Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/11/obama%e2%80%99s-coattails-just-got-a-little-shorter/
By Ani
According to The Washington Times’ article Centrist Voters Tilt from Obama:
Sen. Barack Obama is doing what Republicans once thought only a presidential candidacy by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton could do – united the right and center.
State Republican Party leaders interviewed by The Washington Times said fear of a far-left Obama presidency is warming once-skeptical voters to Sen. John McCain, fueling growing enthusiasm among Republicans that Mr. McCain’s more aggressive campaigning can lead to victory.
“It appears that the more that Obama speaks, the more afraid folks in South Carolina get,” said Spartanburg County Republican Party Chairman Rick Beltram. “We are seeing ‘die-hard’ Democrats tell us that Obama is not their man.
“We are expecting the white Democrats to be fleeing the Democratic ship when November 4 comes around – plus, the Democratic candidate [Bob Conley] that is running against Senator [Lindsey] Graham is also running away from the Democrats, and you can quote me on that,” Mr. Beltram said.
Holy Cow, Batman! This is one of the states Howard Dean said he could turn blue in the fall!!
Look, this is an article quoting some state party leaders and the conventions have not happened yet; all too true. But one of the DNC’s main reasons for pushing Obama was their confidence in picking up seats for down ticket Dems. That Democratic candidate for Senator Bob Conley is “running away from the Democrats” does not bode well. And we know he is not only one to have done so these last couple of months.
In union-dominated Michigan, a state targeted by both major parties, state Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis said he is seeing signs that independents and Reagan Democrats are moving toward Mr. McCain.
“People who may have been apprehensive about McCain now see this race as potentially winnable,” Mr. Anuzis said.
What accounts for this development?
Republicans credit Mr. McCain’s gains in recent weeks partly to the campaign’s new feisty, hard-hitting ads painting Mr. Obama as a self-absorbed celebrity who ducks meetings with wounded American troops and wants to raise taxes.
Couple that with the fact that foreign policy issues are coming to the fore once again with Russia attacking Georgia – McCain was widely touted as having his 3 A.M. moment this weekend and having been prescient on his warning about the dangers of Putin.
If Senator Clinton were still in the race, McCain would not be able to take advantage of this right now. Hillary would be way out in front with a specific call to action and policy recommendation – unlike Obama, making some vague, generalized statement about this new conflict, on his way to yet another vacation.
“People are getting more enthusiastic about McCain because he is getting more aggressive toward Obama, which makes Republicans and conservatives believe McCain actually can win,” said Jeffrey M. Frederick, the newly elected Republican Party chairman in Virginia.
“…the more people hear about Obama, the more enthusiastic they get about McCain,” Mr. Frederick said.
Uh. Isn’t it supposed to be the opposite? The more you hear about Obama, the more you like? Apparently as more people get to know the real Senator Obama, his poll numbers are sinking. Even his hugely touted foreign tour didn’t give him a bump.
People used to think they ‘hated’ Hillary – certainly reflecting the after-effects of 15 years of incessant media brainwashing by the Republican machine that did not want this lady to succeed – either with universal health care or any progressive agenda. She was labeled in the worst possible terms. Over the years, without knowing why, people started to think they agreed with those unfair assessments.
But a surprising thing happened out on the campaign trail – particularly in the last three months of the primary. Voters got to know her and hear her on the stump, and many were converted. In fact, some voters were left scratching their heads as to where this initial reputation came from. She also won a grudging respect from many on the Republican side who had previously been her detractors. I personally know many Republicans who had every intention of voting for her in November, confident of her preparedness, smarts on the economy as well as feeling safe with her centrist foreign policy.
In Indiana for example, despite being massively outspent, despite the negative drumbeat in the media and the dirty snarks of Pelosi et al, and no matter what voting shenanigans happened in the state, Hillary pulled out a win. Obama was supposed to take Indiana comfortably. It is, after all, his neighboring state. And now…:
“It’s the polls - it’s definitely happening,” said [Indiana] state Rep. Jackie Walorski, a Republican from Elkhart. “But it’s not that these hard-core conservatives I talked with at the county fair here are softening their attitudes toward McCain. They’re sliding toward him out of fear of a liberal Obama presidency, and they think McCain can win.”
In Michigan, Mr. Anuzis said, “the idea that McCain all of a sudden could win is generating a degree of excitement and involvement among people, many of whom may not have been very excited or motivated by McCain at the time he locked up the nomination.”
Jay Kenworthy, communications director for the Indiana Republican Party, said his state’s voters are getting to know Mr. Obama and not liking what they see. “We hear people saying, ‘McCain may not have been my guy, but we can’t afford Obama,’” he said.
But where are all those ‘Obamicans’ we kept hearing about back in February? It just might turn out they were just being “Democrats for a day” after all.
Mr. Kenworthy said a tax raiser who is weak on national defense - the image Republicans are trying to create for Mr. Obama - is “not a good combination in the Hoosier state.”
These are battleground states: South Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Michigan. Wow.
How about Nevada?
“McCain is attracting independents and Hillary Democrats. The more time he spends in Nevada, the more people like him. It’s a small state and easy to reach out to voters,” [Nevada Republican Party Chairman Sue Lowden] said.
Uh oh.
Down ticket Democrats may have some reason to worry. Senator Obama’s fundraising may not be the continuing cornucopia his campaign bragged about. In the past week, I have received six fundraising letters from him. Just me. Obviously, I’m not sending him a dime. Why are they pushing so hard if they’re rolling in it? Even if he has plenty of dough, since Senator Obama decided to forego public financing, those running in state races have expressed unhappiness because his need to fundraise for his own election bid is cutting into contributions they might otherwise receive. Further, his policies, to the extent that he can stick to them, don’t seem to be registering very well out in the heartland.
It looks like the DNC was brainwashed, too, when it bought into the Clinton Derangement Syndrome that labeled Hillary as “divisive and polarizing” – turns out, she may not be after all. In fact, she would have been – and still is – the stronger choice. Just as she always predicted.
Divisive and polarizing?
It looks like Senator Obama may wind up being the man stuck with that moniker.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Obama’s Bin Laden Whopper
Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/11/obamas-bin-laden-whopper/
By Larry Johnson
How did Barack Obama turn a fabricated story into a well-played race card during the primaries?
Obama has been playing race card politics in this campaign for a long time, principally against Hillary Clinton. To be precise, he plays race baiting card politics, accusing others falsely of playing the race card against him.
Back in January, when Obama was posing as the victim of present and past acts of racial attacks he happened to mention a dramatic incident from his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign. Here’s the CNN report:
CNN/AP: Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Obama: It’s not all in the name
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Barack Obama doesn’t think name recognition is necessarily a plus as he seeks the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2008.
“When your name is Barack Obama, you’re always an underdog in political races,” the Illinois Democrat said Wednesday.
Appearing on CNN, Obama said that when he was running for the Senate, “there was an image of me superimposed over a picture of (al Qaeda leader Osama) bin Laden. I think people like to play with my name.”
Pretty awful, Obama’s face morphed into Osama bin Laden’s. Unfortunately, there’s a problem with Obama’s account. It never happened. At least it didn’t happen to him. It did happen to then Senator Max Cleland, Democrat of Georgia, Vietnam War hero, in a vicious TV commercial put on the air by his Republican opponent.
This particular smear was pioneered earlier in 2004 in the Democratic presidential primary campaign against Howard Dean. He was the first person to watch his face morphed into Bin Laden’s. Who would engage in such a nasty, underhanded dirty trick? Karl Rove? Nope. Guess again. The perpetrator of this smear tactic was none other than Robert Gibbs, who just happens to be Obama’s communications director. Read the Chicago Tribune report:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-o…
“Obama’s communications director and one of his closest advisers was once employed by a group that ran a television ad shortly before the 2004 Iowa caucuses that used a picture of bin Laden to criticize Dean’s foreign policy credentials at a point when Dean was the Democratic front-runner.”
Here is that hateful video:
“At the time, Robert Gibbs was working with a shadowy group called Americans for Jobs, Health Care & Progressive Values. The so-called 527 political group paid for the ad but refused to disclose in a timely manner who was financing the effort because federal law did not require it to do so.”
Let’s get this straight: Obama told Democratic voters he had been smeared in 2004 in a way that never happened to him. But the one who invented the smear was someone he decided was so clever he hired him as his communications director. Then, through innuendo, Obama subtly suggested by inference that Hillary might use that tactic against him in the primaries, or smear him in similar ways. That in itself was a smear.
You’ve got to hand it to Obama. He got away smearing Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton as racists while playing the race card and the victim card himself. And nobody has yet to catch up to all the lies.
By Larry Johnson
How did Barack Obama turn a fabricated story into a well-played race card during the primaries?
Obama has been playing race card politics in this campaign for a long time, principally against Hillary Clinton. To be precise, he plays race baiting card politics, accusing others falsely of playing the race card against him.
Back in January, when Obama was posing as the victim of present and past acts of racial attacks he happened to mention a dramatic incident from his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign. Here’s the CNN report:
CNN/AP: Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Obama: It’s not all in the name
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Barack Obama doesn’t think name recognition is necessarily a plus as he seeks the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2008.
“When your name is Barack Obama, you’re always an underdog in political races,” the Illinois Democrat said Wednesday.
Appearing on CNN, Obama said that when he was running for the Senate, “there was an image of me superimposed over a picture of (al Qaeda leader Osama) bin Laden. I think people like to play with my name.”
Pretty awful, Obama’s face morphed into Osama bin Laden’s. Unfortunately, there’s a problem with Obama’s account. It never happened. At least it didn’t happen to him. It did happen to then Senator Max Cleland, Democrat of Georgia, Vietnam War hero, in a vicious TV commercial put on the air by his Republican opponent.
This particular smear was pioneered earlier in 2004 in the Democratic presidential primary campaign against Howard Dean. He was the first person to watch his face morphed into Bin Laden’s. Who would engage in such a nasty, underhanded dirty trick? Karl Rove? Nope. Guess again. The perpetrator of this smear tactic was none other than Robert Gibbs, who just happens to be Obama’s communications director. Read the Chicago Tribune report:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-o…
“Obama’s communications director and one of his closest advisers was once employed by a group that ran a television ad shortly before the 2004 Iowa caucuses that used a picture of bin Laden to criticize Dean’s foreign policy credentials at a point when Dean was the Democratic front-runner.”
Here is that hateful video:
“At the time, Robert Gibbs was working with a shadowy group called Americans for Jobs, Health Care & Progressive Values. The so-called 527 political group paid for the ad but refused to disclose in a timely manner who was financing the effort because federal law did not require it to do so.”
Let’s get this straight: Obama told Democratic voters he had been smeared in 2004 in a way that never happened to him. But the one who invented the smear was someone he decided was so clever he hired him as his communications director. Then, through innuendo, Obama subtly suggested by inference that Hillary might use that tactic against him in the primaries, or smear him in similar ways. That in itself was a smear.
You’ve got to hand it to Obama. He got away smearing Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton as racists while playing the race card and the victim card himself. And nobody has yet to catch up to all the lies.
CNN - STOP the Media Bias against Senator Hillary Clinton
Original Link: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/cnn-stop-bias-against-senator-hillary-clinton.html
by Lauren Francesca Hammond
This is a petition to end the constant Media Bias projected at the democratic nominee Senator Hillary Clinton, by the news network CNN.
Such bias that has consistently gone against Senator Clinton in favor of Senator Obama, has been explicit, untrustworthy and destroyed the credibility and faith that supporters of Senator Clinton have in CNN in bringing them an an objective and factual account of the primary process.
The news slant has been incredibly unfair and has ultimately hurt the Clinton Campaign beyond recognition - voters have been denied the ability to evaluate both candidates in a fair light, on their merits, abilities and achievements.
Not merely have CNN painting Senator Obama in a more favorable light, they have failed to cover in - depth the events that threaten to tarnish his credibility as a candidate; moreover the consistent and unrelenting criticism targeted at Senator Clinton has created the impression that she is the less experienced, less accountable and less colorable candidate.
It has consequentially created the illusion that Senator Obama is more honorable and deserving of positive coverage. This does nothing to aid voters in their efforts to understand or assess who they would choose to elect.
CNN as a commanding news network should know better and it has not merely been distasteful, but ultimately outrageous to watch such behavior being sanctioned - both in the analysis and reporting of the process.
We would urge CNN to examine its approach for the forthcoming primaries, and to strive towards a more balanced and veritable approach that allows voters and viewers to make the right decision, based on the right information.
Petition:
Please sign this petition against the distasteful and unfavorable treatment that CNN has displayed toward the democratic nominee Senator Hilary Clinton.
It is highly unfair and discriminatory to present a candidate in the light in which she has been consistently shown, and it is time for CNN to re-examine their approach in the way in which they choose to report the forthcoming primaries both on the air and on their website.
The favorable treatment of Senator Obama over Senator Clinton will not be tolerated and it is our responsibility as viewers to ensure that CNN is made aware of our objections and that a fair, more balanced approach much be taken in the future.
by Lauren Francesca Hammond
This is a petition to end the constant Media Bias projected at the democratic nominee Senator Hillary Clinton, by the news network CNN.
Such bias that has consistently gone against Senator Clinton in favor of Senator Obama, has been explicit, untrustworthy and destroyed the credibility and faith that supporters of Senator Clinton have in CNN in bringing them an an objective and factual account of the primary process.
The news slant has been incredibly unfair and has ultimately hurt the Clinton Campaign beyond recognition - voters have been denied the ability to evaluate both candidates in a fair light, on their merits, abilities and achievements.
Not merely have CNN painting Senator Obama in a more favorable light, they have failed to cover in - depth the events that threaten to tarnish his credibility as a candidate; moreover the consistent and unrelenting criticism targeted at Senator Clinton has created the impression that she is the less experienced, less accountable and less colorable candidate.
It has consequentially created the illusion that Senator Obama is more honorable and deserving of positive coverage. This does nothing to aid voters in their efforts to understand or assess who they would choose to elect.
CNN as a commanding news network should know better and it has not merely been distasteful, but ultimately outrageous to watch such behavior being sanctioned - both in the analysis and reporting of the process.
We would urge CNN to examine its approach for the forthcoming primaries, and to strive towards a more balanced and veritable approach that allows voters and viewers to make the right decision, based on the right information.
Petition:
Please sign this petition against the distasteful and unfavorable treatment that CNN has displayed toward the democratic nominee Senator Hilary Clinton.
It is highly unfair and discriminatory to present a candidate in the light in which she has been consistently shown, and it is time for CNN to re-examine their approach in the way in which they choose to report the forthcoming primaries both on the air and on their website.
The favorable treatment of Senator Obama over Senator Clinton will not be tolerated and it is our responsibility as viewers to ensure that CNN is made aware of our objections and that a fair, more balanced approach much be taken in the future.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
How John Edwards Helped Destroy Hillary
Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/10/how-obama-treats-labor/
By Larry Johnson
If the story were known last December of John Edwards’ “egocentric and narcissistic” sexual “liaison,” as he calls it, with a woman he says he wasn’t in love, at a time when he says his wife was in remission from cancer (strangest rationalization for an affair ever recorded in human history), there can be little doubt that today the strongest, best qualified candidate, Hillary Clinton, would be the Democratic nominee.
Instead Edwards stayed in the race, harboring his secret life, knowing that it was likely to be exposed and that if he were somehow to emerge from the primary pack he would be humiliated and obliterated, just as he is now.
In the meantime, knowing full well that he was damaged goods, Edwards engaged in a ferocious negative campaign against Hillary–not Obama.
In effect, he was acting as Obama’s running mate. And Obama benefited enormously from having Edwards do some dirty work against Hillary.
Here’s Edwards’ record of negative attacks against Hillary below. For this, more than for his human failings, he deserves scorn. EDWARDS:12/04/07 Edwards said Hillary puts ‘the profits of Wall Street over the interests of Main Street.’ [Source: Edwards Statement]
11/29/07 HEADLINE: Edwards Hammers Clinton by Taking Aim at Lobbyists [Source: Wall Street Journal]
11/21/07 HEADLINE: Edwards gambles on attacking Clinton [Source: Raleigh News & Observer]
11/18/07 HEADLINE: Edwards goes atomic on Hil for dodging nuclear energy question [Source: Daily News]
11/18/07 HEADLINE: Edwards Criticizes Clinton over Iraq [Source: AP]
11/18/07 Edwards: ‘Senator Clinton was not for universal health care at the beginning of this year, at the beginning of the campaign.’ [Source: CNN Late Edition]
11/18/07 Edwards said Hillary wants to ‘protect politicians instead of talking about what we can do together.’ [Source: CNN Late Edition]
11/18/07 Edwards said Hillary was ‘walking away from [her] leadership role as a presidential candidate. [Source: CNN Late Edition]
11/15/07 Edwards said Hillary ‘continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged and is corrupt.’ [Source: Democratic Debate, CNN]
11/14/07 HEADLINE: Edwards criticizes Clinton at Dubuque labor event [Source: AP]
11/12/07 HEADLINE: Edwards criticizes Clinton for ‘double talk’ [Source: AP]
11/12/07 Edwards chief advisor Joe Trippi: ‘Let’s kick her ass.’ [Source: Politico.com]
11/10/07 Edwards said ‘Sen. Clinton in many ways represents the status quo.’ [Source: Politico.com]
11/06/07 Edwards accused Hillary of ‘double talk and evasions.’ [Source: CNN]
11/05/07 HEADLINE: Edwards Accuses Clinton of Two-Faced Foreign Policy [Source: Fox News]
11/04/07 Edwards said that Hillary ‘operates within a corrupt system and defends it.’ [Source: ABC News]
11/02/07 Edwards accuses Hillary of ’spin, smoke and mirrors — the same kind of double talk.’ [Source: CNN.com]
10/31/07 Edwards said Hillary ‘is trying to have it both ways.’ [Source: AP]
10/30/07 Edwards: ‘If people want the status quo, Senator Clinton’s your candidate’: [Source: MSNBC Debate]
10/30/07 Edwards compares believing Hillary will be ‘the person who brings change’ to believing in ‘Santa Claus’ and ‘The Tooth Fairy.’ [Source: MSNBC Debate]
10/29/07 Edwards says Hillary was not in ‘tell the truth mode.’ [Source: Foster’s]
10/28/07 HEADLINE: Edwards accuses Clinton of failing to connect with voters [Source: AP]
10/25/07 HEADLINE: Edwards blasts Clinton, Romney on Iran [Source: AP]
10/23/07 Edwards advisor said that Hillary would have ‘toxic coattails.’ [Source: LA Times]
10/21/07 HEADLINE: Edwards attacks Clinton fundraiser [Source: United Press International]
10/19/07 HEADLINE: Edwards campaign slams Clinton push for rural vote [Source: Boston Globe]
10/19/07 Edwards Campaign manager says Hillary ’should explain why she does not mean what she says.’ [Source: Bonior Statement]
10/08/07 Edwards spokeswoman says Hillary is ‘defending a rigged system in Washington.’ [Source: Washington Post]
09/18/07 HEADLINE: Edwards hammers Clinton on health care [Source: Chicago Tribune]
09/18/07 HEADLINE: Edwards slams Clinton fundraising lunch [Source: AP]
09/08/07 HEADLINE: Edwards slams Clinton on health care [Source: AP]
09/08/07 HEADLINE: Edwards Takes On Special Interests, Hits Clinton [Source: AP]
08/27/07 Edwards advisor says Edwards ‘has a better chance of being elected pope’ than Hillary elected president. [Source: Washington Post]
08/24/07 HEADLINE: Edwards takes shots at Clinton ‘nostalgia’ [Source: Chicago Tribune]
08/23/07 HEADLINE: Edwards slams Clinton, ‘establishment elites’ [Source: CNN.com]
08/07/07 Edwards said I am not “the candidate that big corporate America is betting on.” [Source: AFL-CIO Forum]
07/24/07 Edwards said ‘we will not have big change through compromise or triangulation.’ [Source: Atlanta Journal Constitution]
06/07/07 Headline: ‘Edwards Assails Clinton’s Terror Remarks’ [Source: AP]
05/04/07 Edwards called Hillary’s proposal to deauthorize the Iraq war ‘just noise.’ [Source: Edwards statement]
02/05/07 Headline: ‘Edwards Steps Up Hill War’ [Source: New York Post]
By Larry Johnson
If the story were known last December of John Edwards’ “egocentric and narcissistic” sexual “liaison,” as he calls it, with a woman he says he wasn’t in love, at a time when he says his wife was in remission from cancer (strangest rationalization for an affair ever recorded in human history), there can be little doubt that today the strongest, best qualified candidate, Hillary Clinton, would be the Democratic nominee.
Instead Edwards stayed in the race, harboring his secret life, knowing that it was likely to be exposed and that if he were somehow to emerge from the primary pack he would be humiliated and obliterated, just as he is now.
In the meantime, knowing full well that he was damaged goods, Edwards engaged in a ferocious negative campaign against Hillary–not Obama.
In effect, he was acting as Obama’s running mate. And Obama benefited enormously from having Edwards do some dirty work against Hillary.
Here’s Edwards’ record of negative attacks against Hillary below. For this, more than for his human failings, he deserves scorn. EDWARDS:12/04/07 Edwards said Hillary puts ‘the profits of Wall Street over the interests of Main Street.’ [Source: Edwards Statement]
11/29/07 HEADLINE: Edwards Hammers Clinton by Taking Aim at Lobbyists [Source: Wall Street Journal]
11/21/07 HEADLINE: Edwards gambles on attacking Clinton [Source: Raleigh News & Observer]
11/18/07 HEADLINE: Edwards goes atomic on Hil for dodging nuclear energy question [Source: Daily News]
11/18/07 HEADLINE: Edwards Criticizes Clinton over Iraq [Source: AP]
11/18/07 Edwards: ‘Senator Clinton was not for universal health care at the beginning of this year, at the beginning of the campaign.’ [Source: CNN Late Edition]
11/18/07 Edwards said Hillary wants to ‘protect politicians instead of talking about what we can do together.’ [Source: CNN Late Edition]
11/18/07 Edwards said Hillary was ‘walking away from [her] leadership role as a presidential candidate. [Source: CNN Late Edition]
11/15/07 Edwards said Hillary ‘continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged and is corrupt.’ [Source: Democratic Debate, CNN]
11/14/07 HEADLINE: Edwards criticizes Clinton at Dubuque labor event [Source: AP]
11/12/07 HEADLINE: Edwards criticizes Clinton for ‘double talk’ [Source: AP]
11/12/07 Edwards chief advisor Joe Trippi: ‘Let’s kick her ass.’ [Source: Politico.com]
11/10/07 Edwards said ‘Sen. Clinton in many ways represents the status quo.’ [Source: Politico.com]
11/06/07 Edwards accused Hillary of ‘double talk and evasions.’ [Source: CNN]
11/05/07 HEADLINE: Edwards Accuses Clinton of Two-Faced Foreign Policy [Source: Fox News]
11/04/07 Edwards said that Hillary ‘operates within a corrupt system and defends it.’ [Source: ABC News]
11/02/07 Edwards accuses Hillary of ’spin, smoke and mirrors — the same kind of double talk.’ [Source: CNN.com]
10/31/07 Edwards said Hillary ‘is trying to have it both ways.’ [Source: AP]
10/30/07 Edwards: ‘If people want the status quo, Senator Clinton’s your candidate’: [Source: MSNBC Debate]
10/30/07 Edwards compares believing Hillary will be ‘the person who brings change’ to believing in ‘Santa Claus’ and ‘The Tooth Fairy.’ [Source: MSNBC Debate]
10/29/07 Edwards says Hillary was not in ‘tell the truth mode.’ [Source: Foster’s]
10/28/07 HEADLINE: Edwards accuses Clinton of failing to connect with voters [Source: AP]
10/25/07 HEADLINE: Edwards blasts Clinton, Romney on Iran [Source: AP]
10/23/07 Edwards advisor said that Hillary would have ‘toxic coattails.’ [Source: LA Times]
10/21/07 HEADLINE: Edwards attacks Clinton fundraiser [Source: United Press International]
10/19/07 HEADLINE: Edwards campaign slams Clinton push for rural vote [Source: Boston Globe]
10/19/07 Edwards Campaign manager says Hillary ’should explain why she does not mean what she says.’ [Source: Bonior Statement]
10/08/07 Edwards spokeswoman says Hillary is ‘defending a rigged system in Washington.’ [Source: Washington Post]
09/18/07 HEADLINE: Edwards hammers Clinton on health care [Source: Chicago Tribune]
09/18/07 HEADLINE: Edwards slams Clinton fundraising lunch [Source: AP]
09/08/07 HEADLINE: Edwards slams Clinton on health care [Source: AP]
09/08/07 HEADLINE: Edwards Takes On Special Interests, Hits Clinton [Source: AP]
08/27/07 Edwards advisor says Edwards ‘has a better chance of being elected pope’ than Hillary elected president. [Source: Washington Post]
08/24/07 HEADLINE: Edwards takes shots at Clinton ‘nostalgia’ [Source: Chicago Tribune]
08/23/07 HEADLINE: Edwards slams Clinton, ‘establishment elites’ [Source: CNN.com]
08/07/07 Edwards said I am not “the candidate that big corporate America is betting on.” [Source: AFL-CIO Forum]
07/24/07 Edwards said ‘we will not have big change through compromise or triangulation.’ [Source: Atlanta Journal Constitution]
06/07/07 Headline: ‘Edwards Assails Clinton’s Terror Remarks’ [Source: AP]
05/04/07 Edwards called Hillary’s proposal to deauthorize the Iraq war ‘just noise.’ [Source: Edwards statement]
02/05/07 Headline: ‘Edwards Steps Up Hill War’ [Source: New York Post]
How Obama Treats Labor
Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/10/how-obama-treats-labor/
By SusanUnPC
This is from LaborPains.org, a pro-labor, pro-union blog. The title tells the story:
Stood Up and Hung Up
Then blogger J. Justin Wilson tells the story:
I just got off the AFL-CIO’s kick-off conference call with Obama. What a tragedy of errors.
First of all, Sen. Obama was about 40 minutes late to the show. You can image how fantastic 40 minutes of Muzak went over. Finally, John Sweeney introduced Obama.
Next …
After rattling off nearly the exact same speech he delivered a few months ago to the AFL-CIO (see above), Obama proceeded to hang up. Click. Just like that.
Someone at the AFL-CIO muttered something like “is that it?” and then we went back to hold music.
A lady came back on and made an excuse, saying Obama’s line was cut off and that he would come back on the call. Minutes pass, and then she came back on and said that Obama had left the building. …
Go to “Stood Up and Hung Up” to view a video and to listen to the actual phone call.
Oh well. I completely understand.
It is such an annoyance to have to talk to those “typical” little people.
By SusanUnPC
This is from LaborPains.org, a pro-labor, pro-union blog. The title tells the story:
Stood Up and Hung Up
Then blogger J. Justin Wilson tells the story:
I just got off the AFL-CIO’s kick-off conference call with Obama. What a tragedy of errors.
First of all, Sen. Obama was about 40 minutes late to the show. You can image how fantastic 40 minutes of Muzak went over. Finally, John Sweeney introduced Obama.
Next …
After rattling off nearly the exact same speech he delivered a few months ago to the AFL-CIO (see above), Obama proceeded to hang up. Click. Just like that.
Someone at the AFL-CIO muttered something like “is that it?” and then we went back to hold music.
A lady came back on and made an excuse, saying Obama’s line was cut off and that he would come back on the call. Minutes pass, and then she came back on and said that Obama had left the building. …
Go to “Stood Up and Hung Up” to view a video and to listen to the actual phone call.
Oh well. I completely understand.
It is such an annoyance to have to talk to those “typical” little people.
Barack Obama has a media problem
Original Link: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/jon-friedmans-media-web-obamas/story.aspx?guid=%7BB9117539%2DF95B%2D4518%2D9F05%2DE3101B7695BF%7D&dist=hplatest
By Jon Friedman, MarketWatch
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- I'm starting to worry about Barack Obama.
From a journalistic perspective, he seemed like such a refreshing departure from the oft-paranoid media relations practiced by Bill and Hillary Clinton and the two George Bushes.
Now I'm not so sure.
Too often, Obama and his handlers have overreacted to what we've come to accept as frivolous, basically harmless "coverage" by the celebrity-obsessed mainstream media.
Two examples of him getting his back up: Obama made a federal case of the appearance by his daughters on "Access Hollywood" and he was snippy with reporters when he was pressed about his unexpected email friendship with actress Scarlett Johansson.
Sure, these are minor events. But if he is going to be anal about the small stuff, it may get ugly if he loses his composure about something important.
Obama has staked his claim by offering American voters a fresh voice and a strong sense of optimism about the future. When he was on the way up, he was the favorite son of the media, who heaped almost unprecedented praise on him. Now that he has all but secured the Democratic nomination, Obama has shown little patience for standard media practices, which can range from silly to stupid.
The Obama team may still think the "old" rules apply. By old, I'm referring to the kid-gloves treatment the media gave him when he was an up and comer and Hillary Clinton was heavily favored to secure the Democratic nomination.
Even before Obama stunned Clinton by winning the Iowa caucus, the first high-profile showdown between the rivals last fall, the media had all but decreed that Obama would be their darling, the one who could do no wrong.
If Obama was designated "hero," the media had to find a "villain" to complete the convenient story line and, of course, Hillary Clinton was consigned to wear the black hat.
That was then. Now, Obama and his staff must accept the reality that the game has changed as he prepares to battle John McCain. As PBS anchor Jim Lehrer told me a few weeks ago, it wasn't so long ago that McCain was the media's darling. See related column.
The story line the media love best is to hail the candidate who was down, but not out, and somehow rallied to achieve a stirring victory. This is McCain's saga over the past year.
Obama has to realize that he will be subject to increasing scrutiny as the campaign really heats up. What we've seen so far is the orchestra tuning up. The real show begins after Labor Day, as the Obama-McCain debate season begins to take shape.
The mainstream media, as well as bloggers who have a point of view, will seek to exploit any situation as way to create news. Don't forget that all hell broke loose when the New Yorker, which you'd think was solidly behind Obama in his fight against McCain, published (I thought) a biting and witty look at the stereotypical way many Americans view Barack and Michelle Obama. See related column.
Still, some accused the magazine of exploiting Obama and his wife. Others said it was a racially insensitive cover. These critics completely missed the point that the New Yorker was mocking bigots in the strongest fashion. Or, perhaps, they wanted to miss the point as a way to advance their arguments.
Members of Barack Obama's campaign thought he got a raw deal from the media during his battle with Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination. Perhaps they were just trying to stir an argument because any fair-minded observer could see that Clinton was the one should have felt mistreated by the press.
Obama had better toughen up -- fast. The media spotlight -- or is it a glare? -- will only get brighter in the months leading up to Election Day. Expect the incessant charges that Obama is too inexperienced and unprepared to be president and a Pollyanna cockeyed optimist to get more shrill, too.
Obama has resented the media for treating him like a presidential candidate -- someone with a personal life, a family and a past. He had better get used to it. The pace is sure to quicken between now and Election Day.
And you win, Mr. President-Elect, look out. Things can only get worse.
By Jon Friedman, MarketWatch
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- I'm starting to worry about Barack Obama.
From a journalistic perspective, he seemed like such a refreshing departure from the oft-paranoid media relations practiced by Bill and Hillary Clinton and the two George Bushes.
Now I'm not so sure.
Too often, Obama and his handlers have overreacted to what we've come to accept as frivolous, basically harmless "coverage" by the celebrity-obsessed mainstream media.
Two examples of him getting his back up: Obama made a federal case of the appearance by his daughters on "Access Hollywood" and he was snippy with reporters when he was pressed about his unexpected email friendship with actress Scarlett Johansson.
Sure, these are minor events. But if he is going to be anal about the small stuff, it may get ugly if he loses his composure about something important.
Obama has staked his claim by offering American voters a fresh voice and a strong sense of optimism about the future. When he was on the way up, he was the favorite son of the media, who heaped almost unprecedented praise on him. Now that he has all but secured the Democratic nomination, Obama has shown little patience for standard media practices, which can range from silly to stupid.
The Obama team may still think the "old" rules apply. By old, I'm referring to the kid-gloves treatment the media gave him when he was an up and comer and Hillary Clinton was heavily favored to secure the Democratic nomination.
Even before Obama stunned Clinton by winning the Iowa caucus, the first high-profile showdown between the rivals last fall, the media had all but decreed that Obama would be their darling, the one who could do no wrong.
If Obama was designated "hero," the media had to find a "villain" to complete the convenient story line and, of course, Hillary Clinton was consigned to wear the black hat.
That was then. Now, Obama and his staff must accept the reality that the game has changed as he prepares to battle John McCain. As PBS anchor Jim Lehrer told me a few weeks ago, it wasn't so long ago that McCain was the media's darling. See related column.
The story line the media love best is to hail the candidate who was down, but not out, and somehow rallied to achieve a stirring victory. This is McCain's saga over the past year.
Obama has to realize that he will be subject to increasing scrutiny as the campaign really heats up. What we've seen so far is the orchestra tuning up. The real show begins after Labor Day, as the Obama-McCain debate season begins to take shape.
The mainstream media, as well as bloggers who have a point of view, will seek to exploit any situation as way to create news. Don't forget that all hell broke loose when the New Yorker, which you'd think was solidly behind Obama in his fight against McCain, published (I thought) a biting and witty look at the stereotypical way many Americans view Barack and Michelle Obama. See related column.
Still, some accused the magazine of exploiting Obama and his wife. Others said it was a racially insensitive cover. These critics completely missed the point that the New Yorker was mocking bigots in the strongest fashion. Or, perhaps, they wanted to miss the point as a way to advance their arguments.
Members of Barack Obama's campaign thought he got a raw deal from the media during his battle with Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination. Perhaps they were just trying to stir an argument because any fair-minded observer could see that Clinton was the one should have felt mistreated by the press.
Obama had better toughen up -- fast. The media spotlight -- or is it a glare? -- will only get brighter in the months leading up to Election Day. Expect the incessant charges that Obama is too inexperienced and unprepared to be president and a Pollyanna cockeyed optimist to get more shrill, too.
Obama has resented the media for treating him like a presidential candidate -- someone with a personal life, a family and a past. He had better get used to it. The pace is sure to quicken between now and Election Day.
And you win, Mr. President-Elect, look out. Things can only get worse.
Obama shifts affirmative action rhetoric
Original Link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12421.html
By DAVID PAUL KUHN
No Democratic candidate for president has ever come so close to calling for an end to the era of identity-based affirmative action as has Barack Obama.
Since 2004, the first black major party nominee from either party has been offering comments suggesting that economic status should match or even trump race and gender as a criteria for who should benefit from the program — though he has yet to propose a specific policy, let alone one that matches his rhetoric.
After four decades of affirmative action, Obama’s historic candidacy itself is seen by some as proof that such programs are no longer needed.
“A lot of non-black people will say that the election of Barack Obama is now proof we don’t need affirmative action,” said Democratic House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, who is concerned by the notion. Clyburn added that in an Obama administration he’d like to head up an affirmative action task force that would consider class to some degree but maintain the current emphasis on race and gender.
It’s not clear if a President Obama would be interested in such a task force — or, for that matter, if or how he’d change affirmative action, since at different times he’s offered seemingly contradictory opinions on the subject, as has John McCain.
In recent weeks, affirmative action, a hot issue in previous elections, has returned to the presidential political debate, owing to comments by Obama and McCain and ballot initiatives proposing to end racial, ethnic and gender preferences in all taxpayer-funded programs — from university admissions to government contracts — in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska.
On the one hand, Obama opposes the current state ballot measures (McCain supports them), thus offering at least de facto support for the current policy that gives preference to minorities and women and is rooted in the programs begun by President Kennedy and later significantly expanded by President Nixon.
On the other hand, Obama’s said that his two daughters should not be given preferential treatment, owing to their relatively privileged upbringing, and has called for government to “craft” a policy “in such a way where some of our children who are advantaged aren't getting more favorable treatment than a poor white kid who has struggled more.”
Such hints of a possible new policy focus are a relatively recent development from Obama, who once said that he had “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action” in his own academic career, though he didn’t specify at what institution he had so benefited. Friends have since recalled him saying that he did not list his race on his Harvard Law School application, though the candidate has said only that "I have no way of knowing whether I was a beneficiary of affirmative action either in my admission to Harvard or my initial election to the Review. If I was, then I certainly am not ashamed of the fact, for I would argue that affirmative action is important precisely because those who benefit typically rise to the challenge when given an opportunity.”
While as a presidential candidate he tends to draw attention to the diversity of the people he met as a community organizer after graduating from Harvard, in his 1995 memoir “Dreams From My Father: A story of race and inheritance,” Obama stresses that he settled in Chicago with the idea of "organizing black folks at the grass roots for change."
As a state senator representing the 13 district on the South Side of Chicago, he deemed traditional, race-oriented affirmative action “absolutely necessary,” and pushed hard for programs that mandated race and gender-based hiring preferences.
In the 2004 Democratic Convention keynote speech that catapulted him onto the national stage, he began publicly offering a broader view on race, famously saying, "There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there's the United States of America."
In his 2006 tome, “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream” — the difference in tone is nicely captured in the subtitle’s repurposing of the word “dream” — he wrote, “An emphasis on universal, as opposed to race-specific, programs isn’t just good policy: It’s also good politics.”
If Obama does propose a new preferences program based on class, not race, poll numbers suggest it would indeed be “good politics.” A Rasmussen poll published last week found that 58 percent of Americans opposed government programs that offered “special treatment to women and minorities,” compared to 26 percent who support such a policy.
Though hardly a top issue for most voters, a majority of Americans believe a candidate’s “position on affirmative action programs is important in determining how they will vote,” according to Rasmussen.
An analysis of surveys by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press shows that a majority of whites are of two minds about affirmative action, with most supporting the idea of government programs that make “special efforts” to “make up for past discrimination” and yet most opposing programs that directly favor minorities and women.
When race and gender are removed from the equation, support increases dramatically: A 2005 Pew poll found that nearly nine out of ten whites reported support for a policy that would help Americans from “low income brackets” to “get ahead.”
While a new, class-based affirmative action would still largely aid those minorities, including blacks, that are overrepresented amongst the poor and working class — in fact, officials in California have attempted to use income as a proxy for race-based preferences after voters disallowed their use in a referenda — Obama has yet to offer any specific plan of his own.
“Obama is missing an enormous opportunity because a lot of those who are skeptical [of him] could close escrow on him if he could give some very visible explanation of his non-raciality,” said Ward Connerly, the former University of California regent who is funding the three anti-affirmative action measures on state ballots this year, and who has previously pursued such measures successfully in California, Washington and Michigan.
Connerly believes such a stance would lose Obama only a small part of his black support while allowing him to “make far larger gains” among whites.
Obama, though, has kept his policy views close to his vest while maintaining his opposition to Connerly, who has fared far better at the ballot box than in the legislative hall.
Obama told a convention of minority journalists in Chicago last month that “I am disappointed that John McCain flipped and changed his position. I think in the past he had been opposed to these kinds of Ward Connerly referenda or initiatives as divisive. And I think he’s right.”
In 1998 McCain did characterize a similar proposed anti-affirmative action measure in Arizona as “divisive,” though that proposal never made it on to the ballot. Over the years however, McCain has generally opposed affirmative action programs, and called for a new, economic-based system to replace the current race and gender-based one.
While ballot initiatives appear to have increased turnout in non-presidential years, “there is precious little evidence that these ballot initiatives drive up turnout in the presidential election,” notes Kenneth Bickers, who directs the political science department at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
For this reason Bickers doesn’t expect the ballot initiatives there to directly impact who wins Colorado, which many expect to be a key swing state this fall.
"I don’t think he is missing an opportunity on affirmative action," said Clyburn. “Affirmative action ought never to be used on simply color," he continued. Rather, it is needed " when the color of one’s skin puts one in a position of being treated unequally."
Bickers, though, believes race-based affirmative action works against Obama: “It racializes the campaign in a sense that Obama has been trying to avoid.”
Even after Obama’s call for a “national conversation on race” following the emergence of inflammatory comments by his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, he’s engaged the topic of race very selectively, even declining to speak to The New York Times for an article on that very conversation.
Obama, Bickers went on, “needs a very large black turnout in several key states. And if he takes a position that suppresses the enthusiasm of potential voters who are [supporters of] affirmative action, then he’d be in trouble,” he said.
Polls have consistently shown Obama’s support among blacks at over 90 percent, and given the popularity of class-based affirmative action among whites, embracing that view could earn him considerably more new white votes than the black votes he might lose.
Obama, said Bickers, “could use it if he wanted to have his own Sister Souljah moment about affirmative action to redefine it in economic terms and that would play in to a post-racial candidacy."
By DAVID PAUL KUHN
No Democratic candidate for president has ever come so close to calling for an end to the era of identity-based affirmative action as has Barack Obama.
Since 2004, the first black major party nominee from either party has been offering comments suggesting that economic status should match or even trump race and gender as a criteria for who should benefit from the program — though he has yet to propose a specific policy, let alone one that matches his rhetoric.
After four decades of affirmative action, Obama’s historic candidacy itself is seen by some as proof that such programs are no longer needed.
“A lot of non-black people will say that the election of Barack Obama is now proof we don’t need affirmative action,” said Democratic House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, who is concerned by the notion. Clyburn added that in an Obama administration he’d like to head up an affirmative action task force that would consider class to some degree but maintain the current emphasis on race and gender.
It’s not clear if a President Obama would be interested in such a task force — or, for that matter, if or how he’d change affirmative action, since at different times he’s offered seemingly contradictory opinions on the subject, as has John McCain.
In recent weeks, affirmative action, a hot issue in previous elections, has returned to the presidential political debate, owing to comments by Obama and McCain and ballot initiatives proposing to end racial, ethnic and gender preferences in all taxpayer-funded programs — from university admissions to government contracts — in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska.
On the one hand, Obama opposes the current state ballot measures (McCain supports them), thus offering at least de facto support for the current policy that gives preference to minorities and women and is rooted in the programs begun by President Kennedy and later significantly expanded by President Nixon.
On the other hand, Obama’s said that his two daughters should not be given preferential treatment, owing to their relatively privileged upbringing, and has called for government to “craft” a policy “in such a way where some of our children who are advantaged aren't getting more favorable treatment than a poor white kid who has struggled more.”
Such hints of a possible new policy focus are a relatively recent development from Obama, who once said that he had “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action” in his own academic career, though he didn’t specify at what institution he had so benefited. Friends have since recalled him saying that he did not list his race on his Harvard Law School application, though the candidate has said only that "I have no way of knowing whether I was a beneficiary of affirmative action either in my admission to Harvard or my initial election to the Review. If I was, then I certainly am not ashamed of the fact, for I would argue that affirmative action is important precisely because those who benefit typically rise to the challenge when given an opportunity.”
While as a presidential candidate he tends to draw attention to the diversity of the people he met as a community organizer after graduating from Harvard, in his 1995 memoir “Dreams From My Father: A story of race and inheritance,” Obama stresses that he settled in Chicago with the idea of "organizing black folks at the grass roots for change."
As a state senator representing the 13 district on the South Side of Chicago, he deemed traditional, race-oriented affirmative action “absolutely necessary,” and pushed hard for programs that mandated race and gender-based hiring preferences.
In the 2004 Democratic Convention keynote speech that catapulted him onto the national stage, he began publicly offering a broader view on race, famously saying, "There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there's the United States of America."
In his 2006 tome, “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream” — the difference in tone is nicely captured in the subtitle’s repurposing of the word “dream” — he wrote, “An emphasis on universal, as opposed to race-specific, programs isn’t just good policy: It’s also good politics.”
If Obama does propose a new preferences program based on class, not race, poll numbers suggest it would indeed be “good politics.” A Rasmussen poll published last week found that 58 percent of Americans opposed government programs that offered “special treatment to women and minorities,” compared to 26 percent who support such a policy.
Though hardly a top issue for most voters, a majority of Americans believe a candidate’s “position on affirmative action programs is important in determining how they will vote,” according to Rasmussen.
An analysis of surveys by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press shows that a majority of whites are of two minds about affirmative action, with most supporting the idea of government programs that make “special efforts” to “make up for past discrimination” and yet most opposing programs that directly favor minorities and women.
When race and gender are removed from the equation, support increases dramatically: A 2005 Pew poll found that nearly nine out of ten whites reported support for a policy that would help Americans from “low income brackets” to “get ahead.”
While a new, class-based affirmative action would still largely aid those minorities, including blacks, that are overrepresented amongst the poor and working class — in fact, officials in California have attempted to use income as a proxy for race-based preferences after voters disallowed their use in a referenda — Obama has yet to offer any specific plan of his own.
“Obama is missing an enormous opportunity because a lot of those who are skeptical [of him] could close escrow on him if he could give some very visible explanation of his non-raciality,” said Ward Connerly, the former University of California regent who is funding the three anti-affirmative action measures on state ballots this year, and who has previously pursued such measures successfully in California, Washington and Michigan.
Connerly believes such a stance would lose Obama only a small part of his black support while allowing him to “make far larger gains” among whites.
Obama, though, has kept his policy views close to his vest while maintaining his opposition to Connerly, who has fared far better at the ballot box than in the legislative hall.
Obama told a convention of minority journalists in Chicago last month that “I am disappointed that John McCain flipped and changed his position. I think in the past he had been opposed to these kinds of Ward Connerly referenda or initiatives as divisive. And I think he’s right.”
In 1998 McCain did characterize a similar proposed anti-affirmative action measure in Arizona as “divisive,” though that proposal never made it on to the ballot. Over the years however, McCain has generally opposed affirmative action programs, and called for a new, economic-based system to replace the current race and gender-based one.
While ballot initiatives appear to have increased turnout in non-presidential years, “there is precious little evidence that these ballot initiatives drive up turnout in the presidential election,” notes Kenneth Bickers, who directs the political science department at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
For this reason Bickers doesn’t expect the ballot initiatives there to directly impact who wins Colorado, which many expect to be a key swing state this fall.
"I don’t think he is missing an opportunity on affirmative action," said Clyburn. “Affirmative action ought never to be used on simply color," he continued. Rather, it is needed " when the color of one’s skin puts one in a position of being treated unequally."
Bickers, though, believes race-based affirmative action works against Obama: “It racializes the campaign in a sense that Obama has been trying to avoid.”
Even after Obama’s call for a “national conversation on race” following the emergence of inflammatory comments by his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, he’s engaged the topic of race very selectively, even declining to speak to The New York Times for an article on that very conversation.
Obama, Bickers went on, “needs a very large black turnout in several key states. And if he takes a position that suppresses the enthusiasm of potential voters who are [supporters of] affirmative action, then he’d be in trouble,” he said.
Polls have consistently shown Obama’s support among blacks at over 90 percent, and given the popularity of class-based affirmative action among whites, embracing that view could earn him considerably more new white votes than the black votes he might lose.
Obama, said Bickers, “could use it if he wanted to have his own Sister Souljah moment about affirmative action to redefine it in economic terms and that would play in to a post-racial candidacy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)