http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvO1xELHp3k
I think this is a strong ad. A lot of Republicans are looking for a voice of true moral decency. They're tired of the excesses of the Bush-Clinton-Bush years, and they see in Sen. Obama a person of integrity and vision. Thank you Sen. Obama!
This American Life did a great radioshow on the subprime mess.
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Archive.aspx
This show should be required listening to all politically engaged Americans.
Still inspirational!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE1TeP4NZR0&feature=related
From the Atlantic blog Conservative, Meet Liberal06 May 2008 01:30 pm Barack Obama's campaign responds to McCain's speech on judges: “The Straight Talk Express took another sharp right turn today as John McCain promised his conservative base four more years of out-of-touch judges that would threaten a woman’s right to choose, gut the campaign finance reform that bears his own name, and trample the rights and interests of the American people. Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.” So: it seems that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain is willing to broaden the debate about judges and the judiciary in this country. [I agree with conservative Catholic, Doug Kmiec, that there is more substance and thoughtfulness to Obama than this passage suggests Kmiec, a Reagan Administration lawyer, now Professor of Law and Pepperdine University, where Ken Starr is Dean, has endorsed Sen. Obama] BTW: here's the list of McCain's Justice Advisory Panel. As with his economic policy team, this seems to be a real grab-bag approach. It's a combination of social conservatives, Catholic natural law types, law-and-order people, and libertarians. Any list that includes both Robert George and Eugene Volokh is necessarily eclectic. Chairs Of The Justice Advisory Committee: • Theodore B. Olson -- former Solicitor General of the United States • Senator Sam Brownback -- United States Senator, Kansas Steering Committee • Michael Abramowicz -- Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School • Hon. William P. Barr -- former Attorney General of the United States • Gerard V. Bradley -- Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School • Rachel Brand -- former Assistant Attorney General for Office of Legal Policy – Ex-Bushie, much involved in the contentious debates and controversies of the time. • Steven Calabresi -- George C. Dix Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law • Dean Ronald A. Cass -- Chairman, Center for the Rule of Law; Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law • Senator Daniel Coats -- former United States Senator, Indiana – • Manus M. Cooney -- former Chief Counsel and Staff Director, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary • Charles J. Cooper -- former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel • Arthur B. Culvahouse, Jr. -- former White House Counsel to President Ronald Reagan • Carol E. Dinkins -- Partner, Vinson & Elkins • John F. Duffy -- Oswald Symister Colclough Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School • Miguel A. Estrada -- former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States • Charles Fried -- Beneficial Profes sor of Law, Harvard Law School; former Solicitor General of the United States • Sandra S. Froman -- Arizona attorney • Richard W. Garnett -- Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School • Robert P. George -- McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University • Senator Lindsey Graham -- United States Senator, South Carolina • Senator Phil Gramm -- former United States Senator, Texas • Governor Frank Keating -- former Governor of Oklahoma • Orin S. Kerr -- Professor, George Washington Universit y Law School • Senator Jon Kyl -- United States Senator, Arizona • Christopher Landau -- Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP • Senator Trent Lott -- former United States Senator, Mississippi • Randy Mastro -- former Deputy Mayor of New York City • John O. McGinnis -- Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law • Maureen E. Mahoney -- former Deputy Solicitor General of the Unites States • Thomas W. Merrill -- Charles Keller Beekman Professor, Columbia Law School • Marc L. Mukasey -- Partner, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP ; former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York • Caleb Nelson -- Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law • Eileen J. O'Connor -- former Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division, U.S. Department of Justice • Hon. Thomas R. Phillips -- former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas • Edward R. Reines -- Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP • Kristi L. Remington -- former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Policy • Professor Daniel B. Rodriguez -- Minerva House Drysdale Regents Chair in Law, The University of Texas at Austin Scho ol of Law • Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz -- Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center • Ronald D. Rotunda -- University Professor and Professor of Law, George Mason University • Cathy Cleaver Ruse -- Senior Fellow for Legal Studies at the Family Research Council; Governor, Ave Maria School of Law • Peter B. Rutledge -- Associate Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law • Jon A. Sale -- former federal prosecutor for NY and Miami; former law professor, Nova Southeastern and St. Thomas • John Smietanka -- former U.S. attorney • Stephen F. Smith -- Professor of Law, John V. Ray Research Professor, University of Virginia School of Law • George J. Terwilliger, III -- former Deputy Attorney General of the United States • Senator Fred Thompson -- former United States Senator, Tennessee • Eugene Volokh -- Gary T. Swartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law – Volokh Conspirator number one! • Dan K. Webb -- Chairman, Winston & Strawn; former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois[This list of notable legal "scholars" is enough to motivate any Obama supporter! Sen. Obama's legal erudition surpasses that of most members of the McCain Judicial Committee.] Permalink :: TrackBacks (0) :: Share This var addthis_pub = 'QQ1EPAI6Z0QTZVGS'; TrackBackTrackBack URL for this entry:http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/21184
Conservative, Meet Liberal
06 May 2008 01:30 pm
Barack Obama's campaign responds to McCain's speech on judges:
“The Straight Talk Express took another sharp right turn today as John McCain promised his conservative base four more years of out-of-touch judges that would threaten a woman’s right to choose, gut the campaign finance reform that bears his own name, and trample the rights and interests of the American people. Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.”
So: it seems that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain is willing to broaden the debate about judges and the judiciary in this country. [I agree with conservative Catholic, Doug Kmiec, that there is more substance and thoughtfulness to Obama than this passage suggests Kmiec, a Reagan Administration lawyer, now Professor of Law and Pepperdine University, where Ken Starr is Dean, has endorsed Sen. Obama]
BTW: here's the list of McCain's Justice Advisory Panel. As with his economic policy team, this seems to be a real grab-bag approach. It's a combination of social conservatives, Catholic natural law types, law-and-order people, and libertarians. Any list that includes both Robert George and Eugene Volokh is necessarily eclectic.
Chairs Of The Justice Advisory Committee: • Theodore B. Olson -- former Solicitor General of the United States • Senator Sam Brownback -- United States Senator, Kansas Steering Committee • Michael Abramowicz -- Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School • Hon. William P. Barr -- former Attorney General of the United States • Gerard V. Bradley -- Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School • Rachel Brand -- former Assistant Attorney General for Office of Legal Policy – Ex-Bushie, much involved in the contentious debates and controversies of the time. • Steven Calabresi -- George C. Dix Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law • Dean Ronald A. Cass -- Chairman, Center for the Rule of Law; Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law • Senator Daniel Coats -- former United States Senator, Indiana – • Manus M. Cooney -- former Chief Counsel and Staff Director, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary • Charles J. Cooper -- former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel • Arthur B. Culvahouse, Jr. -- former White House Counsel to President Ronald Reagan • Carol E. Dinkins -- Partner, Vinson & Elkins • John F. Duffy -- Oswald Symister Colclough Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School • Miguel A. Estrada -- former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States • Charles Fried -- Beneficial Profes sor of Law, Harvard Law School; former Solicitor General of the United States • Sandra S. Froman -- Arizona attorney • Richard W. Garnett -- Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School • Robert P. George -- McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University • Senator Lindsey Graham -- United States Senator, South Carolina • Senator Phil Gramm -- former United States Senator, Texas • Governor Frank Keating -- former Governor of Oklahoma • Orin S. Kerr -- Professor, George Washington Universit y Law School • Senator Jon Kyl -- United States Senator, Arizona • Christopher Landau -- Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP • Senator Trent Lott -- former United States Senator, Mississippi • Randy Mastro -- former Deputy Mayor of New York City • John O. McGinnis -- Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law • Maureen E. Mahoney -- former Deputy Solicitor General of the Unites States • Thomas W. Merrill -- Charles Keller Beekman Professor, Columbia Law School • Marc L. Mukasey -- Partner, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP ; former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York • Caleb Nelson -- Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law • Eileen J. O'Connor -- former Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division, U.S. Department of Justice • Hon. Thomas R. Phillips -- former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas • Edward R. Reines -- Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP • Kristi L. Remington -- former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Policy • Professor Daniel B. Rodriguez -- Minerva House Drysdale Regents Chair in Law, The University of Texas at Austin Scho ol of Law • Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz -- Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center • Ronald D. Rotunda -- University Professor and Professor of Law, George Mason University • Cathy Cleaver Ruse -- Senior Fellow for Legal Studies at the Family Research Council; Governor, Ave Maria School of Law • Peter B. Rutledge -- Associate Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law • Jon A. Sale -- former federal prosecutor for NY and Miami; former law professor, Nova Southeastern and St. Thomas • John Smietanka -- former U.S. attorney • Stephen F. Smith -- Professor of Law, John V. Ray Research Professor, University of Virginia School of Law • George J. Terwilliger, III -- former Deputy Attorney General of the United States • Senator Fred Thompson -- former United States Senator, Tennessee • Eugene Volokh -- Gary T. Swartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law – Volokh Conspirator number one! • Dan K. Webb -- Chairman, Winston & Strawn; former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois
Permalink :: TrackBacks (0) ::
Share This var addthis_pub = 'QQ1EPAI6Z0QTZVGS';
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/21184
As a former Theo-con, I think that Sullivan is right on point.
07 May 2008 04:06 pmDouglas Kmiec is the exception. There's a campaign among some of the most vocal theocons to describe Obama as unacceptable to Catholic voters. K-Lo, cocooned among the far right, just assumes that no Catholic nun can be a Democrat. Bill Donahue - surprise! - has been venting the meme here and here. Catholics United hits back here. Obama has been gaining - just a little - with Catholics. But he has a lot more work to do. My sense is that the better they know him, the more they'll be open to giving him a chance.Permalink :: Trackback (0) :: Sphere It!
07 May 2008 04:06 pm
Douglas Kmiec is the exception. There's a campaign among some of the most vocal theocons to describe Obama as unacceptable to Catholic voters. K-Lo, cocooned among the far right, just assumes that no Catholic nun can be a Democrat. Bill Donahue - surprise! - has been venting the meme here and here. Catholics United hits back here. Obama has been gaining - just a little - with Catholics. But he has a lot more work to do. My sense is that the better they know him, the more they'll be open to giving him a chance.
Permalink :: Trackback (0) :: Sphere It!
I hope that Catholic voters will take the lead from Notre Dame, which must have been soildly behind Obama. The Theo-cons do not have the intellectual substance to stand up to scrutiny.
Catholic Online
"To some of my fellow Catholics, Senator Obama's answers on abortion make him categorically unacceptable. I understand that view, respect it, but find it prudentially the second-best answer in 2008."
All Things Considered, May 1, 2008 · Thousands of North Carolina residents answered their telephones last week to hear this message, delivered in a deep, soothing voice: "Hello. This is Lamont Williams. In the next few days, you will receive a voter registration packet in the mail. All you need to do is fill it out, sign it, date and return the application. Then you will be able to vote and make your voice heard. Please return your registration form when it arrives. Thank you." In fact, the deadline to register for the May 6 Democratic presidential primary had already passed. The robo-call went to many registered voters who were expecting to vote that day. The call and follow-up mailings left many wondering whether they were registered for the primary or not. This sounds like a classic example of voter suppression — sowing confusion in order to drive down turn-out. The calls seemed to be aimed at African-American communities, places where Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is expected to run well ahead of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. But the group behind the calls isn't partisan Republican or ideologically conservative. It's Women's Voices Women Vote, a 501(c)(3) charity that states its mission as registering single women to vote. The robo-calls seem completely at odds with the group's usual, upbeat message. In one of the group's public service announcements, the actress Julia Louis Dreyfus strolls thru a replica of the Oval Office and fantasizes about women electing a woman president. Women's Voices, Women Vote did not make anyone available for comment on Wednesday or Thursday. Just a week ago, the group's founder, Page Gardner, contacted the North Carolina Board of Elections to let them know about the mailing. She noted that the Women's Voices packet, which she said was intended to boost registration in general, would arrive in mailboxes just before the primary. Gardner wrote: "We hope this unfortunate coincidence in timing does not lead to any confusion or aggravation for either your state's voters or registrars."Group's Ties to the Democratic Candidates Will Evans of the Center for Investigative Reporting , who collaborated in reporting this story, found some Obama backers among the Women's Voices leadership, but the group mostly has ties to Clinton and her campaign. Gardner worked on former President Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. Board member John Podesta was President Clinton's chief-of-staff. Maggie Williams, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, used to be on the Women's Voices leadership team and did consulting work for the group. Chris Kromm, director of the Institute for Southern Studies, in Durham, N.C., says there's no hard evidence that the robo-calls were meant to suppress the pro-Obama vote. "We can't show that there's any formal or direct connection," he says. Investigating the Origin of the Robo-Calls The Institute for Southern Studies began investigating after receiving complaints about the robo-calls. The institute traced the calls to Women's Voices, which has acknowledged responsibility.
All Things Considered, May 1, 2008 · Thousands of North Carolina residents answered their telephones last week to hear this message, delivered in a deep, soothing voice:
"Hello. This is Lamont Williams. In the next few days, you will receive a voter registration packet in the mail. All you need to do is fill it out, sign it, date and return the application. Then you will be able to vote and make your voice heard. Please return your registration form when it arrives. Thank you."
In fact, the deadline to register for the May 6 Democratic presidential primary had already passed. The robo-call went to many registered voters who were expecting to vote that day. The call and follow-up mailings left many wondering whether they were registered for the primary or not.
This sounds like a classic example of voter suppression — sowing confusion in order to drive down turn-out. The calls seemed to be aimed at African-American communities, places where Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is expected to run well ahead of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.
But the group behind the calls isn't partisan Republican or ideologically conservative. It's Women's Voices Women Vote, a 501(c)(3) charity that states its mission as registering single women to vote. The robo-calls seem completely at odds with the group's usual, upbeat message. In one of the group's public service announcements, the actress Julia Louis Dreyfus strolls thru a replica of the Oval Office and fantasizes about women electing a woman president.
Women's Voices, Women Vote did not make anyone available for comment on Wednesday or Thursday.
Just a week ago, the group's founder, Page Gardner, contacted the North Carolina Board of Elections to let them know about the mailing. She noted that the Women's Voices packet, which she said was intended to boost registration in general, would arrive in mailboxes just before the primary. Gardner wrote: "We hope this unfortunate coincidence in timing does not lead to any confusion or aggravation for either your state's voters or registrars."
Group's Ties to the Democratic Candidates
Will Evans of the Center for Investigative Reporting , who collaborated in reporting this story, found some Obama backers among the Women's Voices leadership, but the group mostly has ties to Clinton and her campaign. Gardner worked on former President Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. Board member John Podesta was President Clinton's chief-of-staff. Maggie Williams, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, used to be on the Women's Voices leadership team and did consulting work for the group.
Chris Kromm, director of the Institute for Southern Studies, in Durham, N.C., says there's no hard evidence that the robo-calls were meant to suppress the pro-Obama vote. "We can't show that there's any formal or direct connection," he says.
Investigating the Origin of the Robo-Calls
The Institute for Southern Studies began investigating after receiving complaints about the robo-calls. The institute traced the calls to Women's Voices, which has acknowledged responsibility.
The Institute turned up other complaints about the group as well, in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. A "Lamont Williams" robo-call similar to North Carolina's ran in Ohio last fall. In Virginia, robo-calls days before the February primary caused voters to flood the board of elections with phone calls, in turn triggering an investigation by the state police. Kromm says this shows at least five months of a "deceptive tactic, illegal in many states." He notes, "Each time this group is criticized for this activity, they apologize for the confusion." The North Carolina attorney general says the robo-calls are illegal. State law requires that automated phone calls identify the sponsoring group and give the recipient a phone number or other means of contacting the group. The Lamont Williams call did neither. Gardner told the North Carolina elections board that the follow-up mailing would go to 276,118 women. Now, the fair-elections group Democracy North Carolina is working with Women's Voices to pull back as many of those mailers as possible.
The Institute turned up other complaints about the group as well, in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. A "Lamont Williams" robo-call similar to North Carolina's ran in Ohio last fall. In Virginia, robo-calls days before the February primary caused voters to flood the board of elections with phone calls, in turn triggering an investigation by the state police.
Kromm says this shows at least five months of a "deceptive tactic, illegal in many states." He notes, "Each time this group is criticized for this activity, they apologize for the confusion."
The North Carolina attorney general says the robo-calls are illegal. State law requires that automated phone calls identify the sponsoring group and give the recipient a phone number or other means of contacting the group. The Lamont Williams call did neither.
Gardner told the North Carolina elections board that the follow-up mailing would go to 276,118 women. Now, the fair-elections group Democracy North Carolina is working with Women's Voices to pull back as many of those mailers as possible.
The argument is that life-taking of the innocent is the deepest moral evil. But pro-choice politicians don't actually engage in abortion and if they do not vote for public funding, the culpability is indirect. But being a member of a government that tortures amounts to direct complicity in an absolute moral evil; similarly waging pre-emptive war that violates just war doctrine. I'd say that from a Catholic viewpoint, many men in the Bush administration would be far less fit for communion than John Kerry ever was. But that just reinforces to me the need for the Church to treat individual human beings pastorally, not politically. We cannot and should not judge from an abstract distance. Theocons, eager to use the church for their own social agenda, don't agree.
Here's another reason that I have no respect for Dick Morris
Does Hillary Clinton really believe she can overtake Barack Obama among elected delegates? No way. The math is dead against her and she’s a realist. Even after Pennsylvania, Obama still leads by more than 140 in elected delegates. They’ll likely break even in Indiana and he’ll win North Carolina where one third of the vote is African-American. After that? If she wins Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico by 15 points and they break about even in Guam, North Dakota, Montana, and Oregon, she’ll still trail him by at least 130 votes among elected delegates.Does she believe she can persuade super delegates to vote for her? Again, probably not. Obama has steadily eroded her edge among super delegates and now they are almost tied among committed super delegates. And the prevailing sentiment among those that remain is not to overturn the will of the voters.
Does Hillary Clinton really believe she can overtake Barack Obama among elected delegates? No way. The math is dead against her and she’s a realist. Even after Pennsylvania, Obama still leads by more than 140 in elected delegates. They’ll likely break even in Indiana and he’ll win North Carolina where one third of the vote is African-American. After that? If she wins Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico by 15 points and they break about even in Guam, North Dakota, Montana, and Oregon, she’ll still trail him by at least 130 votes among elected delegates.
Does she believe she can persuade super delegates to vote for her? Again, probably not. Obama has steadily eroded her edge among super delegates and now they are almost tied among committed super delegates. And the prevailing sentiment among those that remain is not to overturn the will of the voters.
Thank you for treating the American peopla as adults, Sen.Obama!
E.J. Dionne writes in the New Republic:
Among white Catholics in Pennsylvania, Clinton received 72 percent of the vote, 9 points better than her share among whites as a whole and 13 points better than her performance among white Protestants.Some of the differences can be explained by the fact that self-identified Pennsylvania Catholics were older than other voters-and older white voters have been at the core of Clinton's base. Among voters under 45, by contrast, the differences between white Catholics and white Protestants were negligible.Nonetheless, older white Catholics were decidedly more resistant to Obama than other older whites. Even as Pennsylvania's votes were being counted, a top Clinton campaign official was touting the extensive work Clinton had done to woo Catholics.He spoke of campaigning by nuns around the state, a special "Catholic conversation" hosted by some of Clinton's prominent Catholic supporters just before CNN's "Compassion Forum," and even of the fact that Chelsea Clinton had attended Mass at St. Christopher's parish in northeast Philadelphia with Catholic supporters.The Obama campaign was slower in organizing Catholics, but earlier this month announced the formation of a Catholic "advisory council" whose ranks include Sharon Daly, a former top official at Catholic Charities USA, and Mary Jo Bane, who served in the Department of Health and Human Services in Bill Clinton's administration. Since Catholics have a history of backing the ultimately victorious presidential candidate, the struggle over Catholic voters will be closely tied to arguments with superdelegates over whether Clinton or Obama is the more electable Democrat.
Some of the differences can be explained by the fact that self-identified Pennsylvania Catholics were older than other voters-and older white voters have been at the core of Clinton's base. Among voters under 45, by contrast, the differences between white Catholics and white Protestants were negligible.
Nonetheless, older white Catholics were decidedly more resistant to Obama than other older whites. Even as Pennsylvania's votes were being counted, a top Clinton campaign official was touting the extensive work Clinton had done to woo Catholics.
He spoke of campaigning by nuns around the state, a special "Catholic conversation" hosted by some of Clinton's prominent Catholic supporters just before CNN's "Compassion Forum," and even of the fact that Chelsea Clinton had attended Mass at St. Christopher's parish in northeast Philadelphia with Catholic supporters.
The Obama campaign was slower in organizing Catholics, but earlier this month announced the formation of a Catholic "advisory council" whose ranks include Sharon Daly, a former top official at Catholic Charities USA, and Mary Jo Bane, who served in the Department of Health and Human Services in Bill Clinton's administration. Since Catholics have a history of backing the ultimately victorious presidential candidate, the struggle over Catholic voters will be closely tied to arguments with superdelegates over whether Clinton or Obama is the more electable Democrat.
The Pennsylvania Catholic vote is complex. It seems that pre-Vatican II regular church attending Catholics strongly support Sen. Clinton.
Andrew Sullivan writes
The whole Clinton marital soap opera, obviously off limits within the Democratic fold, will offer ample material for what Obama calls “distractions.” To take the most obvious example, the former President’s social life since leaving the White House will become, if not “fair game,” big game—and some of these right-wing dirtbags are already hiring bearers and trying on pith helmets for the safari.
Thank you Sen. Obama for campaigning like an adult and respecting the American political process.
Of the many ludicrous political discussions of the last six months, the most ludicrous may well be the discussion of the alleged association between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, former member of the Weather Underground.
Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, have lived in the Hyde Park area in Chicago. So has Barack Obama. (So have I.) If you lived in Hyde Park for (say) a decade, there was a good chance that you'd run across Ayers, and maybe even be at a social occasion with him. And if you were a social person, or someone who was running for political office, you would meet a lot of people, and it's pretty likely that you would run across Ayers, or be at some social occasion with him.
Ayers is one of numerous people, in the Chicago area, whom Barack Obama has run across. Obama has much closer relationships with numerous conservatives on the University of Chicago faculty, many of whom have given money to Obama's campaign, and many of whom have talked to him at length and been at social occasions with him.
I know for a fact that Obama has actually played basketball with Richard Epstein, a libertarian on the law school faculty who has written some pretty controversial things on property rights and government regulation. I also know that Obama has had a number of conversations with former law school dean Daniel Fischel, a Reagan Republican who has written some pretty controversial things on corporations and government regulation.
True, Ayers apparently had a small party for Obama back in 1995; true, Ayers gave some small sum of money to one of Obama's campaigns; and true, Ayers and Obama simultaneously served, for a time, on a board of a local organization, the Woods Fund, which helps disadvantaged children. But there was nothing even vaguely like a close relationship between them; and it would be easy to identify countless people, since 1995, with whom Obama has had much closer associations.
Of course many legitimate questions can be raised about any candidate for public office. But it is a gross understatement to say that the alleged Ayers-Obama association is not one of them.
--Cass Sunstein
New Republic
All campaigns spin. All candidates spin. But there is something about Clintonian spin that is...well, spinnier than conventional spin.
Here's an example. Last Thursday, following the mis-moderated Clinton-Obama debate of the previous evening, the Hillary Clinton campaign decided to follow up by blasting Barack Obama on two issues that had been tossed at him the previous evening: his past support of a handgun ban and his connection to William Ayers, a former Weather Underground radical who has become a distinguished professor and education expert. During a conference call that morning, Howard Wolfson and Phil Singer, two senior Clinton aides, hammered Obama for having held a fundraiser in 1995, during his first campaign for state senator, in Ayers' apartment. At the time, Ayers, who has admitted taking part in bombings during the 1970s (which never caused any loss of life) and who was never arrested for any of his radical actions, lived near Obama, and the two served on the board of a nonprofit that provided grants to groups working on poverty issues. Obama, Wolfson insisted, had "to be more forthcoming" about Ayers.
During that conference call, I asked Wolfson whether Senator Clinton supported the pardon Bill Clinton issued in 2001 to two Weather Underground radicals: Linda Evans, who was sentenced to prison for participating in a series of bombings in the 1980s, and Susan Rosenberg, who was charged with being part of a bank robbery that left a guard and two police officers dead. Whether or not the Ayers matter was a non-issue, if Hillary Clinton's aides were going to bash Obama for having once had a connection to a former radical who had never been arrested, it seemed fair to wonder if she had opposed her husband's pardons of two radicals who had served time for their crimes.
Wolfson did not answer the question. Instead, he noted that the pardoned Weather Underground radicals had never held a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. I pointed out that was not the issue--and again asked if Senator Clinton supported or opposed those two pardons. "I don't know what she said," Wolfson replied. And in front of the dozens of reporters on the call, Wolfson promised he would get back to me.
Once the call was done, I emailed Wolfson a reminder that he had promised he would provide an answer to that question. Within minutes, he responded, "It was a fair question and I know this issue does inspire a fair amount of passion." There was no answer in this email.
I waited patiently for a day and then shot Wolfson another note: "Any answer to my question from yesterday?" He replied, "turns out i actually answered this in '01." And he sent me an excerpt from a news story at the time of the pardons:
"She thinks that it was a pardon made by the president," said spokesman Howard Wolfson. Wolfson provided the same response to questions about her view of the pardon of former Weather Underground radical Susan Rosenberg, serving a 58-year weapons-possession sentence and long suspected by law-enforcement officials of involvement in the 1981 Brink's truck robbery in which two New York police officers were killed. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has criticized that pardon.
Consider Wolfson's reply: She thinks it was a pardon made by the president. It's close to a non sequitur. Imagine if you asked Hillary Clinton what she thought of her husband's affair with an intern, and her spokesperson said, "She thinks that it was an affair."
Did Wolfson believe he could get away with pretending this was actually responsive to the question of whether Clinton supported or opposed those two pardons? Meanwhile, other reporters--and Obama aides--were asking me if Wolfson had yet provided an answer.
In an email to Wolfson, I noted that the quote he had sent did not answer the question. "The question is," I wrote, "does she believe the pardons were appropriate? And at the time, did she support or oppose them?" In return, there was silence. I waited a bit and sent another email: "Am I going to get a reply to my last note?" Nothing came.
On Monday morning, during a Clinton campaign conference call, I asked Wolfson once more if Clinton supported or opposed the pardons. He remarked that he had sent me that clip. I pointed out that it had said nothing. He then commented, "I'm not aware she had an opinion" at the time the pardons were granted. He next insisted that my question had only applied to that time frame. It certainly had not. In the first call, I had asked "whether she thought [the pardons] were appropriate" and "what she thinks of" the pardons. (Note the verb tenses.) I also had asked whether she would "do anything like that herself." But now I said I would amend the question to cover then, now, and any time in between. He replied, "I don't have any more for you than what I've given you." That is, more nothing.
Clinton's pardons for these two radicals--like Ayers' relation to Obama--is no big issue. But Wolfson had promised an answer. Instead, he sidestepped and then ducked. Wolfson makes about $450,000 a year working for the Clinton campaign. I suppose evading questions is part of the job. But absurd spin? She thinks the pardon is a pardon. Mischaracterizing questions to avoid answering them? If this is how Wolfson handles this not-so-tough question, what would he do as White House press secretary?
MotherJones Blog
NPR opines that its over for Sen. Clinton if she doesn't win big in PA.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89794414&ft=1&f=1014
National Co-Chairs
Frank Schaefer is an icon among Evangelical Pro-life activists. His endorsement of Sen. Obama shows dramatically the potential of this campaign to move beyond the politics of division and hate. The critical passage from the endorsement:
"The real solution to abortion is to change the heart of America, not the law. We need to stop seeing ourselves as consumers. We need to stop seeing ourselves as me and begin to think of we. Our country needs someone to show us a better way, a president who is what he seems, someone with actual moral authority that our diverse population can believe in who has the qualities that make us want to follow him. Obama is that person."
