White Haired Women For Barack Obama

Read the rest of this post...

China isn't the only human rights menace. Next stop, Russia.

A friend of mine asked me to give a shout-out to this issue, and I am, because Russia is in its own way just as scary as China (they have more nukes, for one thing).

Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky is the former leader of Yukos Oil, a privately-owned Russian energy company, and an outspoken critic of Vladimir Putin. He was thrown in jail shortly after he funded political opposition parties in Russia. Within a year the Russian government seized Yukos' assets and gave them to the state-owned oil company called Rossneft. Additional charges of tax evasion suddenly appeared shortly before Khodorkovksy was scheduled for parole. Everyone from Colin Powell to the late Tom Lantos has called for their release. You can find more information at: www.letthemgonow.org

A couple of months ago, a Russian Human Rights Lawyer named Lev Ponomorev came to the US to try to drum up media attention in the US about the topic. Last week, BBC reported his offices in Russia were raided and occupied by unidentified people. The story is here.

Read the rest of this post...

Foreclosures up 57% from 2007

When the Republicans talk about an ownership society, they mean the banks and collection agencies own everything. I can't wait to hear McCain tell us how his economic plan would have avoided all of this but gee, I don't think he is going to throw his entire economic team who built this system under the bus. Not yet at least:

The numbers, compiled by online foreclosure marketplace RealtyTrac, also show increasing numbers of homeowners content simply to walk away from their mortgages as the amount they owe on their homes exceeds their value.

RealtyTrac said there were 234,685 foreclosure findings in March, up 5 percent from February and 57 percent from March 2007. One in every 538 US households received a foreclosure filing -- a default notice, auction sale notice or bank repossession -- during the month.

Read the rest of this post...

Oil does it again, sets new record

Oil hits a new high today and closes at $113.79 after testing $114. We're now in a no mans land and it's not going to take much to test $115. Gordon Brown and Bush can groan all they like but they should have thought about the consequences of invading Iraq and promoting conservation long ago. Since the US and UK invaded Iraq the cost of oil has gone through the roof and it's not going to ease up just because two leaders of two countries that the oil producing countries detest have a public temper tantrum. Read the rest of this post...

Last night, O'Reilly attacked companies doing business without Iran. But, once again, he left out his boss, Rupert Murdoch

Last month, AMERICAblog exposed yet another act of hypocrisy from Bill O'Reilly. We also showed he's a wimp who is afraid of his own boss:

Earlier this year, arm chair terrorism fighter Bill O'Reilly blasted the chair of General Electric for doing business with terrorist countries like Iran. Bill was in rare form when he took on this issue. But, Bill needs to have on another guest and blast him for cavorting with Iranians and Syrians, possibly even aiding in the recruitment of terrorists and certainly facilitating the spewing of hatred against Israel.

That guest would be Rupert Murdoch, the head of FOX News.

Murdoch owns FOX, for whom O'Reilly works. Murdoch also owns MySpace.com. Therein lies the problem. An astute observer pointed us to some of the users of Mr. Murdoch's site. There are numerous users of MySpace.com in states that sponsor terrorism, like Iran, Syria and Sudan. That alone should warrant intervention from O'Reilly using his own standards for doing business with terrorist nations. But, that's not the biggest problem. It's the Web sites honoring terrorist organizations that give us pause. There is the self-described "Offical Hezbollah MySpace" page.

That post includes links to several of the other terror sites hosted by Murdoch's company. You'd think that would set off Bill O'Reilly. You'd be wrong. Last night, O'Reilly again went after companies doing business with Iran. Again, he failed to mention Murdoch. This is a link to the video, which includes the following exchange:

Millions of Americans hold GE stock in good faith, but this is a bad company. Doing business with people killing American soldiers and Marines is simply unacceptable, and paying a guy $20 million to run a company into the ground is simply breathtaking.

There are more than a few villain CEOs in this country, but Jeffrey Immelt could well be the worst. And that's the memo.

Now, General Electric isn't the only concern doing business with Iran. The government of Switzerland and the French company Total, the oil company, are among other big offenders.

Actually, Bill, Rupert Murdoch is another big offender. Really big offender. Big tough Bill O'Reilly doesn't dare to go after Murdoch. Read the rest of this post...

Jewish liberals launch pro-peace alternative to AIPAC

I'd heard about this on Sunday. Very interesting.

Some of the country's most prominent Jewish liberals are forming a political action committee and lobbying group aimed at dislodging what they consider the excessive hold of neoconservatives and evangelical Christians on U.S. policy toward Israel....

The lobbying group will be known as J Street and the political action group as JStreetPAC. The executive director for both will be Jeremy Ben-Ami, a former domestic policy adviser in the Clinton White House.

"The definition of what it means to be pro-Israel has come to diverge from pursuing a peace settlement," said Alan Solomont, a prominent Democratic Party fundraiser involved in the initiative. In recent years, he said, "We have heard the voices of neocons, and right-of-center Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals, and the mainstream views of the American Jewish community have not been heard."

Read the rest of this post...

LA Times/Bloomberg Poll: Clinton up 5 in PA; Obama up 13 in NC; Obama up 5 in IN

The Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg just released their latest polls from Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana. Here are the head-to-head numbers:

The poll found Clinton leading Obama 46% to 41% in Pennsylvania -- a far cry from the double-digit margins she held in earlier polls.

In Indiana, where little polling has occurred, previous surveys gave Clinton the edge. The Times/Bloomberg poll put Obama ahead, 40% to 35%.

The leads in Pennsylvania and Indiana are within the poll's margin of sampling error.

In North Carolina, the poll found, Obama leads Clinton 47% to 34% -- a finding in keeping with expectations that he will do well in the state, which has a large African American population. Among blacks there, 71% supported Obama; only 5% backed Clinton and 24% were undecided.

One reason Clinton is struggling in Indiana and North Carolina is that a mainstay of her coalition in earlier contests -- women -- have been defecting. In Indiana, the poll found women split their vote, 35% for each candidate. In North Carolina, they favored Obama, 43% to 36%.

Many interesting nuggets, but this is probably the most interesting:

In Pennsylvania, the flap seems to have marginally helped Obama more than hurt him: 24% said his handling of the issue made them think more highly of him; 15% said it made them think less highly of him; 58% said it made no difference in their views.

Let's see how the painfully pompous pundits dissect that number. Of course, they'll all have to wait for Time Magazine's chief pompous pundit, Mark Halperin, to explain what it means. But, he'll have to wait for the talking points from his high level source at the Clinton campaign to explain it to him.

Remember, Clinton is supposed to win Pennsylvania by 20 points. That's the margin she needs to declare victory. Read the rest of this post...

Hillary lied again

We had two very good men run for president in 2000 and 2004, but large segments of the electorate concluded that they did not really understand or relate to or frankly respect the truth, and I think that is an issue for voters.

Here's what Hillary says on her campaign Web site:

Today, Hillary Clinton received the endorsement of another prominent Montana leader, Yellowstone County Commissioner Bill Kennedy.... Kennedy said Sen. Obama's remarks last week at a San Francisco fundraiser solidified his support for Sen. Clinton.

Here's the truth from Kennedy today, April 15:

“I had been leaning toward Hillary for months,” Kennedy said. “I actually decided to endorse her two weeks ago.”

In other words, he decided on April 1. Obama made the bitter comments on April 6. So, she lied.

It's not just the lies, but how bad Hillary sucks at lying. The lies are amateurish. She was caught in sniper fire when she knows there were a bazillion reporters, including film crews, with her at the time? The White House sent her and her 15 year old daughter on trips that were too dangerous for the president? She only mentioned the Bosnia gaffe once, late at night? Everyone at all of their stops has been wearing "I'm not bitter" stickers (when they weren't, and the media has been with them the entire time)? She's always been opposed to NAFTA? She brought peace to Northern Ireland? She once tried to join the Marines? She's a duck hunter and a big fan of the culture of guns?

Speaking of ducks, if it quacks like a duck... Read the rest of this post...

McCain blames 'greedy' investors for recession

Could McCain be any worse with his grasp of economics? Who is he talking about and what kind of investors? Wall Street? Pension plan companies? American individuals planning their 401K? Real estate? Republicans who engineered this problem? Marrying heiresses to family fortunes? Who is he talking about? McCain is attempting to get the word 'greedy' out there but is too much of a coward to point the finger at anyone so one has to assume he's blaming all Americans. Greed has always played a role on Wall Street and our economic system with the drive to make more money (selling beer, for example) a cornerstone of the system. Right or wrong, it's just how the US system works.

It's pretty obvious that there was excessive greed on Wall Street as well as with real estate speculators but instead of throwing out blanket statements, how about some details or is McCain afraid of angering his base? Is he straight talk or mushy-mouth talk? Is it too much to ask to have McCain specify what went wrong and how we ended up with this recession? McCain needs to admit that his own party with his own votes created the severe economic problems in the US. His party and his advisers supported the excessive greed by Wall Street and they failed to offer any proper balance to the dream list requested by the financial industry. Where was his outrage about greed when all of this was happening? The problem didn't just start yesterday, so let's get more details from McCain. Read the rest of this post...

Reid on the Obama-Clinton battle

From the Crypt:

It was one of those typical questions from a reporter gaggle on Capitol Hill: Does Harry Reid think the protracted nomination fight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will harm the party?

Reid didn't miss a beat.

"It makes me bitter," he deadpanned.

Reid has such a dry humor that you actually have to pause and look at him to make sure he's not being serious when he's attempting comedy. But his usual grimace in front of reporters quickly turned to a grin as he capitalized on the now infamous "bitter" comment made by Obama at a San Francisco area fund raiser.

In all seriousness, Reid said he believed the Democratic nomination "is all going to be over very soon," and he contended that "it has been healthy for our party."

Read the rest of this post...

CQ predicts Pennsylvania will give Hillary virtually no bump in delegates

Congressional Quarterly has just released an analysis predicting that Hillary will only win 3 delegates more than Obama in the Pennsylvania primary next week. We'll be watching carefully to see which reporters try to spin Hillary's victory next week - a 20-poin victory that the polls have predicted for 12 months now - as a "stunning upset" that "changes everything." We'll be memorializing those "journalists" by name on election day, next Tuesday.

Current delegate tally
Obama: 1,632
Clinton: 1,489

Pennsylvania may give Hillary a 3 delegate bump. That's a 0.2% increase in her number of delegates, meaning that rather than losing to Obama by 143 delegates, she'll be losing to Obama by 140. Yep, it's going to change EVERYTHING. Stay tuned.

And for the Hillary spinmeisters out there, here are the actual polls from PA over the past 18 months.



Note that up until just recently, Hillary had a nearly 20 point lead. If she wins by 20 points, then she meets expectations, she doesn't beat them. We already know that Hillary is going to win PA, that is the conventional wisdom and has been the conventional wisdom since the beginning of 2007. Meeting that conventional wisdom is certainly a "win" for Hillary, but winning a state you're supposed to win does not an "upset" make. The only "news" that may come from next Tuesday is whether Obama beats expectations by cutting into Hillary's 20 point lead that she held for a year. The other real "news" is how Hillary has squandered her lead in PA over the past three to four months. Look at those polls. It's a disaster for her. And more recently, not only has Obama been catching up to her, but her numbers are dropping. Again, hanging on by the skin of your teeth is not an upset. Read the rest of this post...

China's thugs attack CNN's Cafferty for calling them, well, thugs

So what did China's thugs do in response? They acted like thugs and went ballistic on CNN. Message to China's leaders: The reason you get so much bad press is because you are murderous communist dictator thugs, and the entire world knows it. The only reason any nation is nice to you is because you're big, not because you're nice, not because they like or respect you. They respect your size and your power. Don't confuse that with anyone having forgotten that at the end of the day, you're still dangerous petty dictators, and we all look forward to the day you're overthrown. Oh yeah, and your dog food stinks too. You can watch Cafferty's comments here. Read the rest of this post...

Are Hillary's latest attacks subtly racist, and intentionally so?

AMERICAblog reader Bcre8ve writes in the comments:

As a Southerner, the attacks on Obama being elitist by the elites of this country, it made me uncomfortable. Not just because the attacks are generally unfair and a distortion of what he actually said, but because it smacks of the sort of dirty, snide, racial attacks of the old South - the "uppity" black man attack. That somehow he just doesn't seem to "know his place", that his "reach has exceeded his grasp". Sort of like the attacks that he wasn't "black" enough. Being made by white people. ("high yellow", anyone?) I could continue with the sort of vile, negative, stereotypical attacks that have been made by rich, white Southerners against black men that they view as a threat, but I wouldn't want to give Hillary any ideas. This is a disgusting, racial attack against Obama being portrayed as an attack on Pennsylvania voters, and I will have none of it.

Read the rest of this post...

Cliff's Corner

The Week That Was 4/11/2008

Another week. More preposterousness to report.

So I wrote a book. You know, because I had nothing better to do for those nine months. And because John McCain is more dangerous than Mel Gibson at a briss.

So, in any case, here is what U.S News & World Report had to say about the book:

A new book by liberal writer and political consultant Cliff Schecter lays out a detailed blueprint for how Dems can mine presumed GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain's political and personal past—including already well-documented incidents of his temper—to defeat him in the fall.

Not too shabby, for a thirty-something, suburban dad like me. The problem is that on a few stories I broke, where McCain referred to his wife as something that rhymes with "runt," and let out his inner pugilist by punching Rick Renzi (in his defense, it was Rick Renzi), I did that crazy thing that right-wing bloggers and the MSM never do! I relied upon thoroughly vetted, 100% credible, yet anonymous sources.

How dare I!?! Because, I have this friend named Max Bernstein, and his dad Carl, well, he never broke a story infinitely more important than this one using anonymous sources. Never. Although, if you watch John McCain's non-denial denial closely here, you might actually see the exact moment when John McCain realizes he's lying.

And he was able to pull all that together after only two cups of Sanka! Wowsers.

Then there is McCain spokesperson, Jill Hazelbaker. She had this to say about my work:

McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker brands the book "trash journalism" and tells us, "The story is completely fabricated."

Which coming from someone naturally imbued with the credibility of a three-dollar bill, really hurts. You may remember Mzz. Hazelbaker from sock puppetry days gone by:

Hazelbaker was caught here at Blue Jersey last year engaged in a variety of blogospheric no-no's. For one thing, she was engaged in an astroturfing campaign to make it seem as if there was a groundswell of Democratic disaffection with Senator Menendez's candidacy. To top it off, she did this by sockpuppeting, or creating a number of Blue Jersey accounts with which to post comments along the same theme.

So there you have it! A woman who is a proven liar is calling me a liar. After much thoughtful consideration, I think I'll choose to believe...me.

PS Thank you for the phenomenal response my book has received! We hit #3 on Amazon's political books list and #18 among non-fiction books, but predictably, no TV yet. So you are my source for getting the message out there. It is only $10. Please pick up a copy and continue to make sure The Real McCain is exposed for all to see Read the rest of this post...

Superdelegate brother of top Clinton adviser, himself a Hillary supporter, says candidate behind in delegates should drop out before June 3

AP doesn't bother to tell you that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) isn't just a SuperDelegate and a Clinton supporter, he's also the brother of top Clinton adviser and spokesperson Ann Lewis. Frank represents a state that voted for Hillary. This is a very interesting, and noticeable development. It means that even SuperDelegates who are on Hillary's side want this to be over in the next month or so. And they don't care if that means Hillary loses. They just want it over. Now, Barney Frank is a curmudgeon, but he's a curmudgeon who often voices what others fear to say. To quote Dr. House, this is interesting. Read the rest of this post...

The myth of meritocracy, blogosphere edition

Yesterday I wrote about a few issues of mobility and meritocracy, specifically regarding education. The general ideas are similar in a wide variety of areas, though, and one of those areas that doesn't get mentioned much by highly-trafficked blogs is ... the blogosphere. There's sometimes a sense that the internet is this magic zone of meritocracy wherein all other factors are wiped away by electrons, but that's not quite right. There is, of course, a lot about blogging that levels the playing field; if a writer chooses, he or she can be anonymous -- no labels, no boxes -- and anybody can set up a site, so the barriers to entry are relatively minimal. But to be successful, to have your voice heard, is another story.

The most obvious advantage is simply timing -- most of the high-traffic sites have been around for a long time. I don't think readership is inelastic or zero sum, but it's clearly much harder to build an audience now than it might have been even a few years ago. Further, all of the most popular liberal blogs have writers who are, for various reasons, able to spend a lot of time doing this. Obviously having the resources to make it possible to spend eight, ten, twelve hours a day writing about current events isn't something that applies to everybody. Some full-time bloggers are funded by organizations or are hosted by a think tank or progressive groups, and others started out in a position of financial stability allowing for that kind of time commitment. And that's good and important -- we need people to be part of this broad community, and this is in no way a criticism; it's also worth noting that virtually every "high profile" liberal blogger could be making wayyyy more money doing something else, so it's not like this is a lucrative lifestyle or anything like that. But these elements matter.

Another big factor, as with everything in life, is personal relationships. Some of that is related to finances too (have enough money to go to conferences? to travel to meetings and events?) and some is just random connections, but it matters what email lists you're on, who you can get to link to your stuff, and who has you on their RSS feed. Some of that is about the writing, and some of it isn't.

More broadly, there's how the blogosphere works at a macro level. The most popular sites are general political blogs, and most react to the news or try to drive particular narratives; for all of the ostensible animosity between blogs and the mainstream media, the two really feed off each other and, to a large degree, bolster each other. And again, that's often a good thing -- there's no rule that blogs have to change the structure, and certainly there's no consensus on what good structural changes would even look like. There is, though, a lot of reinforcement of, say, the horse-race aspect of political coverage, and despite some challenges to the status quo, I think blogs end up reflecting pretty closely existing states of affairs. The debate over the diversity of people -- and the defense that popular writers are a diverse bunch is indeed true; Markos is latino, Jane is a woman, John is gay, and on and on -- is in many ways a distraction from this fact, not a recognition of it, and minority voices are often understandably annoyed by being marginalized by the narrative that the blogs are the domain of white dudes. That debate, though, can sometimes mask the fact that other kinds of diversity haven't shined through in high profile ways. The blogger "elite" remains largely a crew of people who still fit a certain demographic: highly educated, financially secure, coastal, connected. There are always exceptions, of course, but generally speaking. And it's *especially* true of the younger generation of full-time bloggers.

The market is a major factor, obviously -- niche subjects produce niche audiences, and vice versa. Some topics or sites or writers don't have huge readership because the writing is infrequent, or narrow, or just bad. But there's also plenty about blogs that's dismissive of the same voices that get dismissed offline, and that reinforces status quo, and, to bring it back to yesterday's post, reflects something other than pure meritocracy. As with so many other areas, there's a huge motivation to rationalize and validate success as completely a product of hard work and determination. And much of it is . . . but much of it isn't. Even those who become successful through hard work, determination, and talent almost certainly had some built-in advantages -- including me, of course -- and I don't think it diminishes anybody's accomplishments or efforts to acknowledge that.

As with yesterday's discussion, it's a lot easier to identify this stuff than to know what the end result is (or should be). And nothing is more annoying than telling people how to write or think, so this isn't an exhortation or anything. But like I said, it doesn't get discussed much, and it warrants mentioning. Read the rest of this post...

Wholesale prices triple forecasted number

Unfortunately it's the same old story. The weak dollar, high oil prices and a stumbling economy are taking their toll. Add to that the ongoing problem of stagnating income for the bulk of Americans and it's the 1970s all over again. As long as you don't need to buy food or use oil products, everything will be fine. Read the rest of this post...

New polls from Pennsylvania

As usual, Political Wire has two latest polls from Pennsylvania: It's a six-point lead for Clinton, 50% - 44%, in the latest Quinnipiac survey. That's the same margin Quinnipiac had last week. From Susquehanna Polling and Research, Clinton has a 3-point lead: 40% - 37%.

Yesterday, ARG caused a frenzy with its poll showing a 20-point lead (57% - 37%) for Clinton. Keep in mind, she needs a 20 point win to meet expectations.

UPDATE: TPM Election Central has the latest SurveyUSA poll for PA. It's 54% - 40%. Last week, SurveyUSA showed Clinton ahead by a 56% - 38% margin.

There may be a few more polls released today...definitely will be some tomorrow. Read the rest of this post...

70% disapprove of Bush/GOP economics

And this is what McCain wants to continue? The McCain plan - if there is an actual plan since he claims to know nothing about economics - is "more tax cuts and less regulation." In other words, more of the same. Please, oh please, oh please run for a third Bush term. Currently only 25% of independents approve of Bush/GOP economics (and the GOP support is dropping) and this economy is only going to get worse. Wait until voters get to know McSame. Read the rest of this post...

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

It's tax day. I'll be sending mine shorty -- even though I have no congressional representation.

Also, I do find it very interesting that the rich, urban (mostly white, straight and male) pundits were in a frenzy over Obama's remarks last week. But the steelworkers in Pennsylvania, who, in the eyes of the punditry should be upset, were groaning when Clinton spoke about Obama's remarks. Methinks the punditry (led by the painfully pompous Mark Halperin) really gobbled down the McCain/Clinton talking points on this one. The McCain/Clinton talking points have become interchangeable. See the headline from today's Washington Post:



That should make the Clinton campaign and its supporters very, very proud.

What's on today's agenda? Read the rest of this post...

Oil crashes through to new high

Not to worry though because we will probably never again see any more disruptions from hurricanes or whatever, nor hostage situations in Nigeria, new military invasion of an oil country or anything like that and the emerging economies of China and India will likely be reducing their demand. Oh, I almost forgot the other CNBC classic, that one trader wanted to be the first person to touch $100/barrel, but it was all just a gag or a bet between traders. Nothing more than that. Sounds fair enough and why shouldn't we believe them?

What's that? Oil hit $112.48 and we're now looking for the next support level at $115? Won't the strong dollar help? Nevermind. Read the rest of this post...

Bear Stearns CEO to keep job with JP Morgan, 7000 to be fired

Great. So this is what the American taxpayer is funding? So we are helping prop up another failed CEO as the company he led into ruin fires 7,000 people, probably more. Sounds pretty fair, doesn't it? The "rainmaker" as they are calling him, is somehow a hot commodity on the market which gives you an idea just how bad the market is these days.

If JP Morgan or anyone else wants to pay this guy, fine, but let's stop funding these clowns and helping them maintain a luxurious lifestyle while everyone is struggling. Who out there wouldn't like a nice government sponsored handout to live the life of Riley? Let JP Morgan or whoever else go find their own money without the help of taxpayers but as long as they have their hands out for a free ride, there is no reason why we ought to condone such a hire. Read the rest of this post...

Late Night Chuckle

I don't link to Wonkette often, but this is good for a giggle before bed.

Good Luck Ken. Read the rest of this post...