Hillary plagiarized her moving closing statement

I guess that's another negative attack that's backfired:

Clinton Tonight: "You know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about." - Democratic Debate, 2/21/07

John Edwards: "What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine." - Democratic Debate, 12/13/07

John Edwards: "I want to say this to everyone: with Elizabeth, with my family, with my friends, with all of you and all of your support, this son of a millworker's gonna be just fine. Our job now is to make certain that America will be fine." - Edwards Speech, 1/30/08

Hat tip, Huff Post.

Oops, she did it again:

Read More......

Texas

From Pollster.com:
Read More......

Democratic Debate wrap up

The Democrats do have two great candidates.

But, tonight was supposed to be Hillary Clinton's chance to slow down Obama's momentum. That didn't happen. Both candidates did well and I would say he at least equaled her throughout the evening. Obama didn't take the negative bait and handled himself well. Very confident.

The xerox line from Clinton was a dud. The negativity doesn't work.

Again, two strong performances. But, Clinton needed more. Her campaign made a very big deal about the debates -- as if she would dominate. She didn't get the boost we were led to believe she needed. Read More......

Democratic Debate Open Thread

9:40 PM: A philosophical question at the end from Campbell Brown. Ugh. Always some dorky question to finish up. Obama speaks of the trajectory of his life. Clinton reminds us that she has had rough times.

9:28 PM: Okay, Obama hit that McCain answer out of the park. And, another break.

9:18 PM Obama turned the "Ready on Day One" attack into a discussion about Iraq. That is truly Clinton's achilles heel. Whenever she wants to talk about being Commander in Chief, she needs to deal with her vote on Iraq.

9:08 PM Break time. I've written this before but it is actually sad that after all those 35 years of experience, Hillary Clinton is stuck attacking Obama because of his speeches. It's just sad.

9:04 PM: Obama responded to Hillary's personal attack by talking about his health care plan. Class act.

9:01 PM: Hillary goes negative, big time. Obama repeatedly refused to take the bait, refused to criticize Hillary. She responded by publicly accusing him of "lifting whole passages" from other people's speeches, which is an outright lie. She actually sneered when Obama said we shouldn't be tearing each other down, we should be lifting the country up. She clearly made the decision to go negative. And she looks desperate. And sounds nasty.

8:58 PM: Obama is asked about the Clinton campaign's charge of plagiarism. Again, he's handled it well. Suggests that when things like this come up it is "silly season." We shouldn't be spending time tearing each other down...we need to spend time building the country up.

More after the jump...

8:53 PM: Obama agrees actions speak louder than words...and lists his accomplishments over the past 20 years. Senator Clinton has a fine record....and he doesn't want to denigrate it. Clinton has said "let's get real" as if people who support Obama are delusional..goes on to list all those supporting him. He is handling this quite well. Bring the country together and stop the endless bickering or we won't get anything done in Washington. It's not just a matter of policy positions...we need to inspire the American people to get involved and get beyond divisions...very good response.

8:50 PM: Clinton gets asked about her criticism of Obama. Can she say he has no substance after the past 45 minutes, John King asks? There are differences, she says..."I do offer solutions"...part of my life over the past 35 years. She's been working "to make a difference." Nasty dig at a Texas State Senator..and actions speak louder than words.

8:46 PM: A break. So far, this debate has been fairly low key....very issue focused. And, Clinton and Obama agree on most of the issues. And, as I have said many times, our candidates are so much smarter and better than anything we've seen on the other side -- especially John McCain. Too much applause.

(Just a reminder that your host for the evening, CNN's Campbell Brown, is married to Dan Senor, who was Bush's spokesperson in Baghdad, a FOX News contributor and an adviser to Mitt Romney)

8:21 PM: Hillary's white fringe on her collar is a big mistake. It's distracting. You don't wear clothes on TV that distract from your face. Small point, but I'm not the only one who noticed - fashion savvy female friends have weighed in as well.

8:20 PM: Why not talk to Raul Castro? We met with Soviet dictators, and we meet with Chinese dictators. You're trying to tell me that Raul Castro is worse than the Chinese and Soviet communists? Come on.
8:12 PM: Questions start after the longest opening statements to date.

Clinton and Obama are debating tonight in Austin -- one of the coolest cities in the country.

John and I will be live blogging. But we probably won't dissect every question...

The Clinton campaign has really been looking forward to debating. They're hoping to throw Obama off. We'll see how it goes. Read More......

Wash. Post-ABC polls: Texas even; Clinton ahead by seven in Ohio

Some pre-debate polls to ponder.

I am getting the feeling that until March 4th, we'll see an absolute deluge of polls. It'll be like the build up to Iowa and New Hampshire -- probably worse. We'll try to temper our poll addiction, but these latest from the Washington Post-ABC News are sure interesting:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, facing a pair of big Democratic primary tests on March 4 that could determine the fate of her presidential candidacy, is deadlocked with Sen. Barack Obama here in Texas and holds a slender lead over him in Ohio, according to two new Washington Post-ABC News polls.

The closeness of the races in Texas and Ohio underscore the challenges facing Clinton over the next 12 days of campaigning as she seeks to end Obama's double-digit winning streak in their battle for the Democratic nomination. Those victories have given Obama a lead in delegates to the national convention and have put Clinton's candidacy at risk unless she can rack up a string of big victories of her own.

In Ohio, Clinton leads Obama in the new poll by 50 percent to 43 percent, a significant but tenuous advantage given the shifts that have taken place elsewhere as candidates intensified their campaigns in advance of previous primaries. In Texas, the race is even, with Clinton at 48 percent and Obama at 47 percent.

Read More......

Was McCain warned by his staff about Iseman or not?

Whether McCain was warned about his interactions with Ms. Iseman is turning out to be a key question in the current scandal. I watched his press conference this morning where McCain said that he was not advised to avoid Iseman -- no one intervened with him about her. And, McCain stated that he did not know that Iseman had likewise been warned by his top politico, John Weaver. McCain's exact words were, "I did not know anything about it."

Yet, an article posted at 4:15 pm this afternoon by the Washington Post indicates again that both McCain and Iseman were warned:

Aides to Sen. John McCain confronted a telecommunications lobbyist in late 1999 and asked her to distance herself from the senator during the presidential campaign he was about to launch, according to one of McCain's longest-serving political strategists.

John Weaver, who was McCain's closest confidant until leaving his current campaign last year, said he met with Vicki Iseman at the Center Cafe at Union Station and urged her to stay away from McCain. Association with a lobbyist would undermine his image as an opponent of special interests, aides had concluded.

Members of the senator's small circle of advisers also confronted McCain directly, according to sources, warning him that his continued ties to a lobbyist who had business before the powerful commerce committee he chaired threatened to derail his presidential ambitions.

Appearing before reporters this morning in Toledo, Ohio, McCain flatly denied receiving such warnings from his aides and said he had no knowledge that Weaver or anyone else on his staff had told Iseman to keep her distance. He also denied that he and Iseman had been romantically involved, despite a report in the New York Times that his aides were concerned that such a relationship existed.

Why the McCain denial? Was this issue never brought to his attention? Seems like both the Times and the Post have sources who indicate otherwise. McCain was adamant about it. We need the real story. Read More......

Iraq, Intelligence Failures, and Kelly Clarkson

I recently spent some time chatting with Spencer Ackerman, of the Washington Independent and the American Prospect, about Still Broken, and it ended up being easily the most fun I've had talking about my new book. I've completely lifted their headline for this post, since it's perfect, and I can't imagine you need any more motivation to head over and check it out.

Still, if you need an excerpt to entice you, head below the fold -- it even explains the Joe Klein blurb everybody keeps asking about in the comments . . .

SA: In the book, you admirably confess to your bad taste in music. ("My work was fueled by steady doses of Evanescence, Linkin Park, Sarah McLachlan[!], Metallica, the Dixie Chicks, and the like.") First, kudos for surviving the savage beatings you must have endured from your colleagues. But you also disclose that you wrote an e-mail to friends and family that "took the format of matching Kelly Clarkson lyrics to my observations" about Iraq.

Somehow, though, those lyrics didn't make it into the book. Fess up: What does Kelly Clarkson tell us about Iraq?

AR: I'm glad you brought this up, because it allows me to address two very important issues. First and foremost, Kelly Clarkson has plenty to tell us about an infinite number of topics, from the mundane to the critical. Can't say enough about the talent there, and she helped keep me sane in Baghdad. I'm obviously not afraid to acknowledge my affection for pop music in all its glory, which brings me to the second point, about the advance praise on the back cover from Joe Klein, who jokes about my bad taste in the midst of a very kind endorsement of the book, saying, "And while Rossmiller demonstrates, repeatedly, that his taste in music really needs an upgrade, he also proves to be an engaging, skillful, and funny writer." Joe takes a lot of flack on the internets, but for the (surprisingly many) people who have asked about that blurb, it is indeed a reference to the text, obviously, and all in good fun—and it demonstrated he had actually read the whole thing, which was a nice compliment in itself.

To answer your question more specifically, though, I'm very pleased to present here, exclusively to TAP Online, a few brief excerpts of the original, unedited version of that chapter!

To see the lyrics and stories, go read! Read More......

McCain is "at war" with the NYT, but he still touts their endorsement of him on his Web site

So, let's see. The newspaper that endorsed you, the newspaper whose endorsement you are proud to display on your campaign Web site, is the same newspaper that is out to destroy you. Well, if the New York Times was out to destroy John McCain, why didn't they endorse Huckabee or Romney instead? Or was that all part of their nefarious plot?

You know, if the Times would stop spiking their stories in order NOT to impact the election, there'd be a lot less reason to suspect that the Times is using their stories TO influence the election. They did the same thing when they spiked an anti-Bush story, about illegal eavesdropping, BEFORE the 2004 election in order not to hurt Bush. So, basically, they hid the news because they thought the news might hurt the Republicans (funny how the Times never seems to spike stories to help the Democrats). And they did the same thing for John McCain now. They had this story two months and they sat on it because John McCain whined and, presumably, they didn't want to influence the primaries. So, yet again, the Times is facing accusations that that they intended to do just that.

The right wing will always accuse the Times, and every one of us, of being liars and traitors, and nothing we do will change that. The Times, unfortunately, is reaping what it sowed. If the editors of the Times have a policy of making sure the news doesn't impact the elections, then why are they writing about the candidates at all? Isn't that the entire point of writing about elections, and politics generally, and the world generally, to impact that world with the truth? Read More......

Iseman and Maverick

The corporate jet of a lobbying client was their F-18.

Read More......

Obama wins Democrats Abroad primary

Globally (outside of the US) Obama won 65.6% compared to Hillary's 32.7%. In France Obama rolled with 71.8%. Read more here and see the full results (PDF) here. This makes 11 straight victories for Obama. Read More......

Blog round-up on McCain scandal

DKos: Feeding frenzy

Yglesias via Atrios:

Certainly it'd be a bit rich of McCain to get outraged that anyone would even suggest that he might engage in sexual improprieties. After all, it's well known that he repeatedly cheated on his first wife Carol, of a number of years, with a variety of women, before eventually dumping her for a much-younger heiress whose family fortune was able to help finance his political career. That's well known, I should say, except to the electorate, who would probably find that this sort of behavior detracts from McCain's "character" appeal.

FDL's Jane Hamsher:

"Getting publicly exposed in the NYT for an inappropriate relationship with telecom lobbyist Vicki Iseman only a week after taking time off the campaign trail to vote for a bill giving retroactive immunity to the telecos in the Senate FISA bill makes the timing kinda awkward..."

C&L;: Bay Buchanan on GOP, ‘We assume our candidates have been loyal to their family.’ Read More......

McCain denies knowing anything about meeting between his staffer, John Weaver, and Ms. Iseman, although Weaver did tell top McCain aides in December

First point for the media to take note of: John Weaver is not an anonymous source.

At his press conference today, John McCain stated repeatedly that he did not know about meetings arranged by a former top aide, John Weaver, with Ms. Iseman, the lobbyist. "I did not know anything about it" were his exact words. But, Weaver, who told his story to the NY Times also informed the McCain campaign about this issue in December. How could McCain not know? Something doesn't add up.

The NY Times piece has this interaction with John Weaver:

Separately, a top McCain aide met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station in Washington to ask her to stay away from the senator. John Weaver, a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser, said in an e-mail message that he arranged the meeting after “a discussion among the campaign leadership” about her.

“Our political messaging during that time period centered around taking on the special interests and placing the nation’s interests before either personal or special interest,” Mr. Weaver continued. “Ms. Iseman’s involvement in the campaign, it was felt by us, could undermine that effort.”

Mr. Weaver added that the brief conversation was only about “her conduct and what she allegedly had told people, which made its way back to us.” He declined to elaborate.

More after the jump...

According to Jonathan Martin, who covers the Republican side at the Politico, Weaver informed the top echelons at the McCain campaign last December about providing this information to the Times:

John Weaver, formerly McCain's top strategist, tells Politico that after hearing repeatedly from Times reporters working on the story he asked for written questions and then provided an email response.

"They asked about the Union Station meeting and so I answered their questions," Weaver says. "I forwarded it to Steve, Charlie and Mark within minutes of sending it to the Times."

Steve Schmidt, Charlie Black and Mark Salter are all top advisers to McCain.

So, let's figure this out. This major story was brewing. The entire McCain operation was focusing on it last December -- bringing in power lawyer Bob Bennett. John Weaver tells the NY Times about his meeting with Iseman. Weaver then tells the McCain campaign what he told the Times. But, McCain "did not know anything about it." Really? Read More......

McCain press conference

McCain is very disappointed with the article. It's not true. He's served our nation honorably for half a century.

At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust.

Questions from reporters:

McCain says no one on the staff ever intervened with him about Iseman. He denied relationship. Described her as "a friend."

Doesn't know of any meeting John Weaver had with Iseman to tell her to butt out.

Provided many answers to NY Times. Fully cooperated with them. Never tried to dissuade them from running the story. He says he never talked with them -- but then had to correct that. He did have a conversation with Bill Keller.

McCain says the story is based on anonymous sources. He's very disappointed in that. But he maintains that he does not recall conversations about intervening with Iseman.

More after the jump...

Mrs. McCain is very disappointed in the NY Times. We know he would never do anything to disappoint our family. (Um, Cindy, you may want to confirm that with the previous Mrs. McCain. She might have been a tad disappointed)

This shouldn't be a problem with conservatives.

Asked if this goes to the central core of his campaign of changing Washington, he said that is why he's so disappointed. He wants people to look at his whole record.

He was in contact with Ms. Iseman several months ago.

Reporter tells McCain she did speak with former McCain aide John Weaver who claims he did speak with Ms. Iseman. McCain knew nothing about that.

The word for the day is "DISAPPOINTED."

Basically, McCain denied every single point. Everyone else is lying. Read More......

McCain will speak at 9:00 a.m.

Saint McCain will be holding a press conference at 9:00 a.m.

We'll live blog it.

Will he take questions? Read More......

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

So that McCain bombshell. Wow. Just watched McCain's lawyer, Bob Bennett, being interviewed on the TODAY Show acting all exorcised. Matt Lauer mentioned their newsroom had known about this story for awhile. And, therein lies an issue. Getting the sense that the DC media types have been well aware of the elements of this scandal. It's seems like one of those "everybody" knew but no one reported kind of stories. Josh Marshall had a similar take:

Reading all of this stuff I have the distinct feeling that only a few pieces of the puzzle are now on the table. Given unspoken understandings of many years' duration, a lot of reporters and DC types can probably imagine what the full picture looks like. But we're going to need a few more pieces before the rest of us can get a sense of what this is all about.

The question is whether the other media, especially the ones who fawn over McCain, report what they know or follow McCain's lead and just trash the NY Times. (Lest we forget, the DC media types all knew Bush was lying about the Valerie Plame leak but never told us that.)

This campaign got even more interesting. Can't wait to hear how James Dobson and his ilk respond.

Have at it.

UPDATE: Richard Stengel, the sanctimonious managing editor of Time Magazine, was on MSNBC's Morning Joe this morning telling us how he would not have run the McCain story. Then he told us that "McCain is so pure on this issue ever since the Keating Five when he saw the light." So pure? Saint McCain could do no wrong, apparently. Stengel did say that "everybody" was talking about. And, you may recall that Time Magazine's Matt Cooper was right smack in the middle of the Plame Leak. He knew the White House was lying about its role over and over and over. Read More......

McCain health care plan is "revolutionary"

Slightly aware that health care is a concern for Americans, McCain is leaning on former Senator Phil Gramm as the expert. When they say "revolutionary" what they really mean is a few decades of GOP talking points that have all been proven to be false (and costly) during this second Bush recession in seven years. Leave it all to the market, just as they left it to the market to work out home loans, food safety and Wall Street practices in general. If you think you have problems today, this "anything goes" environment can only mean even more profits for industry, less coverage for Americans and more chaos. Wow, let's all get in line for this.

Putting aside the fraudulent claims of fiscal conservatism (don't they all say that until they have a majority?) McCain is hinting at a bold new health care plan that will turn the world upside down. Ready for this? Tax rebates. Yes, tax rebates. I know, really radical and worth waiting for. I'm still running the numbers on how this will benefit the almost 50 million uninsured Americans who don't have enough money to give a damn about a $2500 or $5000 tax rebate that won't change their taxes, but hey, Gramm is a economics genius. Just ask him! What we all need in 2008 after years of business getting everything is a Wild West free market health care system. This is precisely what we all are begging to have because everyone has so much free time to navigate their new crazy system.

Today, McCain is advocating a plan that's radically different from those of Clinton and Barack Obama, and - if he goes all the way by following Gramm - could revolutionize America's healthcare system. For McCain and Gramm, the problem with our healthcare system - and the reason why over 47 million Americans are uninsured - is that it's excessively, scandalously expensive. The solution, they say, is to let Americans shop for healthcare with their own money. McCain advocates giving tax rebates of $2500 per individual or $5000 per family. With that money, families could purchase policies on their own. What's truly radical about the plan is that it eliminates the tax exclusion for healthcare benefits offered by companies to their employees, and replaces it with the $2500 to $5000 rebates.

Consumers could then use that cash to buy their own insurance in what Gramm foresees as a vibrant, consumer-driven marketplace for healthcare packages.

Read More......

Oil closes at record highs onTuesday and Wednesday

Again. Two new record high closes in two days. Clearly the $100 mark is being tested and if it breaks through, look out. This morning it has moved up a little but so far it is limited. Read More......