It's the "Line of the night" at O'Reilly's page over at FOX:
"Obama's a tough guy... I looked at him eye to eye. He's not a wimp."
O'Reilly must have been VERY impressed before admitting this.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/palin-the-real-scandal-920803.html
By Leonard Doyle in Anchorage Saturday, 6 September 2008
Seen from the air, Sarah Palin's state is an environmental wonderland. From Anchorage to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, there is a vast landscape of snow-capped peaks, fjords, crystal glaciers, coastal lagoons, wide river deltas and tundra.
The guardian of this wilderness – and Governor of Alaska – has, this week, become one of the most recognisable faces in the world. But behind her beaming smile and wholesome family values is a woman aligned with the big oil and coal firms that are racing to exploit Alaska's vast energy reserves. In the short term, that has bought her popularity at home.
"I love the woman," the pilot on our flight shouts over the noise of the engine, "especially what she wants to do with oil, we just have to drill more, there is no alternative. What's the point of leaving it all in the ground?"
It is a stance that guaranteed John McCain's new running mate a rapturous reception at the Republican convention this week where the response to the coming energy crisis was a chant of "drill, baby, drill".
But the woman who could soon be a 72-year-old's heartbeat away from the United States presidency has an environmental policy so toxic it would make the incumbent, George Bush, blush.
Mr McCain has stressed he is concerned about global warming and has come out against drilling in the Arctic reserve. But, in recent weeks, he has wobbled on the issue. And environmentalists are describing Mrs Palin, who denies climate change is man-made, as "either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading".
She wants to start drilling. She wants to block US moves to list the polar bear as an endangered species. And she has allowed big game hunters to shoot Alaska's bears and wolves from low-flying planes.
The 44-year-old governor says a federal government decision to protect the polar bear will cripple energy development offshore. As a result, she is suing the Bush administration, which ruled the polar bear is endangered and needs protection.
The US Geological Survey says climate change has shrunk Arctic summer sea ice to about 1.65 million sq miles, nearly 40 per cent less than the long-term average between 1979 and 2000.
In such a situation it was unconscionable for Governor Palin to ignore overwhelming evidence of global warming's threat to sea ice, says Kassie Siegel of the Centre for Biological Diversity.
"Even the Bush administration can't deny the reality of global warming," Ms Siegel said. "The governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by denying this."
Governor Palin would also like to bring open-cast coal mining to Alaska's Brooks Range Mountains, an act of environmental vandalism in the eyes of many.
The Palin administration has allowed Chevron to triple the amount of toxic waste it pours into the waters of Cook Inlet. This, even though the number of beluga whales in the bay has collapsed from 1,300 to 350 – the point of extinction – because of pollution and increased ship traffic.
On the Republican convention floor she said: "We Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas and take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: We've got lots of both."
The fact that drilling won't solve every problem "is no excuse to do nothing at all", she said, putting the country on notice that "starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more nuclear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative sources".
Mrs Palin also took a swipe at Barack Obama's environmental stance saying: "What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet?"
Her support in Alaska relies on squeezing more money for the state from the oil companies themselves. In Alaska, every man woman and child is in line for a bonus cheque of about $2,000 (£1,100) from the state's massive oil wealth fund. This is, in effect, a vote-buying machine for the would-be Vice-President.
Governor Palin wants nothing to hinder the oil companies. She maintains that polar bears are well managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation. And if the ice should go away, then they will adapt to living on the land.
Many oil companies abandoned Alaska when prices fell in the 1980s but they have been rushing back to drill and prospect areas that are among the least hospitable on earth. That spirit of the Klondike is already in full swing in Prudhoe Bay the epicentre of oil production and one of the world's largest industrial complexes. It's so big that BP, UPS and FedEx operate a special fleet of jets from Anchorage just to service to the region.
Hundreds of spills involving tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil and other petroleum products occur in the area each year. Decades-old spills are still a problem and 17,000 acres of wildlife and marine habitat have already been destroyed.
But Prudhoe is just a tiny fraction of the area being targeted by Governor Palin and the oil companies. A similar fate of environmental destruction awaits the entire coastal plain as well as the special areas of the western Arctic – home to migratory caribou herds, musk oxen, wolverines, grizzly and polar bears should a McCain-Palin administration be elected.
The oil boom has attracted oilmen from across America. One of them is Todd Palin, husband to the vice-presidential candidate who works for BP on Alaska's North Slope.
It is illegal to hunt polar bears, and that is not about to change. But in an area known as "Polar Bear Seas", from Point Hope on Alaska's far western edge to the pristine coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, one tenth of the world's polar bear population is at risk, as well as beluga and bowheaded whales and bearded and spotted seals.
Big game hunters are happy to pay lots of money to shoot wolves and bears from the air. They also chase them across the snow to the point of exhaustion and then land the planes on skis, shooting them from point-blank range. The animals are considered endangered across the "lower 48" states of America, but not Alaska. The hunters keep and sell the animals' pelts.
Last year, Mrs Palin proposed offering a bounty of $150 per wolf, as long as the hunter provided the wolf's foreleg as proof of the kill. The measure did not pass. She even spent $400,000 on a state-funded campaign to block attempts to end the hunt.
Its not just wildlife conservationists who object. Many ordinary Alaskans also condemn the practice as barbaric.
Trish Rolfe, who runs the Sierra Club's Alaska office, thinks Governor Palin has been a disaster for Alaska's environment. "The idea that she stands up to the oil companies is a joke," she says.
"The governor pays lip service to the issue of global warming but denies it is man made. She will not even spend money to help the Inupiaq villages which are about to fall into the sea."
... to congratulate you and your family and your outstanding campaign team for winning the nomination? What a great and wonderful event in American history! What a blessing to America and the rest of the world! Barack, you're going to the next President of the United States. I and my whole family LOVE you. Thank you so much, and enjoy a unforgettable night of celebration.
(NB the scandalous interview with Liz Trotta is still online as a TOP VIDEO on the FOX News site, though FOX must have received a LOT of complaints so far)
by Jeffrey Feldman for The Huffington Post
During a live interview, FOX Contributor Liz Trotta jokingly wished for the assassination of Sen. Barack Obama. This latest incident from FOX News continues the trend in violent rhetoric about Sen. Obama from pundits, politicians, and entertainers.
Grinning While Joking About Killing A CandidateThe incident happen in an exchange with the FOX News anchor. When asked her opinion of the recent scandal surrounding some comments made by Sen. Hillary Clinton, which Trotta described by saying that, "some are reading [it] as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama." Hemmer quickly corrected Trotta, having noticed that she had said "Osama" when she meant "Obama." At this point, Trotta said, "Obama. Well...both if we could!" Trotta then laughed gleefully.
(The full interview can be viewed here)
What prompted Trotta to joke about the assassination of Sen. Obama was her apparent inability to differentiate between Sen. Obama and the terrorist leader responsible for the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001.
Since Sen. Obama first declared his intention to seek the Democratic nomination for president, right-wing pundits on FOX News and a variety of other broadcast outlets have regularly called the Sen. Obama by the name "Osama" in a systematic propaganda campaign to convince the American public that a sitting member of their government has secret ties to terrorists.
As if she were providing a punchline to that long-running propaganda campaign, Trotta made known that the conclusions the public should draw were (1) that Sen. Obama and Osama bin Laden are equivalent, and (2) they both deserve to be assassinated.
Americans Everywhere Are Tired Of This! There is no question that broadcast pundits "can" make jokes about assassinating a Senator and a Presidential candidate. The United States Constitution protects freedom of expression to the extreme. But that is the wrong question to ask in this situation. The issue is not "can" pundits make jokes about assassinating Sen. Obama, but "should" they?
It is astounding that Americans should even be forced to have such a conversation, let alone on Memorial Day Weekend when we remember with respect the sacrifices of fallen soldiers. But here we are.
I have to wonder how many people there actually are in the U.S. who think it is funny to make jokes about the assassination of Sen. Obama? What percentage of the American population consists of people who think that the assassination of Sen. Obama--or anyone for that matter--makes for a good punchline? Is it 50 people? 75, maybe?
Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but I do not believe there are very many people in our country--or anywhere else for that matter--who laugh or find it remotely funny when broadcast pundits stoop to the level of making jokes about killing an elected leader. It does not feel funny. It feels like someone spitting in our faces.
I believe that the vast majority of Americans--people in every corner of the country and of all political stripes--all react with an equal level of disgust when we hear remarks of the sort that Liz Trotta made on FOX News.
When we hear such "jokes" about assassinating a member of the Senate--a member of our government--we do not laugh, but instead wonder. We wonder what has happened to broadcast media in our country. We wonder to ourselves, to our families, and to our friends: How have we arrived at this point? How has our broadcast media so utterly lost its moral compass?
That same optimism leads me to conclude that the vast, vast majority of Americans do not want this kind of vile, utterly disgusting, "assassination" humor to become a recurrent part of our national debate between now and the general election, nor at any other time.
We do not want it.
That's it.
Enough.
It ends right now.
What Americans want is a guarantee from the whole of the broadcast media industry that whenever we turn on our televisions and our radios we will never again be affronted with this brand of total, unadulterated disrespect in the form of a joke about assassinating our leaders.
And why do we demand this guarantee? It is not because we are sensitive. It is because the free press belongs to us--to the American people. It belongs to us and nobody has a right to debase it.
We do not care how many stations a single corporation owns, how many billions of dollars in revenue a media outlet produces--no corporation has the right to debase the free press in this country.
The reason for a free press--for our free press--is not to degrade our political institutions, undermine our elections, and threaten our politicians, but to strengthen and sustain our deliberative democracy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0
Isn't saying such a horrible thing on television in a political news program against the law?
Why is there no great outrage here and elsewhere about this historically scandalous comment?
After hearing this Trotta monster: WHAT IS GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY???
Added full clip of Trotta's comment:
It's the saddest thing, the most outrageous thing, the most horrible thing imaginable in American political journalism.
It should be end of Fox News.
Watch it here:
It's so totally disgusting I have no words for it.
Clinton's RFK comments made my stomach turn around a few times, so I was very happy with the news/rumors about a delegate flood for Barack.
HERE Al Giordano writes:
The endorsement by US Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-California) of Obama today sends an extremely firm message to the Clinton campaign, and not only because he was, until today, a Clinton superdelegate.
The Field has learned that Cardoza is the first of a group of at least 40 Clinton delegates, many of them from California, that through talking among themselves came to a joint decision that all of them would vote for Obama at the convention. They have informed Senator Clinton that it’s time to unite around Obama, and that they will be coming out, one or two at a time, and announcing their switch between now and the convention if Senator Clinton doesn’t do the same.
Cardoza is one of the leaders of this effort (which includes not only superdelegates, but here’s something that should set off some paranoia in Camp Clinton: there are pledged Clinton delegates in “The Cardoza 40,” too). One Field Hand reports that during a recent Cardoza fundraising event in California the effort was discussed openly in front of other Democrats. Cardoza’s announcement, today, sent the message that the effort is serious and for real.
This is not “excellent news for Hillary Clinton.”
An exodus of 40 delegates from Clinton to Obama, mathematically, increases his lead by 80 delegates, because she loses one for every one he gains.
My answer to that, if true: WOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
And shame, shame, shame on Hillary Clinton. This will cost her!
Be welcome, Sir!
(Ben Smith at Politico reports:)
Carrie Budoff Brown reports from Sioux Falls, SD, that Barack Obama picked up the endorsement of former Senator George McGovern, a Democratic Party elder but also a symbol of liberal defeat.
Group pushing Clinton as VP choice tied to her campaign
Margaret Talev | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — A group called VoteBoth has been leading the charge for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up on the Democratic ticket.
But the people behind it come from just one of those camps — Clinton's — and one of their goals may be keeping Clinton's White House prospects alive.
The group's founder, Adam Parkhomenko, until recently worked as an assistant to Patti Solis Doyle, who was Clinton's campaign manager until February. Parkhomenko in 2003 founded the Draft Hillary for President Committee.
VoteBoth's spokesman is Sam Arora. He's a law school student who in recent years worked for Clinton and for former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's presidential campaign chairman.
VoteBoth's Facebook page lists three others as administrators, all with Clinton connections.
One is a Richmond-based Democratic technology consultant, who was quoted in a New York Times story about the Iowa Democratic Party's 2006 Jefferson-Jackson dinner, where he was passing out "Hillary for President" stickers. Another appears online in a photo with Hillary Clinton and others at a summer leadership program from 2006.
A third is a history professor and campaign contributor whom Clinton named earlier this year in a press release of prominent Virginians who'd endorsed her.
VoteBoth first filed with the Federal Election Commission on April 8, two weeks before the Pennsylvania primary that Clinton won and that was considered a crucial window for her comeback. The group's original mission promoted the idea of Clinton as the nominee, with Obama as her running mate.
On May 1, days after the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's latest divisive remarks and Obama's renouncement of his former pastor, VoteBoth amended its mission. It now would support a joint ticket in either order, so long as Clinton's name was on the ballot.
Last week, as Obama's strong showing made him all but certain to clinch the nomination, VoteBoth leaders began putting themselves in the spotlight, sending regular press releases, posting blogs and appearing in interviews.
Parkhomenko wrote a widely circulated piece on The Huffington Post on Tuesday as voters went to the polls in North Carolina and Indiana primaries. "VoteBoth does not aim to pick who leads the ticket," he said. He wrote of friends who "believe in Barack as strongly as I believe in Hillary" and wanting to be inclusive "as a matter of fairness, practicality, experience and hope."
On Friday, when word went out that Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., didn't see Clinton as Obama's pick for a running mate, VoteBoth released a statement offering respect for Kennedy. But it added, "We think that the millions of Democrats who have voted for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have something to say, too. Why stop at having a nominee who has the support of 51 percent of Democrats when we could have a 'Dream Team' ticket that has won 100 percent?"
On Friday, Parkhomenko said through a spokesman that his decision to change the mission came after talking to an Obama supporter. He also said he gave neither the Clinton nor Obama campaigns a heads-up about his group.
In an interview Friday, Arora said VoteBoth is not coordinated with Clinton's campaign, and is "just a bunch of us volunteering our time because we think this is a good idea." Despite the lopsided Clinton connections, he said it isn't just about supporting Clinton but about bringing together the rivals' historic turnout and fund-raising machines and constituencies.
"There's been a lot of talk about a unity ticket and we think that's where the conversation should be," said Arora, choosing a word — conversation — that Clinton used to frame her campaign appearances. "If we've been able to help the discussion forward, that's what we're focused on."
"If Barack Obama is the nominee and he takes Senator Clinton as his vice president, you've got a ticket that's already won 100 percent of the Democratic vote, that's turned out a record number of Democratic voters and that has shattered fundraising records. A unity ticket is the way Democrats win in November."
Obama's campaign declined comment on VoteBoth. The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
just saw the CNN exit polls... a double digit win is very probable
Wooohoooo!
Many folks in Philadelphia will check that page before voting, so a lead for Barack there won't hurt
The page with the poll is HERE
Clinton surrogate Ed Rendell, in 1997, on Louis Farrakhan:
"My respect for him has grown... for the intensity of his beliefs... for the decency of his soul... and for the strength of his courage."
Louis Farrakhan in 1996, the Saviours' Day Speech:
"And you do with me as is written, but remember that I have warned you that Allah will punish you. You are wicked deceivers of the American people. You have sucked their blood. You are not real Jews, those of you that are not real Jews. You are the synagogue of Satan, and you have wrapped your tentacles around the U.S. government, and you are deceiving and sending this nation to hell. But I warn you in the name of Allah, you would be wise to leave me alone. But if you choose to crucify me, know that Allah will crucify you."
I found this transcript in a Jake Tapper blog post at the ABC site. After some hesistation I post it here, because I do think it shines some light on Hillary's excerience claims, her 'readiness', her humanity etc. Now that I read it. I'm amazed that Hillary's (lack of) actions with regard to the 9/11 New York disaster have not been part of the discussions about her candidacy in this race.
Amidst all the anger about Rev. Wright's remarks on 9/11, nobody said that Hillary actually blamed George Bush and his tax cuts for these terrorist attacks! In an interview with CNN she said:
Anyway. I copy & paste the whole thing as it was posted by 'Veronica':
Ok, last contribution since Hillary supporters are so fond of both FOX News and Geraldino Ferraro these days. Again it's about Hillary being ready on Day 1 etc., focusing on what Hillary as a New York Senator did after disaster struck on 9/11. And what she... did NOT do.
As said, Hillary fans are also Bill O'Reilly fans these days, simply because O'Reilly is agressively bashing Obama all the time. Now, here's O'Reilly talking to Ferraro, and at a certain moment former congressman Dan Frisa joins the conversation. A early November 2001 show, here's the transcript:
O'REILLY: Has the junior senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, been effective in the aftermath of the terror attacks? She has kept a remarkably low profile. She took some criticism for her mannerisms during the president's speech right after the attack and then she was roundly booed at the benefit concert for the police and firefighters at Madison Square Garden. (Clip showing Hillary being booed.)
Not a good moment for Mrs. Clinton. And she was also MIA at the World Series. With us now is Fox News analyst Geraldine Ferraro, a former congressperson from New York - as is Dan Frisa. Of course, Mr. Frisa is a Republican, Ms. Ferraro's a Democrat.
O'REILLY: So what has Hillary Clinton done in the two months since the attack?
FERRARO: Well, let me comment on both of those tapes that you just put out before I give you that. She was booed, you're right, at that event. Politicians do not do well at sports events or at rock concerts.
O'REILLY: But no other politician was booed ...
FERRARO: I was booed at a Knicks game while I was sitting in a paid seat. I had paid for it.
O'REILLY: That's because you were rooting for the Sixers.
FERRARO (laughing) Well, let me tell you ...
O'REILLY: Look, George Pataki wasn't booed. Giuliani wasn't booed. Even Bill Clinton wasn't booed.
FERRARO: Let me tell you what - they didn't boo when she was down at Ground Zero expressing sympathy. They didn't boo when she got $20 billion and pushed that legislation. They didn't boo when she authored legislation to have a 9/11 stamp that will give money to the families from that stamp ...
O'REILLY: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Give me one specific thing, Ms. Ferraro, give me one specific thing she's done for New York state since 9/11.
FERRARO: Well, what she's done is she has been the person who has pushed most - she and Chuck Schumer, you can't just say just Hillary - the two of them have pushed for the $20 billion ...
O'REILLY: It was a unanimous vote. You didn't have to push for that. It was a unanimous vote.
FERRARO: Hey, wait a minute. How does it get introduced? How is it moved? How is it unanimous? It's not automatic.
O'REILLY: I could have got Blinky the hamburger guy. Blinky the hamburger guy could have introduced that and it would have gotten passed. Anything else besides that?
FERRARO: No, no, absolutely not. In order to figure out what was going on with the Republicans in the Senate, she did get a unanimous vote.
O'REILLY: She didn't do it. Everybody voted for that. Blinky could have got it done.
FERRARO: Oh, Bill - it doesn't - he'll tell you things don't happen automatically in the Congress.
FRISA: No, I gotta side with Blinky on this one, Bill. Anybody could have gotten that passed.
FERRARO: Oh, God ...
FRISA: It was a disaster. It was a horror show. The president called Hillary and Chuck Schumer to the White House and said, "What do you need - you got it."
FERRARO: Were you there when she ...
FRISA: She didn't carry any water on that one.
O'REILLY: Wait a minute. They went back for another $10 billion and they got defeated. They got defeated, right? So Hillary didn't pull that one out of the fire, did she?
FERRARO: Listen, you know what? The thing that happens is when you go down to the Senate, you are a hundred people and she is one of the hundred. She is representing New York state ...
O'REILLY: But what has she done?
FERRARO: She brings - I'm telling you, you wouldn't let me finish - she authored legislation to have a stamp that will end up - it's a 9/11 stamp that will end up taking all the ...
O'REILLY: A stamp?
FERRARO: It's a postal service, a postage stamp. So when it's sold, that money will go to the families of the victims. She has authored legislation that will allow for the victims' families to have mental health services.
O'REILLY: That's already been taken care of.
FERRARO: What more do you ..
O'REILLY: Oh, I'm glad you asked that. What more ...
FERRARO: Well, what do you want?
O'REILLY: Here's what I want. Mrs. Clinton ...
FERRARO: She also brought 40 senators down to Ground Zero so they would vote for that ...
O'REILLY: Blinky could have brought them down.
FERRARO: Oh, come on.
O'REILLY: Wait, wait ...
FERRARO: But Blinky did not, she did.
O'REILLY: He didn't have Secret Service clearance. Mrs. Clinton has not visited one family that has been affected by the terror. Not one. She did not go to one funeral.
FERRARO: Yes, she did. She gave the eulogy at the chaplain, Chaplain Judge's services.
O'REILLY: I'm talking about the folks here. Not the regular - she didn't go to one family. Not visit one. She didn't go to one of the funerals of any of the folks. Can you defend that?
FERRARO: I most certainly can. You know, she's down in the Senate doing her work. Now let me also say ...
O'REILLY: Wait. I gotta let Frisa get in here. Go ahead.
FRISA: I think that's a poor excuse. I mean, the Senate is not in five days a week or six days a week or seven days a week. She could have certainly attended some of those funerals.
The other thing is she has not comported herself with the dignity that we've come to expect from a United States senator. She's actually hurting New York's case by making comments that blame the Bush tax cut for us not being able to respond appropriately after 9/11. She's also made comments using this tragedy to try and gain sympathy for herself by saying that Chelsea was in a position where she could have been hurt - where she was not.
FERRARO: Oh, whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on one minute, Oh, come on.
FRISA: Chelsea herself admitted in Talk magazine ...
O'REILLY: Let's give Ms. Ferraro the last word.
FERRARO: The child was down there. As a mother, as a father, the two of them did not know where Chelsea was and they did what every parent did, which is they went to a panic mode.
FRISA: But every parent didn't make up a story, Gerry, about where their daughter was.
FERRARO: They didn't make up a story. They both agreed that ...
FRISA: She did. She made it up that Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center [when] she was 30 blocks uptown.
FERRARO: They both agreed that she was downtown. Whether she was jogging or she was walking, it doesn't make any difference.
O'REILLY: All right. We gotta go. But I was just amazed that she didn't visit one family, not one. (End of segment)
18 Apr 2008 09:36 pm
PHILADELPHIA -- It wasn't so much that Barack Obama had real fight in him tonight, or that more people attended his rally in front of Independence Hall than any other event since he announced his candidacy. It was the spontaneous demonstration of support that happened when it ended.
5,000 people (at least) had nowhere to go but up Market Street. Obama's charge of the night: "Declare independence!" was with them. They started with the familiar "O-Bam-A." By 7th and Market, they had graduated to "Yes we can!" By 10th and Market, with hundreds streaming in between cars on the road, they were just cheering. At first, a few Philly cops, killjoys, tried to rough the crowd to the sidewalks. It didn't work. The cops retreated to the sidewalks. By the time I ducked into my hotel, a full mile away from Independence Park, the Obama crowd was still marching.
The headlines Obama intended to generate were as follows: first, the secondary point, so reporters can write that Obama looked forward to the general election: John McCain is man who deserves respect. "But the change this country needs will not come rom a third George W. Bush term. And what is exactly what his campaign is offering. John McCain is offering four more years of a war with no exit strategy, a war with no end in sight, a war that is sending our troops on their thid, fourth and fifth tours of duty." Four good measure, Obama repeated the disputable claim that McCain saw "great progress" from seven and a half years of George W. Bush's" economic program.
The main headline was -- is -- a series of non-wimpy, crisply delivered, very direct digs at Hillary Clinton. Obama started this riff, but aware that the crowd was still thinking about McCain, paused, then said,"Listen up you guys."
Quiet.
Hillary Clinton "is a tenacious campaigner and is a committed public servant," he began. (Boos. I mean, Obama could have said the same thing about Brownie.) But her message, he said, is "that we can't really change the say anything, do anything special interest game of so we might as well choose a candidate who knows how to play the game." He mocked her "kitchen sink strategy." Then he said, "I'm not running to be the president who plays the same old game. I'm running to end the game."
"This year we can’t afford the same old politics. This year we can declare our independence from this kind of politics."
The metaphor was labored, but, I mean -- how could you not use it? (To those of us who're watching John Adams on HBO, we can envision George Washington giving his second inaugural addresson on the second floor balcony of Independence Hall -- all of this visible to Obama and to the press, it was -- sorry VandeHarris, a little eerie.)
An Obama aide sized the crowd at about 40,000. It was probably was a little bit less, but a senior campaign official said it was the biggest the campaign had ever seen.
As usual, about 3,000 guests directly in front of Obama were sent through magnetometers and enclosed by metal barriers. Another 25,000 crowded Independence Park; some even listened from a good three thousand feet away, well behind Independence Hall.
I counted at least a hundred Philadelphia police officers. There were state troops. TSA personnel magging the crowd. A helicopter hovered over the square. The fire department set up a command post with extra medical supplies. It was some way to start Obama's final Pennsylvania push.
LOL!
I THINK my breaking point came yesterday morning when I received an email from the Clinton campaign criticising Barack Obama for not releasing his tax returns for 1997, 1998 and 1999. Notes like that should come with a little kitchen-sink icon pinned to them. Included in the missive was the obligatory reference to Tony Rezko—again this should be an automatic attachment. They can even label it "Obama’s Whitewater" if they like. I’d appreciate the irony. This was followed by a virtual flood of emails in which Clinton-supporting politicians (not one of whom I had heard of) expressed eerily similar outrage over Mr Obama’s “bitter” comments. Mrs Clinton herself, of course, has spent the past five days harping on the same subject.
Or perhaps my breaking point came today, when Bill Clinton, the most poll-driven president in history, claimed to have told his wife to forget about "the shifting polls and the daily back-and-forth" and focus on promoting her values. I’m guessing his actual advice sounded more like this.
I’m not exactly sure when it happened, but my will has been broken. I’ve realised that covering Mrs Clinton's campaign without explicitly stating that it has turned into a win-at-all-costs operation fueled by phony outrage, hypocritical proclamations and absurd notions of who is electable and who is not is an exercise in deliberate deception, and I can't do that. Perhaps I am weaker than my colleagues, but a certain fatigue sets in when trying to sort through it all. Mrs Clinton does have substance, and some well-thought-out policy prescriptions, but did you know Barack Obama is an elitist? Never mind that the Clintons largely agree with what Mr Obama said, or meant to say.
Perhaps it is because Mrs Clinton is the underdog that the tone of her campaign is so different from Mr Obama’s. Her efforts to connect with different voting blocs have not worked—one day she’s a sniper-dodging commander-in-chief, the next she’s a gun-shooting woman of the people. Most of the time she simply looks like a caricature of the voters she’s trying to lure. And when it comes down to policy, there are simply not enough big differences between the two candidates to allow her to catch up. So she must make Mr Obama look unelectable. She must go negative. And she has.
That’s fine, but let’s be forthright about it. This is no longer a campaign based on ideas. It is a campaign focused on tearing down Mr Obama. We all know that’s her only shot at the nomination. I’m tired of pretending otherwise.
(Photo credit: AP)
Jake Tapper at ABC's Political Punch blog reports!
Two former US ambassadors to Canada -- one Democrat and one Republican -- debated how concerned Canadians should be that the Democratic candidates are serious about re-negotiating NAFTA at the Empire Club of Canada.
It was the Democrat, James Blanchard, who told Canadians not to worry, according to Canadian press accounts.
Blanchard, former Governor of Michigan, is a Michigan state co-chair of Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign, one of her major "HillRaiser" fundraisers, and served as US Ambassador to Canada during the administration of former President Bill Clinton.
Clinton has pledged to voters that she will force Canada to re-negotiate the deal or the US will opt out of it.
"I've said that I will renegotiate NAFTA, so obviously we'd have to say to Canada and Mexico that that's exactly what we're going to do," Clinton said during a recent debate. "We will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it.”
But Blanchard seemed to pooh-pooh that bold statement, telling attendees that Democrats are more concerned about China and Mexico than they are Canada.
''Their concern is job loss or unfairness in dealing with countries that have low wage and labor standards and low environmental standards,'' Blanchard said, according to the Canadian Press. ''I have not seen anything that would constitute a threat to trade with Canada."
The story said that Blanchard "played down her antipathy toward the free-trade deal, saying she has visited Canada many times and understands the country well."
Conversely, the Republican, former Massachusetts Gov. Paul Cellucci -- who served as US Ambassador to Canada for President George W. Bush -- said "there ought to be some concern here in Canada" because both Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have "been making some pretty strong statements" against trade agreements such as NAFTA.
The sincerity of the Democrats' opposition to various trade deals has emerged as an issue in the primary season, as the candidates pursue labor union voters in industrial states such as Pennsylvania, which will hold its contest this Tuesday.
An Obama economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, met with Canadian officials and left the impression he was assuring them not to take Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric too seriously.
Clinton, for her part, has claimed to have always opposed NAFTA even though she help promote the trade deal in 1993.
Her campaign adviser, Mark Penn, met with Colombian officians to help promote the Colombian trade deal that Clinton herself opposes. Her husband also supports the deal and was paid $800,000 by a pro-trade Colombian company in 2005 to deliver speeches in which he promoted it.
When Blanchard resigned as Bill Clinton's ambassador to Canada, the Montreal Gazette reported that he "helped pave the way for the so-called "concessions" on labor and environmental issues that gave Prime Minister Chretien a face-saving excuse for dropping his opposition to NAFTA."
Blanchard eventually became a lobbyist, and has represented Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cisco Systems, and Qualcomm. As a HillRaiser he has committed to raising at least $250,000 for Clinton's campaign.
-- jpt
Despite her campaign's relentless attacks on Barack Obama's qualifications and electability, Hillary Clinton has lost a lot of ground with Democratic voters nationwide going into Tuesday's critical primary in Pennsylvania, a new NEWSWEEK poll shows.
The survey of 1,209 registered voters found that Obama now leads Clinton by nearly 20 points, or 54 percent to 35 percent, among registered Democrats and those who lean Democratic nationwide. The previous Newsweek poll, conducted in March after Clinton's big primary wins in Ohio and Texas, showed the two Democrats locked in a statistical tie (45 percent for Obama to 44 percent for Clinton). The new poll puts Obama ahead among women as well as men, and voters aged 60 and older as well as younger voters. (For the complete poll data, click here).
One of the more devastating results for Clinton was that a majority of all registered voters now see her as dishonest and untrustworthy. According to the poll, just four in 10 (41 percent) registered voters view the New York senator as honest and trustworthy, while 51 percent think the opposite. This compares with solid majorities of voters who see Obama and McCain as honest and trustworthy (both polled 61 percent).
The results suggest that Clinton was damaged more by being caught in a tall tale about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire than Obama has been by his recent controversies, including the firestorm of criticism provoked by the Illinois senator's remarks that blue-collar voters "cling" to religion, guns and other issues because of their bitterness. In addition, over half (53 percent) of voters say they believe Obama shares their values, more than those who say the same thing about Clinton (47 percent) or McCain (45 percent).
Even so, the poll indicates that both Obama and Clinton have been harmed by the fierce attacks they have aimed at each other. While Obama has a 57 percent favorable rating among all voters in the latest survey, that represents a 4 percent drop from March, and his unfavorable rating has jumped from 28 percent to 36 percent. Clinton is viewed favorably by just 49 percent, compared to 56 percent in March, while 47 percent view her as unfavorable, compared to 40 percent in the previous poll. Even so, the unopposed McCain has also suffered a setback: his favorable rating has dipped to 52 percent from 55 percent, while his unfavorable rating has increased to 42 percent from 35 percent.
There were a few bright spots in the new poll for the Clinton campaign. Among all registered voters, including Republicans, she did about as well as Obama against McCain. Obama bests McCain by 4 points (48 percent to 44 percent), and Clinton also wins by 4 points (47 to 43 percent). Neither lead is considered statistically significant. However, in a race against McCain, Obama gets more independent support than Clinton does. Another positive sign for Clinton is that nearly half (46 percent) of Democratic voters don't think the superdelegates should adhere to the overall results of the primaries and caucuses but should support whichever candidate they feel is best qualified. Another four in 10 (38 percent) want these party leaders and elected officials to support the popular vote winner, and just 12 percent want them to base their vote on the pledged delegate count. Even among Obama supporters, there is a high level of support (41 percent) for letting the superdelegates make their own choice.
It is not clear to what extent Wednesday night's debate in Philadelphia affected the overall results. Clinton, aided by debate moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC, kept Obama mostly on the defensive over his associations with Pastor Jeremiah Wright and Chicago professor William Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground who served on a community board with Obama and once hosted a campaign event for the candidate at his home. Obama was also questioned about his decision not to wear a flag lapel pin. Stacy DiAngelo of Princeton Survey Research Associates, which did the April 16-17 polling, says that of the registered voters who were surveyed 517 were interviewed after the debate and 692 before. She added that the views of those surveyed remained largely constant.
But Obama appears to have the momentum on nearly every front, both among Democrats and general voters nationwide. Clinton's prospects for snatching the nomination from the Democratic front runner at this point depend mainly on her ability to persuade uncommitted "superdelegates"—those who are not bound by particular primary results—that she is more likely to defeat John McCain. But by a large margin (55 percent to 33 percent) Democratic voters now say Obama—not Clinton—is the candidate they believe is more likely to defeat McCain in November. In the March poll Obama's advantage was much smaller (44 percent to 38 percent).
The poll pointed up a trouble sign for McCain as well, which is that no one's forgotten how old he is. While voters have mixed opinions about whether Obama's race will do more to help or hurt his chances of being elected president (20 percent vs. 22 percent, respectively), and Clinton's gender is only somewhat more likely to be seen as a hindrance than a help (27 percent vs. 20 percent), McCain's age may be the biggest vulnerability of all in the eyes of the voters. Nearly four in 10 (36 percent) think the Arizona senator's age—at 71, he would be the oldest president ever to assume office for the first time—will hurt his chances of winning.
Finally, the door is still open for Al Gore, the survey showed. If the battle for the Democratic nomination extends into the party's convention in August, about half (49 percent) of Democratic voters think the party should consider nominating the former vice president as a way to break the deadlock.
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, whose pedigree is on the other side of their generation's cultural divide, defends Bill Ayers in a statement to the Tribune:
There are a lot of reasons that Americans are angry about Washington politics. And one more example is the way Senator Obama’s opponents are playing guilt-by-association, tarring him because he happens to know Bill Ayers.
I also know Bill Ayers. He worked with me in shaping our now nationally-renowned school reform program. He is a nationally-recognized distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois/Chicago and a valued member of the Chicago community.
I don’t condone what he did 40 years ago but I remember that period well. It was a difficult time, but those days are long over. I believe we have too many challenges in Chicago and our country to keep re-fighting 40 year old battles.
Posted by FOX reporter Laura Ingle here:
http://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/12/are-people-bitter-in-pennsylvania/
Direct link to that PAGE
Especially the old man's comment is SO strong that it could be made into an Obama ad rightaway, EVEN though he says he doesn't vote for Barack. But he shows a LOT of respect and says Barack told the TRUTH and has it completely right about small town PA.
The campaign should really do something with this clip. That the interview was done by a FOX reporter makes it even more striking. This is the perfect disqualification of Hillary's "criticism" IMO.
