Sen.Obama's huge win in Mississippi eliminated the popular vote gain Hillary Clinton made in Texas. He again leads by some 700,000 votes. He again proved capable of a huge win in a smaller state that swamped Clinton's victory margin in a larger state. Had the Clinton team had the money and strategic smarts to hold their defeats in the Potomac Primaries to margins of even 15%, this would be an entirely different campaign. However, when Obama wins states, Clinton also often loses them. Should Sen. Obama win this nomination, the Potomac Primaries will be remembered as the turning point.
The question, now, is whether Sen. Clinton can make up that 700,000 popular vote deficit, in order to have any credible claim to the nomination. The polls in Pennsylvania continue to give her a wide lead, and the state is even more demographically favorable to her than was Ohio; and given that, her ten-point win in Ohio was worth a popular vote gain of nearly 230,000 votes, a similar win in Pennsylvania would be worth even more. A margin of 300,000 seems very possible. Her only chance of overcoming that final 400,000 would seem to reside in her breaking roughly even in the remaining scheduled states, while winning big in Florida and Michigan revotes. As has been clear for some time, her only chance to take a credible popular vote lead depends on Florida and Michigan. The previous votes in those states will never be considered credible. Revotes are the only answer.
The Obama camp is hedging on revotes. In fact, they are now resorting to legal arguments, and very understandably would prefer that the delegate slates be simply split between the two candidates. The latter will not happen. The Clinton camp would prefer the previous elections be validated, but they are open to revotes, as an alternative. The former will not happen. So, the only fair resolution being revotes, we now see the campaigns articulating clear stances: Clinton would prefer that there be no revotes, but is open to the idea; Obama would prefer that there be no revotes, and seems willing to try to block them. As Big Tent Democrat makes clear, that position will be hard to defend. Were I as manipulative as some big name bloggers on some big name sites, I would claim that Obama doesn't think Florida and Michigan voters are relevant; but of course, he does think they're relevant, he's just worried about the results of their votes. This is nothing more than politics-as-usual, and it should not be spun as anything else.
Should Florida revote, it is likely that Clinton will match or beat her previous victory margin, thus slicing Obama's popular vote lead to roughly 100,000 votes. The question would then be whether she could win Michigan by that much. Her huge margin in the previous vote cannot be taken as measure, and the only recent poll, by Rasmussen, shows Clinton and Obama tied. Many, however, feel the demographics would favor Clinton. Nevertheless, would they favor her enough to give her a margin that would put her over the top, in total popular votes? There is only one way to find out.
Of course, none of this may matter. Clinton may win by such large margins in Pennsylvania and Florida that all she will need is a slight win in Michigan. Obama may close in those two states, and make it impossible for the Michigan margin to matter. He might clean up in Indiana and some of the other remaining states, also making his popular vote lead unassailable. On the other hand, she might do well in the remaining states. However, what is still clear and obvious is the necessity of resolving Florida and Michigan. Clinton is not going to get the current delegate slates. Obama cannot block revotes without blowing his chances of winning in November. A revote plan is being developed, and it should be implemented.
Barack Obama speaks eloquently of change. Nowhere is change more needed than in healthcare. By 2017, one dollar out of every five spent in America will go toward healthcare costs according to a report in Health Affairs.
For this high cost, surely Americans are getting excellent quality, are they not? Sadly, the answer is no. By any one of many measures of quality, the US healthcare system is not performing well. A recent study from the Commonwealth Foundation found,
"The US healthcare system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives."
This wildly expanding cost is unsustainable. Likewise, it is an international embarrassment to spend so much and yet perform so poorly on basic health scores. Everyone agrees that something has to be done but the real question is what?
One wonders what Barack Obama might do to meet this crisis. He claims that his plan will increase quality; provide coverage for everyone, and save money. Sounds like a classic case of having your cake and eating it, too. Looking closer, maybe he has uncovered some previously overlooked principles that might be used to untie this Gordian knot. So what specifically is he proposing to do?
Unfortunately, his healthcare plan is strong on vision but light on specific details. The best that can be discerned is a general outline that offers much promise but does not deal with any prickly details that might offend voters. By connecting the dots we can start to see what Obama is likely to do for healthcare. Looking at the different components of his plan, we can postulate an answer to the feasibility of his plan.
The one element of Obama's plan that is crystal clear is his call for major expansion of the government's role in controlling healthcare. The central proposition he makes is that the government can intervene to improve the quality of healthcare provided in the US. Clearly, quality improvement should be a major goal for healthcare reform. Obama's plan does not disappoint on this promise. He claims that he will improve patient care by requiring doctors and hospitals to prove they provide quality care. His plan would link payment with reported quality. This implies that poor quality must be the provider's fault.
To implement this plan, an army of new bureaucrats must be hired by the government to keep a watchful eye on the doctors and hospitals to ensure quality. Healthcare providers will have to hire larger staffs to collect and report this data adding more cost to the system. As these new structures evolve, the law of averages will prevail and the actual care will migrate to a median level of quality. The net result will be little improvement in care, and significant increase in the cost. High administrative overhead already is a major problem in our current system. A New England Journal of Medicinearticle stated that U.S. healthcare administrative overhead is twice that of the Canadian system. These researchers found that 31% of health care expenditures in the US went for administrative costs. Obama advocates that we increase this overhead further with no clear indication that quality will improve.
Obama's plan also calls for a ten billion dollar federal investment in healthcare information technology over five years. He purports this will improve quality and save money. Will it? The data suggests otherwise. A study published in The Archives of Internal Medicine showed information technology did not make a quality difference. Comparing practices that used an electronic medical record with those that did not, investigators found no difference in 14 quality measures, improvement in 2 outcome measures, and a worse outcome on 1 measure. This is hardly a sweeping endorsement. Incorporating such expensive and unproven methods within his plan is flippant. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the issue at hand.
The Obama healthcare plan also calls for expansion of the number of American people with health insurance coverage. While certainly a laudable goal, he does not explain how to pay for this. He also claims to offer solutions to the broken health insurance industry by limiting catastrophic losses and lowering insurance costs through competition. To quote Obama's website:
"His plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration. His new National Health Exchange will help increase competition by insurers."
To sum up this part of Obama's plan, he intends to create another bureaucracy to regulate the health insurance industry. The language used here is particularly interesting. He will force insurance companies to use more premiums for patient care. How will a for-profit corporation respond to such heavy-handed coercion from the federal government?
Barack Obama talks a lot about change in his campaign. Healthcare reform offers him the chance to put that rhetoric into action. Unfortunately, all his plan does is offer empty talk and shallow ideas. Senator Obama, are you serious about change? If so, please show us some substance in your healthcare plan
After watching debates, hearing his speeches, and reading Obama's policy visions, many questions remain about how he'd change America. We'd like to see some shot-from-the-hip questions with a few straight answers before we commit to all that hope from a mere mortal, and all that hazy change. Here are just six questions for Obama we hope the MSM will ask him, for a change.
Issue 1: New Brand of Politics
Senator Obama, you promise a new brand of politics to replace the old politics of special interests and lobbyists. One step to fulfill that pledge would be to complete the 2008 Political Courage Test offered by Project Vote Smart, a lengthy questionnaire that asks you to formally state your precise positions on many national issues of the utmost concern to voters. Yet, according to the Project Vote Smart website,
"Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff."
Project Vote Smart and its Political Courage Test exemplify the type of bipartisan effort that you claim to support. According to the organization's history:
"We are scrupulously non-partisan -- our founding board, headed by former presidents Carter and [until his death] Ford, is carefully balanced, and we do not lobby, support or oppose any candidate, issue or cause. To protect the independence and integrity of this Voter's Self-Defense System of information, Project Vote Smart does not accept funding from government or corporate sources, or any special interest group that lobbies. Our sources of support are entirely individual memberships and foundation grants."
Question:
Why would Americans trust someone who promises "change," but who does not trust Americans enough to tell them exactly to what kind of change he is committed?
Issue 2: Education
One goal of your comprehensive education plan for Pre-K to 12 is to "recruit, support, and reward teachers and principals to ensure that every school in America is filled with outstanding educators." You advocate "paying teachers as professionals." According to the National Education Association (NEA) the average teacher's salary in 2005-2006 was $49,026; California has the highest pay at $59,825.
Questions:
What will be the role, and cost, of the Federal Government's new direct and indirect involvement in recruiting teachers?
What do you propose be the new, elevated national average teacher's salary?
What will be the proportional funding of that increase as sustained by local, country, state, and federal taxing entities?
What will be the expected increase in federal employment headcount required to establish and maintain the new educational initiatives you propose?
Issue 3: National Defense
Senator Obama, as you know, providing for the common defense of the United States is one of the very few Constitutional requirements placed upon the federal government. Yet, in your Blueprint for Change, out of a list of 15 separate campaign pledges, you list "foreign policy" and "veterans" at the very bottom of the list. At the top of your list, you include "ethics," "healthcare," "seniors," "women," "poverty," and "service," among others. Yet, none of these items can be found in our Constitution.
Questions:
Do you intend, if you are elected President, to protect and defend these United States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic?
If your answer is, "yes," will you conscientiously follow your own Blueprint, which implies that you sincerely believe diplomacy to be the best tool for our national defense?
You have said, "The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough - it makes us look arrogant." Is it your contention, Senator Obama, that the only possible valid reason our current President could have for not sitting down and talking with the Iranians is that we don't like them?
Issue 4: Afghanistan
In the Ohio debate, you stated , "I have been very clear in talking to the American people about what I would do with respect to Afghanistan. I think we have to have more troops there to bolster the NATO effort." You also stated that, "...Secretary Gates, our current Defense secretary, indicated that we are getting resistance from our allies to put more troops into Afghanistan because they continue to believe that we made a blunder in Iraq." Yet, in a January 19, 2007 speech, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, speaking about the NATO mission in Afghanistan, said,
"The Afghan National Army is doing better and better. As we speak four million refugees have gone back to Afghanistan. Health care is up. Child mortality is down. Two-thirds of the villages in Afghanistan have received development projects worth up to $50,000. The average income of the Afghan has doubled since 2001. The currency is stable. Fourteen new banks are competing with each other. Three million Afghans have mobile phones. Forty percent of the Afghan land seeded with mines has been brought back into use. In other words, if you look at 2001 and if you look at the beginning of 2008 a lot has happened and a lot of progress has been made...The problem is that we, the international community, we have no patience."
In addition, Scheffer recently noted that NATO sent an additional 8,000 troops to Afghanistan in 2007. In fact, France and Norway are reported preparing to send troops to participate more aggressively in the NATO mission.
Questions:
If you're elected President, how may more U.S. troops will you send to Afghanistan?
At the tactical level, you were against the surge of U.S. troops to Iraq. Today, though, you favor a surge in Afghanistan for a similar tactical mission. Is this a contradiction?
In the Ohio debate you acknowledged that, as chairman of Senate subcommittee dealing with Afghanistan since the beginning of 2007, you have not yet called an oversight hearing. If this issue is so important, how do you justify that?
Issue 5: Abortion
Senator Obama, you've told church audiences that you're personally opposed to abortion on religious grounds, but that you feel the necessity, within a pluralistic society, of supporting the legality of a "woman's right to choose." However, on the 35th anniversary of the Roe V. Wade decision, you issued a statement, which seems to promise more enthusiastic action regarding abortion. In this statement, you boast that you have been a "consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL."
You call a woman's access to abortion-on-demand, including partial-birth abortions, a "fundamental right" that is part and parcel of your plans for "justice." And, you promise that as President, you will "pass the Freedom of Choice Act," which enshrines into law absolute access to all abortions up to the moment of live delivery. You've even opposed Infants Born Alive legislation in Illinois that would protect the life of an infant born breathing, despite the efforts to murder him.
Questions:
Do you not consider Planned Parenthood, the number one provider of abortions in the United States, and also a recipient of millions of tax dollars every year, to be a "special-interest lobby" of the very kind which you consistently denounce?
If you are personally opposed to abortion, why do you feel it necessary to promise to bolster and fight for what you term, "reproductive justice"?
How does our failure as a society to protect the life of an innocent, even one born "inadvertently," define any sort of justice at all?
Issue 6: Poverty
Part of your Plan to Combat Poverty is to "create 20 Promise Neighborhoods in cities across the nation that have high levels of poverty and crime and low levels of student academic achievement." You cite the Harlem's Children's Zone (HCZ) as the model. In a 2006 interview aired on CBS News, HCZ's founder, Geoffrey Canada (watch his Oprah interview here) described how the HCZ educates 10,000 children on an annual budget of $36 million, of which a third comes from government and the rest from private donations. In the CBS interview, Canada stated that, "We could not run a school under the current rules and regulations with the unions. It's impossible. It's just impossible. You can't fire teachers. Look, we fired three teachers last year. We fired more teachers than the whole island of Manhattan in all the public schools." Clearly, the HCZ is an example of what one highly-motivated entrepreneur can accomplish with private donations supplemented by government assistance.
Questions:
Your plan calls for the federal government to initiate similar "zones" and provide half of the funding, with the rest coming from philanthropies and businesses. Isn't this a fundamentally different model than the HCZ?
Canada is outspoken about how teacher unions are a hindrance to the type of inner city approach to education that makes the HCZ successful. How would you overcome that hindrance?
How would your administration convince philanthropies and businesses that investing in a government social program would be as cost effective and offer the same accountability as investing in a NGO?
Conclusion
It's time to ratchet up the intensity level of media questions to Senator Obama. The MSM inquiry has, to date, been more like a Miss America Contest interview than the thorough vetting of a presidential candidate. His puffy responses to debate questions have been accepted at face value. And, among the remaining presidential candidates, he has been the least accessible to the press corps. It's time, now, for reporters to start asking Obama serious questions, as befits serious journalists. I am so outta here...later! Feel free to comment if you so desire.
This was the entrance of television into the political arena. It was quite literally the dawn of a new era where politics and pop culture seemingly merged into one. The presidents that followed would be actors (Ronald Regan), cowboys (George W. Bush [so he claims]), and lady’s men (William Jefferson Clinton). They were all, for the most part: good looking, svelte, and commanding. Since 1960, the media, specifically television, has gone from being a part of the political conversation to moderating it. News has gone from being broadcast three times a day to 24 hours a day, and the American public’s appetite for the sensational story has grown even as our need to be entertained has become more sophisticated. Now, enter Obama and Hillary.
However, after the first vote in Iowa, Hillary was not the frontrunner, consequently the media declared a new one " Sen. Barack Obama. Since Iowa, Obama’s momentum has been building. However, momentum relies on media presence. Moreover, right now the media favors Obama. Every major Texas newspaper endorses him and his picture seems permanently plastered to the front page. In an effort to make up for their prior, apparently incorrect, prediction that Hillary was the presumptive nominee, newspapers are rushing to criticize her and falling over backwards to praise him. It is as if we are expected to forget that in January Hillary won the endorsements of media giants like the Des Moines Register and the New York Times.
Of course, Obama has had his share of negative coverage (See: http://mediamatters.org/items/200802190002, where during a February 18 edition of MSNBC’s Hardball a picture of Osama Bin Laden appeared while host Chris Matthews was discussing Sen. Barack Obama ) " no politician is immune. Nevertheless, the attacks against Hillary Clinton seem much more personal.
Perhaps it’s because our society doesn’t value the beauty of women over a certain age. How many major male news anchors over 50 can you name? Now name the women. (Can you name any major female news anchors, at all?) In their book, Social Problems 9th ed.(2003), sociologists D. Stanley Eitzen and Maxine Baca Zinn point-out that women only hold 15 percent of the executive positions at U.S. newspapers despite comprising one-third of the workforce. They also point to the fact that in “1998 women only reported 19 percent of all stories on network evening news programs”(Eitzen & Zinn, 258).
And what of the critique of Hillary’s facial expressions? Men are not criticized on such grounds [1], but it’s not because they don’t make funny faces. I have been less than 5ft away from Obama, taking pictures during one of his speeches, and let me tell you, he makes some ridiculous facial expressions.
Ours is an age where a politician’s cleavage is still an appropriate headline. Take the Washington Post’s July 20, 2007 article which discussed a black v-neck top Hillary had worn on the Senate floor. The headline read: “Hillary Clinton’s Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory”.
(See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902668.html). To add insult to injury, the article spawned cleavage coverage all over the national news. Media Matters for America even reports that "MSNBC devoted a total of 23 minutes and 42 seconds to segments discussing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) 'cleavage'." (See: http://mediamatters.org/items/200708010003?f=s_search). Then, during NBC’s July 29 edition of Meet the Press, John Harwood, the CNBC chief Washington correspondent defended the Washington Post article by blaming Hillary:
“HARWOOD: I’m going to defend that column too. When you look at the calculation that goes into everything that Hillary Clinton does, for her to argue that she was not aware of what she was communicating by her dress is like Barry Bonds saying he thought he was rubbing down with
Ours is an age where Virginia women I’ve spoken with state to me that they refuse to vote for Hillary because “she couldn’t hold onto her man”. Where the President of NBC News asks if it seems like “Chelsea [Clinton] is being “pimped out” and an age where, during Imus In The Morning, it is suggested that she [Chelsea Clinton]“have sex with” delegates to aid her mother’s campaign.
Ours is an age where people like Rush Limbaugh use name-calling and cruel taunting to punish women who’ve suffered the tragedy of their husband’s affairs, like when Limbaugh called Hillary “the most cheated-on woman in the world”. (See: http://mediamatters.org/items/200801240014). Ours is an ageThese comments by the media, paired with the daily visual reminders of “young, tall, handsome”; compared to “old, shrill, shrewd” have made this campaign a competition for who looks more presidential " and in that competition a man will always win.
It seems likely that the media based Hillary’s former “front-runner” status on her record, which boasts far more experience than Sen. Obama’s, and didn’t factor into their polling the notion that voting for a woman is a hypothetical until the ballots are cast. In order for Americans to have a real shot at electing the best candidate, as opposed to the candidate that looks the most presidential, the media must stop calling attention to sexist (and racist) stereotypes and start focusing on platforms and voting records. Let the televised charisma monopolize our hearts, but let the media remind our minds that there is more to being a president than words and bringing people together.
One more item I would like to touch on as being unfair to Senator Hillary Clinton is that when she may be behind Obama in a state poll but within the margin of error, it is always referred to as a lead for Senator Obama. When Senator Obama trails Senator Clinton but within the margin of error it is always referred to as a statistical dead heat, if that alone does not point out just how biased the media is in favor of Senator Obama then I don’t know what will
Well this is just the tip of the iceberg of whats in store if Obama get the nomination. The Republican shredding machine will use Rovian-Atwater tactics that will must likely tear appart Obama's campaign.
He is not vetted and experienced in running campaigns against extreme right wing Republicans the way Hillary Clinton is, she is tried, tested and successful
I embedded this video just as an example as to whats to come, trust me it is going to be ugly
The Republicans will not treat Obama with the velvet gloves that Hillary and the Democrats have. Obama has little experience in running a major campaign against a serious Republican candidat
His opponent for the Senate was Alan Keys whose claim to fame was losing every elected office he ever ran for. The Democratic Party may be suffering "Caveat Emptor" when the general election gets into gear hoping that they had nominated Hillary Clinton. I suppose only time will tell, but I am going by all my political experience and basic common sense. Watch this video and come to your own conclusions...
Meet the Press: Ralph Nader and a roundtable with New York Times' David Brooks, historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, NPR's Michele Norris, and NBC's Chuck Todd.
Face the Nation: McCain senior advisor Charles Black, Clinton surrogate Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI), Obama surrogate Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-Ariz.) and Politico Executive Editor Jim Vandehei.
This Week: Sen. Joe Biden and a roundtable with Peggy Noonan, Washington Post's E.J. Dionne, Cokie Roberts, and George Will.
Fox News Sunday: Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC), Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ), Rick Davis, McCain Campaign Manager and a panel with Brit Hume, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol and Juan Williams.
Chris Matthews Show: Dan Rather of HD Net; Gloria Borger of U.S. News; Howard Fineman of Newsweek; and Norah O'Donnell of NBC News.
Bloomberg's Political Capital with Al Hunt: Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland.
Tim Russert: Washington Post's Eugene Robinson, The New Republic's Michael Crowley, and MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell.
This is America: Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
CN8's Roll Call TV with Robert Traynham: Roll Call Reporters Erin Billings, David Drucker and Emily Heil.
Let’s get to the truth about Barack Obama and beyond this silly preposterous Obama mania that’s going on and see the man, the presidential candidate for who he really is…a dangerous left wing radical extremist that in my opinion would not make a good president.
It’s a fact that Barack Obama has close ties to Bill Ayers, and for those that not familiar with whom he is, he was a former member of the radical criminal anti war group “The Weather Underground” and they were best known for planting bombs one of which “accidently” went off exploding and taking three lives of other members of the Weather Underground whereupon Ayers went underground as a fugitive from justice bombing federal buildings with the FBI in hot pursuit of them.
Eventually he and the remaining members of the Weather Underground turned themselves in where many of the charges were dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct which I do not buy, most likely it was because daddy was CEO of Commonwealth Edison with deep pockets and political influence.
There has been some questioning about the relationship between Senator Obama and Ayers as they served together on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago and attended a “political event” at the home of Ayers and his partner in crime and wife Bernadine Dohrn.
To be fair to Sen. Obama he has publically condemned the violence of the radical criminal acts of the Weathermen and claims Ayers has no role in the campaign which I find difficult to believe when you consider that Ayres wife Bernadine Dohrn holds a BA degree in Political Science from the University of Chicago and a graduate of Chicago Law School and serves as associate professor of law at Northwestern University and adjunct professor of criminal justice at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
You just have to enjoy the irony of criminals serving as professors teaching law at our colleges. As far as I am concerned they should both be rotting in jail for murder and subversion and crimes against our government.
I find it deeply disturbing that Senator Obama has any dealings with these people whatsoever. Why hasn’t the media picked up on this, why haven’t moderators during the debates questioned him on this issue?
Instead the New York Times is too busy running garbage about non existent affairs with Senator McCain, Why is the media so afraid of being critical of Senator Obama? They are certainly having no fear of being critical of Senator Clinton, do I detect hypocrisy here?
Earlier in the week the media made a big stink about Michelle Obama’s remark [“for the first time in my adult lifetime I am proud to be an American.”] Many have widely criticized her for that remark wondering why she was not grateful for being an American in her adult life, but upon further inspection one can see why she made that remark and has those feelings.
When we see this fuzzy relationship that Senator Obama has with ‘60’s radical criminal group the Underground Weathermen one cannot feel surprised of her feelings and there is a disturbing pattern here you couple the aforementioned issues with the fact that Sen. Obama refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance and refuses to wear the symbolic flag pin that all congressmen and congresswomen wear since 911.
Senator Obama says he has better ways of displaying his patriotism, I have yet to see any patriotism from this man, just extreme leftist psychobabble. It is dreadful how we have lowered the bar that a presidential candidate can be chummy with a woman at one time on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list Feel free to weigh in with your comments
New York Times for shoddy journalism and assassination of character against John McCain alluding to an affair of Sen. John McCain and Vicki Iseman.
For the New York Times to print a major article that has such tremendous capacity to affect on our electoral process not to mention John McCain's character, his wife and their children not to mention American citizens whose judgment and decision may be affected at the polls.
At college I was taught in my journalism class that you never allow an article to go to press without having two confirmed sources who are willing to go on record as sources, in addition to physical proof i.e. photos receipt where one room was shared by both parties or if one of the parties involved admits to an affair, in this situation the New York Times had neither.
Their source was two 'nameless' disgruntled former employees nothing more and their accusations were so broad and vague one wonders if they weighed the probative value vs. the value of hurting the character and perhaps reputation of an innocent party or parties.
It may seem odd to my colleagues that I as a Progressive Democrat would defend the Conservative Republican Sen. John McCain, its simple when I see a wrong being committed I have to speak out and correct it, and by all that I was taught in my journalism classes, and by my professor and proper journalistic ethics then I had to defend Sen. John McCain; besides its not all that difficult to do since even though I disagree with many of his policies I admire and respect his character and his Naval Service and the years he suffered terribly as a POW in Vietnam.
Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday that as president he would spend $210 billion to create jobs in construction and environmental industries, as he tried to win over economically struggling voters. Obama's investment would be over 10 years as part of two programs. The larger is $150 billion to create 5 million so-called "green collar" jobs to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources.
Sixty-billion dollars would go to a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports and other public projects. Obama estimated that could generate nearly 2 million jobs, many of them in the construction industry that's been hit by the housing crisis.
"This agenda is paid for," Obama said as the Republican National Committee promoted an "Obama Spend-O-Meter" online to track his proposals and portray him as a tax-and-spend liberal. Obama explained that the money for his spending proposals will come from ending the Iraq war, cutting tax breaks for corporations, taxing carbon pollution and raising taxes on high income earners.
Neera Tanden, Hillary Rodham Clinton's policy director, said Obama was offering ideas Clinton proposed months ago. "Voters may ask themselves that if Senator Obama cannot produce his own ideas on the campaign trail, how will he solve new problems as president?" Tanden said in a memo e-mailed to reporters.
Obama, who has faced criticism that he doesn't have enough policy specifics, asked autoworkers at the General Motors plant in Janesville, Wis., to "bear with me" as his began a policy speech that he said would be unlike his typical rousing addresses. He read from a TelePrompTer in an industrial training room, flanked by sparkling new vehicles and a large American flag.
"Today I want to take it down a notch," Obama said. "This is going to be a speech that's a little more detailed. It's going to be a little bit longer, not as many applause lines." Obama pointedly did not include one of his biggest applause lines, that he would require vehicle manufacturers to raise fuel economy standards. Obama often points out that he delivered that message straight to the automakers during a speech last year in Detroit. But he didn't mention it on the plant visit that came a day after GM reported the largest annual loss ever for an American automaker"$38.7 billion in 2007.
"I know that General Motors received some bad news yesterday," Obama said. "I also know how much progress you've made, how many hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles you're churning out. And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to retool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years."
Obama heads into Tuesday's Wisconsin primary as the favorite in the state and the front-runner for the nomination. His victories in the last eight contests have put him ahead of Clinton in the delegate chase. But Obama did not pursue the front-runner strategy of ignoring rivals. He repeatedly criticized Clinton in an effort to beat back the challenge she still poses to him.
He tied her to likely Republican presidential nominee John McCain for their shared vote to authorize the war in Iraq. He lumped her with President Bush for offering an economic recovery plan that didn't include immediate relief, without mentioning that both the president and Clinton quickly adopted tax rebates. Obama's appearance in Janesville was part of a strategy to reach out to voters who might be struggling in the economy and who have supported Clinton in most contests so far. Combining exit polls from 19 states that had competitive Democratic primaries before Tuesday, Clinton had a 49 percent to 46 percent edge over Obama with voters who named the economy as the No. 1 problem.
But Obama seemed to be turning that around in his most recent victories Tuesday. In Virginia and Maryland, Obama dominated among the one-half of Democratic voters who named the economy as their chief concern. In both states, about six in 10 Democrats who cited the economy voted for Obama, just makes me wonder i'm so outta here---
Today I was browsing the online Washington Post and Newsweek and came across a terrific article written by Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post, I thought I would reprint here just in case my colleagues here at JH do not think I am the only one critical of Barack Obama, here is a reprint of his brilliant article:
February 20, 2008 The Obama Delusion By Robert Samuelson WASHINGTON -- It's hard not to be dazzled by Barack Obama. At the 2004 Democratic convention, he visited with Newsweek reporters and editors, including me. I came away deeply impressed by his intelligence, his forceful language and his apparent willingness to take positions that seemed to rise above narrow partisanship. Obama has become the Democratic presidential front-runner, precisely because countless millions have formed a similar opinion. It is, I now think, mistaken.
As a journalist, I harbor serious doubt about each of the likely nominees. But with Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain, I feel that I'm dealing with known quantities. They've been in the public arena for years; their views, values and temperaments have received enormous scrutiny. By contrast, newcomer Obama is largely a stage presence defined mostly by his powerful rhetoric. The trouble, at least for me, is the huge and deceptive gap between his captivating oratory and his actual views.
The subtext of Obama's campaign is that his own life narrative -- to become the first African-American president, a huge milestone in the nation's journey from slavery -- can serve as a metaphor for other political stalemates. Great impasses can be broken with sufficient good will, intelligence and energy. "It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white," he says. Along with millions of others, I find this a powerful appeal.
But on inspection, the metaphor is a mirage. Repudiating racism is not a magic cure-all for the nation's ills. It requires independent ideas, and Obama has few. If you examine his agenda, it is completely ordinary, highly partisan, not candid and mostly unresponsive to many pressing national problems.
By Obama's own moral standards, Obama fails. Americans "are tired of hearing promises made and 10-point plans proposed in the heat of a campaign only to have nothing change," he recently said. Shortly thereafter, he outlined an economic plan of at least 12 points that, among other things, would:
-- Provide a $1,000 tax cut for most two-earner families ($500 for singles).
-- Create a $4,000 refundable tuition tax credit for every year of college.
-- Expand the child care tax credit for people earning less than $50,000 and "double spending on quality after-school programs."
-- Enact an "energy plan" that would invest $150 billion in 10 years to create a "green energy sector."
Whatever one thinks of these ideas, they're standard goodie-bag politics: something for everyone. They're so similar to many Clinton proposals that her campaign put out a news release accusing him of plagiarizing. With existing budget deficits and the costs of Obama's "universal health plan," the odds of enacting his full package are slim.
A favorite Obama line is that he will tell "the American people not just what they want to hear, but what we need to know." Well, he hasn't so far.
Consider the retiring baby boomers. A truth-telling Obama might say: "Spending for retirees -- mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- is already nearly half the federal budget. Unless we curb these rising costs, we will crush our children with higher taxes. Reflecting longer life expectancies, we should gradually raise the eligibility ages for these programs and trim benefits for wealthier retirees. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for inaction. Waiting longer will only worsen the problem."
Instead, Obama pledges not to raise the retirement age and to "protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries." This isn't "change"; it's sanctification of the status quo. He would also exempt all retirees making less than $50,000 annually from income tax. By his math, that would provide average tax relief of $1,400 to 7 million retirees -- shifting more of the tax burden onto younger workers. Obama's main proposal for Social Security is to raise the payroll tax beyond the present $102,000 ceiling.
Political candidates routinely indulge in exaggeration, pandering, inconsistency and self-serving obscurity. Clinton and McCain do. The reason for holding Obama to a higher standard is that it's his standard and also his campaign's central theme. He has run on the vague promise of "change," but on issue after issue -- immigration, the economy, global warming -- he has offered boilerplate policies that evade the underlying causes of the stalemates. These issues remain contentious because they involve real conflicts or differences of opinion.
The contrast between his broad rhetoric and his narrow agenda is stark, and yet the press corps -- preoccupied with the political "horse race" -- has treated his invocation of "change" as a serious idea rather than a shallow campaign slogan. He seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story. The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation's major problems when, so far, he isn't.
Well now that all the euphoria has subsided from Tuesday’s Wisconsin primary one factor remains and that is basically most of the extreme liberals in the Democratic Party have no comprehension of politics as they once again voted for the wrong candidate and it follows a central theme that it has in previous primaries and caucuses.
Most responses have been that Obama preaches the politics of hope and “change” but yet then cannot accurately define what that so called hope or change is, and it’s certainly not by accident that they have the inability to do so. Sen. Obama deliberately loves to talk in abstract terms of his vision of change and hope, rarely does he ever talk in specifics about his policies for the future and specifically how to pay for them; the reason for that is simple because once he defines his policies, what they entail and where he will get the money to pay for them he is no longer Obama the immortal, instead he becomes Obama the mortal, and all his “12 point plans” are the politics as usual and he is no longer a Washington outsider.
Obama is being too clever by half. The Democrats voting and backing him are fools, and far worse hurting their own party and for what? Because of emotionalism he is such a great orator Because when we listen to his preaching we get goose bumps and feel good and after all we want and need a candidate that makes us feel good. Are we that insecure about ourselves that we need a candidate that makes us feel good? Have we as a nation become that pathetic?
What I would love to know is the justification for a freshman U.S. Senator from Illinois who has not even completed his contract to complete his first term as senator to run for POTUS, is it asking that much to serve a term or two and serve on a major committee i.e. Armed Forces Senate Intelligence Committee building a resume for the presidency the proper way.
Lately all I hear from the media is bashing of Hillary on every single issue yet the media gleefully gives Obama a free pass on almost everything nothing he has said on stump speeches or campaign adds has the media held him to account, I’d love to know why.
Yesterday the usually timid Chris Matthews showed a tiny bit of courage when he asked a local Texas State Senator Kirk Watson if he could name some of Obama’s legislative accomplishments and he said he could not name any legislative accomplishments all he could say is he inspires people and attracts huge crowds and for that we must elect Obama president. I want to know have the democrats gone truly insane, where is the sanity and common sense in the Democratic Party?
I cannot say that I was suprised yesterday at Michelle Obama's huge gaffe in her stump speech yesterday in Madison WI. where she said:
"For the first time in my adult lifetime I'm proud of my country"
That is an exact quote of what she said yesterday; let me tell putting gender aside I as an american was deeply offended by that remark, bear in mind that I take into account that she is a minority and had struggles and challenges in life that most white americans do not have to endure, having prefaced that I still take issue with that comment
My belief is that we should all be proud to be americans I am proud to be an american, now having said that, are there things wrong with America that need to be improved upon? Yes there is. There are also many acomplishments during Michelle Obama's lifetime that would make any american regardless of gender, race, creed color or economic status proud to be an american, there are many americans that have greatly suffered yet are still proud to be and call themselves americans. She says that its not just because her husband is doing well in the primaries yet she never fully described what has made her proud other then broad abstract idealism. This sort of gaffe is great fodder for the Republicans and Mccain and do not doubt that the conservatives will make great hay with this, it has already started this afternoon in "fixed news" aka Fox News.
I see a common thread in the Obama campaign, that being that both he and his wife seem to be embarassed of patriotism yesterday it was Michelle Obama's speech, before that it was Obama's refusal to say the Pledge of Allegence, and the refusal to wear the flag pin that is worn by all U.S. Congressmen and Congresswomen and U.S. Senators symbolic of 911 and its victims, its this and many other things that deeply disturb me about the obama campaign I simply see this as Jessie Jacksonism reinvented, a mission is social jihadism, Michelle calls for and mentions change...but change to what to hope well Ms. Obama define that hope for us please and please stop defining it in abstract terms, for once can you and your husband go on the record for something and define yourselves in specifics and not generalities. Somehow I think they are afraid to because if they do they are afraid they will lose the nomination.These are just a few of the reasons that I personally think Hillary Clinton will make a far more difficult candidate to defeat in the general election against McCain as opposed to Barack Obama...feel free to weigh in with your comments.
Well, it seems like Castro's long reign of power has come to an end....well sort of...Fidel Castro will formally retire and transfer power over to his brother Raul Castro.
Castro, in my humble opinion could have gone out in style by allowing democratic and free election reforms at least trying to make ammends for his long reign of terror, death squads, communism and depriving the cuban citizens the free exercise of religion, but no no no Castro chose to remain as arrogant at 81 as he was in his 30's when he took power
Ironically, Castro wasn't always a bad person, although born out of wedlock and not being formally baptized until the age 8 years old which in those days was sort of a social stigma, he went on to attend and graduate Catholic School run by the Jesuits as an intellectually gifted student , went on to attend the University of Havanna, where he majored in law and getting politically active in activist groups
Castro went on to abandon his law practice and joined the death squads and opposition groups that were engaging in guerilla war against then dictator Fulgencio Batista
In my humble opinion Castro could have greatly improved his legacy, knowing his days are shortly numbered, by calling for democratic reforms, setting loose political prisoners, and allowing and calling for truly free elections, and most importantly the free exercise of religion, and making peace with his God. It is sad that Castro has chosen to be resillient to change and despite his ill health that it has done precious little guide him on a path toward humility and civility to his Cuban citizens, what a tragic waste.
I have always been an ardent admirer and defender of Chelsea Clinton, even from the early years of the Clinton Presidency when she suffered dreadful insults at the hand of extremist right wing ideologues that would verbally castigate her for her physical appearance calling her ugly and far worse. Well now Chelsea has the last laugh as she has blossomed into a beautiful swan that most men would give their right arm to marry, both for her intellect and for her beauty.
I think she has really blossomed and at 27 years old she has her whole future ahead of her and in my opinion Hillary and Bill Clinton have done a teriffic job slowly allowing Chelsea to intergate herself in the public sector, the highest praise I can give to Chelsea is that I hope my daughter turns out as well as Chelsea
I posted one of the rare vidoes of her on the campagin trail for her mom and I was thoroughly impressed, she has the poise of her mom and the charisma and easy talking style and personality of her dad. She still needs a little polishing around the edges she is still slightly awkward starting out and a little shy, but thats normal as the natual maturation process will kick in as she becomes more comfortable speaking in public
It is my sincerest hop that one day Ms. Chelsea Clinton runs for office, I do think she certainly has the intelligence and personality going for her and I honestly believe that society would greatly benefit if she ever did decide to run for office, in the mean time I will look forward to seeing her speak and do stump speeches on the campaign trail for her mom
Bill and Hillary are to be congratulated for doing a great job raising Chelsea and the protection they have given her from the media. Chelsea keep up the good work! You go girl!
The problem I see with Hillary is that she lacks true emotion in her stump speeches, no I'm not talking about the whining or pouting, I am talking about true passion or true grit, she needs to excite people. How does she do this? Simple...
She needs to go into what I call Sally Field or Norma Rae mode, if anyone saw that scene with Sally Field as she rang that bell at the textile mill it was a powerful moment the people rallied and related to that scene, and no I do not mean the characters in the movie, but the viewers in the audience, she has to have that defining moment, that moment of true grit that can difine a candidate for an entire election, that’s what Obama has and she needs to develop hers, her inner woman spirit as Obama found his ethnic spirit.
She has become too wooden to monotone, show passion, show anger, show frustration show hope, a new vision in the future, Sen. Clinton has to be that shining star, that "bridge over troubled waters, 'that friend' that if you need a friend I’m sailing right behind"
She needs to be that amplifier that amplifies human emotions that leads them to strive and believe that Sen. Clinton can provide a better world for them and their children.
Yes I know that this may sound over the top but before being too judgmental or critical of me suffice to say it has worked for Sen. Obama, if she can combine that with her skills at conveying policy issues, she just may have a chance at turning back Obama's momentum and win the nomination. Now granted Hillary is not an actress at least not in the Hollywood sense, but then again neither is Barrack Obama; since we all are capable of human emotions and displaying them, I humbly have suggested to her as much, which is to say that is much as a strategist can do, the rest is up to the candidate, you can only lead in this case a candidate to water. Feel free to weigh in with your comments.
Keith Olbermann spoke up last night on David Shuster’s shameful and appalling comment about Chelsea Clinton. Olbermann not only condemned his fellow MSNBC journalist’s disgusting remark, but also apologized on behalf of the network, with far more class and dignity than Shuster himself. Watch it here:
H/T to Taylor. Howard Kurtz noted today, “In case there was any doubt, using a prostitution metaphor for the daughter of a presidential candidate is not a good career move.”
I have always liked Obermann he was probably the only good reason to tune into MSNBC.
As For David Shuster I have no idea why he made such an offending remark, its positively sexist, rude, and assination of Chelsea's good name and good character and to add insult to injury in the begining David Shuster refused to apologize as as original transcript between Shuster and a long time Clinton aide...
Page 2
-----Original Message----- From: Philippe Reines To: David Shuster Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 7:14 p.m.
David - how hard is it for someone, anyone, in the vast MS/NBC universe to contact any one of us at the campaign for comment about Chelsea before going on air and saying that she is being "pimped out" ? It's absurdly offensive. And what the hell does that even mean?
I just don't get MSNBC - does GE not allow you to make toll calls? What's the problem.
Philippe Reines Press Secretary Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
-----Original Message----- From: David Shuster To: Philippe Reines Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 8:51 p.m.
Nice to hear from you, philippe.
It is a fact that chelsea has made calls to superdelegates, as your campaign colleagues have acknowledged. It is also a fact that the campaign has reacted quite harshly to any media who have sought to interview chelsea. That was the point. By slamming any reporter who seeks to chat with chelsea while simultaneously having chelsea do campaign tasks such as trying to convince super delegates to support her mom, that's the reference.
Chelsea is polite and does a fine job of saying "I don't want to talk.". But for campaign staff to then jump down the throat of a reporter who seeks to talk to chelsea...that's an issue.
-------------------------- Sent using BlackBerry
-----Original Message----- From: Philippe Reines To: David Shuster Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:00 p.m.
Since you guys asked for the transcript - here specifically is what David said on air:
SHUSTER: "But doesn't it seem like she's being--but doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"
I have a hunch that such offensive and unacceptable language was never used on MSNBC's air about Karenna Gore, the Bush twins, Venessa & Alex Kerry, Kate Edwards, the Romney sons - or any other adult offspring who chose to campaign on behalf of a parent.
-----Original Message----- From: Philippe Reines To: David Shuster Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:16: p.m.
David - I want to make sure I'm crystal clear here - you're saying that because she doesn't grant interviews and makes calls on behalf of her mother, you are right to say that she is being pimped out?
I don't need to read a the whole transcript for context, you were way out of line. Nobody's jumping down your throat about asking for an interview or talking about calls she made. And you know it.
There is simply no excuse for being so offensive.
By actually rationalizing your behavior rather than accepting responsibility and apologizing, you become the poster child for everything wrong with tv journalism, and it's a shame your NBC colleagues have to be associated with this (expletive).
-----Original Message----- From: David Shuster To: Philippe Reines Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:29 p.m.
No. That's not what I'm saying. And if you bothered to look at the transcript and saw all of the glowing things I said about chelsea and the way she was raised, you would know that.
The issue is not her making calls. As + said on the air, I have no problems with that what so ever. The issue is not her refusing interviews. The issue is that the campaign has come down hard on reporters who merely sought to ask chelsea questions. You can't have it both ways. Reporters have long respected the clintons desire that we avoid chelsea and let her have her space. But to get angry at reporters seeking to talk to her now is patently unfair. And you know that.
-------------------------- Sent using BlackBerry
-----Original Message----- From: Philippe Reines To: David Shuster Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:49 p.m.
I think we've each said what we have to say on this matter. Based on this email exchange, we're assuming two things:
1) You are not disputing that you said on air: "But doesn't it seem like she's being--but doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"
2) You have no intention of apologizing for the above.
EDITOR'S NOTE: An early version of this story included a truncated copy of the Shuster-Reines correspondence. This version reflects the full exchange
Hillary Clinton blasted MSNBC’s David Shuster today for his “incredibly offensive” on air remarks about Chelsea Clinton. Shuster, as noted here has apologized and even Keith Olbermann stepped up to the plate an issued his onw apology on behalf of the network last night.
But, Hillary Clinton spoke up today on the issue, telling reporters in Bangor, Maine, “I found the remarks incredibly offensive.”
Clinton also “she sent a letter to NBC brass that called for swift action against Shuster, who was suspended Friday by MSNBC.”
“Nothing justifiesthe kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient,” Clinton wrote to NBC News President Steve Capus, who apparently had already called Clinton to personally apologize.
“I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language,” Clinton wrote. “There’s a lot at stake for our country in this election. Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and commentators and still keep the discourse civil and appropriate.”
The full text of Hillary Clinton’s letter is here.
Clinton also said in the letter, “I became Chelsea’s mother long before I ran for any office and I will always be a mom first and a public official second.”
And she told reporters on Friday, “I am a mom first and a candidate second. You know I can take whatever comes my way. That’s what I signed up for as a candidate and an office holder.”
Both of those statements really say it all, don’t they. The ever acid tongued Hart Williams who used to write here at the Dem Daily, apparently thinks my comment in an earlier post about this subject was shrill, because I said, “I know I sure as hell would be outraged if someone said something like that about my daughter, and anyone who thought Hillary Clinton and her campaign would sit back and let Shuster get away with this was dreaming.”
I used to expect from from Williams on subjects like this, as one of his favorite things to do in the blogosphere has been to rip the media a new one on issues like this. But now instead, a woman on the campaign trail should not defend her daughter and likewise other women who are mothers should not be outraged. Give me break. All women with children (
It may seem odd to my colleagues that I as a Progressive Democrat would defend the Conservative Republican Sen. John McCain, its simple when I see a wrong being committed I have to speak out and correct it, and by all that I was taught in my journalism classes, and by my professor and proper journalistic ethics then I had to defend Sen. John McCain; besides its not all that difficult to do since even though I disagree with many of his policies I admire and respect his character and his Naval Service and the years he suffered terribly as a POW in Vietnam. 
February 20, 2008 The Obama Delusion By Robert Samuelson WASHINGTON -- It's hard not to be dazzled by Barack Obama. At the 2004 Democratic convention, he visited with Newsweek reporters and editors, including me. I came away deeply impressed by his intelligence, his forceful language and his apparent willingness to take positions that seemed to rise above narrow partisanship. Obama has become the Democratic presidential front-runner, precisely because countless millions have formed a similar opinion. It is, I now think, mistaken.
