the race remains very close, at least; that there is resistance in many quarters to his candidacy and while some of it may be race-based, some of it reflects legitimate questions about experience, and policy; and that whatever its basis, in the end it doesn’t matter if more people vote for McCain than for him.

“Heinous,” one woman wrote to me, in describing my thoughts, and me. Heinous? Oh, of course, and racist and stupid. Thanks. Such comments came not from conservatives who oppose Barack Obama but from true-believers who are ready to condemn anyone who has not joined the revival.

Hold on a minute.

I’ve been out there fighting to elect Democrats for the better part of three decades. I know what it’s like to win, and I know what it’s like to lose, and winning is definitely better. And believe me, you don’t win by denouncing people on your own side (or even the other side), by questioning their motives, impugning their integrity, and making clear that there is no room for anyone who views this as a political contest rather than a test of faith.

I agree with Michael Kinsley, who wrote a very smart column in Time Magazine two weeks ago saying that Hillary supporters and die-hard liberals need to stop criticizing Obama for moving to the middle, stop focusing on how Hillary was treated, or mistreated, in the primaries and caucuses, stop licking their wounds and get with the program. He’s right. But love is a two-way street. It’s also time to extend the welcome mat.

There are stories kicking around about how African-Americans in at least two states (South Carolina and New York itself) who supported Hillary Clinton ended up with primary opponents in their own races for re-election to punish them for being pro-Clinton. This is not the way to win. There are stories kicking around that the reason (or one of them) that the highly effective Hillraisers are not raising the kind of money for Obama that they raised for Clinton is because they have been told that no matter what they do, they will never be the “equal” of the Obama fundraisers.

Come again?

These are not people looking for government jobs. All they want is invitations to events and the trinkets and titles that prove they are part of the team, the sort of things that are easy to give and ridiculous to withhold. There are places for seniority systems, but campaigns aren’t among them.

I am happy to believe that Barack Obama himself has nothing to do with recruiting candidates to oppose former Hillary supporters or creating barriers to their full participation. I am happy to believe that he would be appalled if he read some of the e-mails I get when I write columns cautioning the campaing to avoid arrogance, taking on the attitude (that I am certainly not alone in perceiving) that Obama can’t lose and that anyone who so much as suggests that he might is a heretic deserving of condemnation. I am happy to believe that he does not share in the nastiness and invective that is still being heaped on Hillary and Bill Clinton by some who hold themselves out as members of Obama’s inner circle.

But it needs to stop, and he needs to make sure that it does.

Because of the way delegate selection works on the Democratic side, a process with which we all became intimately familiar during the long primary season, very close to half the delegates at the Demcoratic Convention will be there because they supported Hillary Clinton for president, not Barack Obama. From the media perspective, there is nothing better than a convention fight, than disgruntled delegates ready to go on the record, than delegates acting up and acting out at the expense of the nominee. From the candidate’s perspective, there is nothing worse.


As anyone who has ever polled the question of conventions will tell you, there is a widespread view among voters (as opposed to television producers) that discord is a sign of weakness; that if you can’t run (control) your convention, how can you run the country? Jimmy Carter almost certainly paid for the discord at the 1980 Convention, in which angry Kennedy supporters (I was just a kid at the time, what can I say?) took out their frustration at the campaign that had not only defeated us, but chose to “stomp on the grave,” as we call it in politics, in the months leading up to the convention.

We pressied for votes on dozens of minority reports and even interrupted their speakers with chants of “no, no, no.” Poor Andy Young. He had actually cleared his speech with Senator Kennedy himself. But my friend (and now federal judge) Rick Stearns and I didn’t know that when the grownups left us in charge of the boiler room; we decided that it would be an excellent opportunity to test out our communcations system, by asking all our delegates to stand up and chant, fists in the air. We timed how many seconds it took between our giving the order and the networks interrupting the speech to ask what was going on. Ninety second, the first time. "Will there be a walkout?," Walter Cronkhite asked. We told our delegates to sit down. Then we did it again. Cut 10 seconds off the time.

There was a reason, four years later, that Mondale went the extra mile to compromise with Jesse Jackson. He didn’t want a convention crack-up. Ditto for Dukakis, in 1988. Bill Clinton could never have done his Sister Souljah speech on the eve of the 1992 Convention had Jesse run that year. But he hadn’t, and the convention belonged to Clinton . George Bush paid dearly for the anger that was on display at the 1992 convention from the likes of his primary opponent, Pat Buchanan.

No candidate — in my memory, anyway — has gone into a convention with as many delegates pledged to his one-time opponent as Barack Obama will face in Denver in August. They may not be able to wrest the nomination away from him (I have no reason to believe they would even try), but if they don’t feel included, their exclusion could cost him dearly. It’s time to make nice, on all sides. Otherwise, John McCain will be the victor. And spare me the “heinous” e-mails for saying that. The truth may hurt, but believe me, losing hurts a whole lot more.

Susan Estrich is the Robert Kingsley Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California. She was Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and the first female president of the Harvard Law Review. She is a columnist for Creators Syndicate and has written for USA Today and the Los Angeles Times.

Estrich's books include the just published "Soulless," "The Case for Hillary Clinton," "How to Get Into Law School," "Sex & Power," "Real Rape," "Getting Away with Murder: How Politics Is Destroying the Criminal Justice System" and "Making the Case for Yourself: A Diet Book for Smart Women."

She served as campaign manager for Michael Dukakis' presidential bid, becoming the first woman to head a U.S. presidential campaign. Estrich appears regularly on the FOX News Channel, in addition to writing the "Blue Streak" column for FOXNews.com.

Bad Economy May Hurt Obama

By Dick Morris

The conventional wisdom has it down pat: A bad economy works against the candidate from the party in power as voters take out their rage and fear on the president’s party and back the challenger, just like they did in 1992. But this is not a normal economic slowdown (or recession) and Obama is not a normal challenger. I think the conventional wisdom may be dead wrong.More...

It is not so much that unemployment is so high (5.7 percent) or that the economy is in the tank (1 percent growth this quarter) as it is that everything seems to be falling apart. Banks are under assault; mortgages are in default; quasi-government agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac need bailouts; financial institutions go hat in hand to foreign sovereign wealth funds peddling shares of their equity in return for desperately needed cash; the cost of filling a gas tank has tripled. It is not the present circumstances that have voters freaked, it is the threats that seem to loom on the horizon.

And Obama is no ordinary challenger. Not like Bill Clinton, for example. In 1992, from the moment the campaign started, Clinton billed himself as the expert who could solve the economy’s problems. His promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the recession won him big points throughout the campaign. His 10-year record as a governor and his chairmanship of the National Governors Association bolstered his credentials. But we first met Barack Obama as an advocate of racial and partisan healing and then as an opponent of the war in Iraq. When he tried to morph into an economic expert in time for the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries, voters didn’t buy it and voted for Hillary.

So the question that hangs over the election is: Are we prepared to trust a new candidate with almost no experience and no claim to economic expertise in the middle of one of the most threatening economic situations we have ever faced?

Add to this backdrop Obama’s pledge to raise taxes and you have a combustible situation that could frighten American voters en masse. When, amid relative prosperity, Obama said he would restore fairness by raising taxes on the rich, it was well-received, particularly in the Democratic primary.

Raising the top bracket to 40 percent seemed a no-brainer. Applying the Social Security tax to more earned income, not just to the first $100,000, seemed like elemental fairness and a good way to save the pension system. Restoring the capital gains tax to 28 percent appeared to comport with the notion that those whose income derives from investment should pay a tax closer to that paid on earned income (despite the argument that it is after-tax money that they invested in the first place).

But now, with massive capital outflows crippling the public and private sectors, doubling the tax on capital seems like a very, very bad idea. And a sharp increase in taxes on the entrepreneurial class seems like a risky proposition.

And, besides, when a candidate starts raising taxes, who knows where he will stop once he is in office?

McCain can put economist after economist on the air to prophesy depression if Obama’s plan for taxes is enacted. And the public will not be reassured by the Democrat’s claims that his tax hikes are only on the rich.

It almost doesn’t matter that McCain is not an economist and avows ignorance of what Thomas Carlyle called the “dismal science.” We know McCain. We know he will surround himself with some pretty capable people. And, above all, we know that he won’t raise taxes.

Were these calmer times, with less of a threat from abroad and less economic danger, we might indulge our penchant for change and elect a neophyte in the hope that he will offer something different. We might be more easily captivated by his charisma. But, in these times, we may want to stay with the safer candidate.

Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) on Obama’s Vote for the Bush-Cheney Energy Policy — Let’s Play Dodgeball

August 5th, 2008 4:32 pm

Poor, poor Allyson Schwartz, a Democratic Congresswoman from Pennsylvania, who today was embarrassed on national television by MSNBC’s David Schuster who asked in the wake of Obama’s attacks on the Bush-Cheney Energy Policy:

Didn’t Barack Obama vote for the 2005 Bush-Cheney energy bill?More...

At first she dodged the question and tried the valiant, let’s not talk about that, let’s talk about this tactic. Schuster would have none of it and persisted. To which, the idiotic Congresswoman from Pennsylvania could only say that David Schuster would have to ask the Obama campaign. Really? So either she didn’t know or she was too embarrassed to admit the awful truth and hypocrisy of Obama’s energy attacks.

Allow me then, Congresswoman, to inform you that Senator Obama voted for the 2005 Energy Bill, written in secret by Vice President Cheney and the energy lobby. Thomas Friedman referred to the bill as “the sum of all lobbies.” U.S. PIRG noted that the bill’s “heavy tilt toward big oil companies reflects the influence of Exxon Mobil and other oil companies on policy-makers in Washington, DC.”

The Washington Post editorialized that the bill was a “piñata of perks for energy industries.” Indeed, the bill contained $6 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry and $12 billion to the nuclear power industry.

Although Sen. Obama voted for the legislation, he has spoken as if he opposed it on the campaign trail, criticizing it repeatedly. At a presidential debate he said “You can look at how Dick Cheney did his energy policy . . . he met with oil and gas companies forty times, and that’s how they put together our energy policy.” He attributes the failure of our current energy policy to Congress’s “failure to stand up to the lobbyists.” Actually Barack, I attribute the failure of current energy policy to shameless politicians like you and Dick Durbin who crossed the aisle to vote the most egregious give-away since the 1872 Mining Law.

Here’s the transcript of Schuster’s grilling of Allyson Schwartz:

DAVID SHUSTER: Congresswoman, during the event in Ohio today, Barack Obama attacked the Bush-Cheney energy policy. But didn’t Barack Obama vote for the 2005 Bush-Cheney energy bill?

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ: Well let’s talk about what John McCain’s been saying, and John McCain was in Pennsylvania just yesterday and really had very little to say about doing anything differently than the Bush administration’s been doing for years.

SHUSTER: Congresswoman, I’m happy to talk about that, but just a yes or no question: didn’t Barack Obama vote for the 2005 Bush-Cheney energy bill?

SCHWARTZ: Well, I think, you know, we have to go back and, and check on that. I’m sure the campaign can give you the specifics on, uh, exactly what, uh, was done.

Allyson Schwartz, I think your television career, hapless as it was, as a surrogate is over.

You can view the exchange in all its fluttering glory on here. It’s must see television as they say. You can actually see her panic when her attempt to play dodgeball failed. She looks up to the side and you can see her wonder “what do I say next?” In this case, shamelessly Allyson Schwartz chose to dodge again and pass the buck. She chose to omit the truth. Obama voted for the Bush-Cheney Energy Policy. John McCain did not. And it matters, neither did Hillary Clinton.

John McCain is now trusted more than Barack Obama on nine out of 14 electoral issues

Tuesday, August 05, 2008

The latest national telephone surveys find that McCain has the biggest advantage on the war in Iraq, by a 51% to 39% margin.

Perhaps the most interesting finding of these polls is that McCain has expanded his leads on nearly every issue he had previously had the advantage on, while Obama’s leads have diminished over the past two weeks.More...

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows the race for the White House is very close. The results are consistent with results from the past couple of weeks showing a race that is essentially even as the convention season approaches (see recent daily results).

In the new survey, McCain has tripled his lead on the topic of immigration. He now has a 45% to 36% advantage over his Democratic opponent, up from a three-point lead two weeks ago.

The Republican also has pulled ahead on the issue of balancing the federal budget. Two weeks ago, the candidates were tied on this issue at 40%. McCain now has a 43% to 40% lead on the issue among voters.

McCain used to be behind on the issue of Social Security but has pulled ahead of Obama for a 44% to 38% lead.

On issues that Obama has previously enjoyed huge advantages, such as health care and education, his leads have decreased. On health care, Obama leads 46% to 41%, down from a 12 percentage-point lead just two weeks ago. On education, Obama leads 43% to 39%, down from a 10-point lead two weeks ago. On environmental issues, Obama’s advantage over McCain has gone from 14 percentage points down to eight this week.

The economy is the top issue for the majority of voters this election season. Voters have consistently trusted the Democratic Party more on this issue, but the two presidential candidates are tied at 45% as to who voters trust more. A week prior, Obama had a statistically insignificant one percentage point lead on the issue.

On national security, an issue that McCain consistently performs well on, the Republican leads 52% to 40%. His lead represents an improvement from the eight-point lead he held the week before.

A poll released this week finds that over half of voters support Obama’s proposal to provide working families with energy credits but aren’t sure about his idea of taxing big oil companies. When asked who voters trust more when it comes to energy issues, voters choose McCain by a 46% to 42% margin.

When it comes to government ethics and corruption, Obama has a 46% to 44% advantage. A separate survey finds that the Democratic Party is trusted more on this issue by a 40% to 29% margin.

See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs for Obama/McCain Trust on Issues I and Issues II available for Premium Members only.