Hillary says Obama can't take the heat, she's got him on the run now! Exclusive Video!

Hillary says Obama just can't stand the heat. The fact that Obama has won more delegates, states and votes than Hillary is clearly taking its toll on the man who wrapped up the Democratic nomination over two months ago. Hillary has him by the, uh, ankles, and she knows it! Huffington Post has again scooped the world by uncovering this secretly taped video of Hillary earlier today (dressed in black) challenging Obama to fight like a man, while the Democratic frontrunner runs away like the MoveOn-loving coward he really is. Read the rest of this post...

Where are Cindy's McCain's tax returns? And why is the McCain campaign lying?

The McCain campaign refused to release Cindy McCain's tax returns today:

McCain released his tax returns today. They include 2006 and 2007 and nothing previously. In addition, no returns or summaries are included for wife Cindy McCain, who heads a privately held beer distribution company.

This is an issue because she's the one with all the dough in that family, although the McCain campaign today tried to deny Cindy's financial role in John's life (from the same MSNBC article linked above):

Note About Mrs. McCain's Financial Information:

Since the beginning of their marriage, Senator McCain and Mrs. McCain have always maintained separate finances. As required by federal law and Senate rules, Mrs. McCain has released significant and extensive financial information through Senate and Presidential disclosure forms. In the interest of protecting the privacy of her children, Mrs. McCain will not be releasing her personal tax returns.

Note About Hensley & Company:

In her role as Chairman of Hensley & Company, a privately-held business founded by her parents, Mrs. McCain's main areas of responsibility focus on strategic planning and corporate vision. Having served the greater Phoenix area since 1955, Hensley & Company is widely respected as an exemplary corporate citizen, and makes significant charitable contributions of its own.

Now, that conflicts with the detailed Associated Press reported earlier this month:

The McCains' marriage has mixed business and politics from the beginning, according to an expansive review by The Associated Press of thousands of pages of campaign, personal finance, real estate and property records nationwide. The paperwork chronicles the McCains' ascent from Arizona newlyweds to political power couple on the national stage.

As heiress to her father's stake in Hensley & Co. of Phoenix, Cindy McCain is an executive whose worth may exceed $100 million. Her beer earnings have afforded the GOP presidential nominee a wealthy lifestyle with a private jet and vacation homes at his disposal, and her connections helped him launch his political career -- even if the millions remain in her name alone. Yet the arm's-length distance between McCain and his wife's assets also has helped shield him from conflict-of-interest problems.

Nearly 30 years before John McCain became the Republican presidential nominee, he worked in public relations at his wife's family company.

Within a few years of marrying Cindy Hensley, the daughter of a multimillionaire Anheuser-Busch distributor, John McCain won his first election. He was new to Arizona politics and fundraising in the 1982 House race, and his campaign quickly fell into debt. Personal money -- tens of thousands of dollars in loans to his campaign from McCain bank accounts -- helped him survive.

Anheuser-Busch's political action committee was among McCain's earliest donors. Cindy McCain's father, James Hensley, and other Hensley & Co. executives gave so much the Federal Election Commission ordered McCain to give some of it back. McCain's campaign used Hensley office equipment such as computers and copiers, and Cindy McCain personally paid some of the campaign's bills.

The campaign gradually reimbursed Hensley for use of its equipment and Cindy McCain for her expenses. The loans -- described initially by John McCain as coming from him and his wife -- caught the eye of the FEC, which repeatedly questioned him about them; spouses are held to the same donation limits as everyone else.

McCain told the FEC the loaned money came from his share of joint accounts. At the time, McCain reported drawing a $25,067 salary and $25,000 bonus working for Hensley in public relations and receiving a Navy pension of $11,038 a year; his 1982 financial disclosure report showed bank interest but didn't say how much the bank accounts held.

McCain's campaign debt grew to about $177,000 by the end of 1982. His 1984 House campaign repaid just under half the loans. McCain forgave about $93,000 in loans, a sizable personal donation to his inaugural campaign.

Sounds like the AP reporter found documentation that the McCains actually haven't always maintained separate finances -- despite the campaign's claim to the contrary. Someone is lying.

Surely, George Stephanopoulos is going to grill McCain about Cindy McCain's tax returns now that the McCain campaign won't release them. With assistance from the traditional media, then RNC Chair Ed Gillespie made the spouse's tax forms an issue in 2004 for John Kerry. Surely, the same standard applies in '08. Read the rest of this post...

More Less-Than-Exceptional Acceptable Journalism

Unless some new shocking revelation turns up, I think this is the last I'm going to say about Wednesday night's debacle. But the powers-that-be thought a post I wrote earlier today on my personal site might be of interest here too.

Now that the initial anger has subsided, bloggers and blog readers are taking a closer look at the bit players in Wednesday night's debate. Specifically flag pin lady Nash McCabe. Josh and a reader point out just how un-random this woman actually was:

It turns out McCabe was featured in an April 4th story in the Times which begins like this ...

Ask whom she might vote for in the coming presidential primary election and Nash McCabe, 52, seems almost relieved to be able to unpack the dossier she has been collecting in her head.

It is not about whom she likes, but more a bill of particulars about why she cannot vote for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

"How can I vote for a president who won't wear a flag pin?" Mrs. McCabe, a recently unemployed clerk typist, said in a booth at the Valley Dairy luncheonette in this quiet, small city in western Pennsylvania.

Josh's got more about why he thinks including McCabe was an ethical breach on ABC's part:

Now, as JL noted in his email to TPM, I'm not sure precisely what's any less ethical about finding Nash at random to come on and slam Obama about whether he believes in the flag versus seeing her in the Times and saying, 'Wow, this woman clearly has it in for Obama. Wouldn't that make for great TV giving her a chance to crap on Obama's head in front of a nationwide audience?

I think there's something wrong with it. And part of it is that you usually assume that these citizen questions come from people who are at least partly conflicted about their support if not undecided. But it does reinforce my sense that the disgraceful nature of the debate wasn't just something that came together wrong, some iffy ideas taken to far, but was basically engineered to be crap from the ground up.

Besides giving the impression they planned to stack the debate, here's what else is wrong with what ABC did:

1. They went into their debate prep with a preconceived notion of the topics they wanted to push to the forefront as opposed to taking the pulse of the electorate and prioritizing.

2. They took the lazy way out and copped a source from the NYT. How many registered voters are there in PA? How hard is it to do your own legwork and find someone to talk about the issues that matter to him/her?

and perhaps the most egregious of the errors...

3. They gave Nash McCabe and her stupid question an audience of 10+ million on prime time TV. ABC legitimized the dumb dumb dumb lapel pin discussion by default. If you couldn't find anyone but the exact same lady quoted by the NYT, then maybe that would have been a good indication that skipping the topic altogether was the way to go.

Bad lazy sloppy embarrassing journalism. Read the rest of this post...

BREAKING: Secretly recorded tape reveals Hillary blasting MoveOn & Democratic activists

The Huffington Post has uncovered a tape of Hillary telling some fundraisers at a private meeting that she hates the Netroots and Democratic activists, especially MoveOn. Ironically, it was also the Huffington Post that revealed Obama's private meeting with fundraisers that led to the entire "bitter" debacle.

(Funny, Hillary spoke to MoveOn just last year, and praised their work (listen to the audio, it's good). She "personally welcomes" MoveOn's work and says "I am grateful for your work." And let's not forget why and how MoveOn started. They wanted Congress to MoveOn from impeaching Bill Clinton over Monica Lewinksy. This is yet another example of the Clinton's throwing a key ally, a key defender, under the bus when it's expedient.)

You see, MoveOn and the rest of the Netroots is made up of people who aren't very American or patriotic. They didn't even support the war in Afghanistan, Hillary claims, so these are the kind of people she has to deal with. They're also the reason that Hillary didn't win the caucuses, because of those crazy MoveOn people - I hear they would even threaten Hillary's poor caucus-going supporters. And what's more, those MoveOn people raised a ton of money for Obama, Hillary claims, so in reality, Obama didn't raise that much money from real Americans. So Hillary's entire argument, as always, is that everyone really loves her, nobody really likes Obama, but somehow the system is screwing her and making it look like she's losing, when she's really not. She's winning. Sure, she's not winning in delegates, or popular vote, or number of states won, or in donations, but she's winning in the area that really matters: Excuses.

Here is what Hillary had to say:

"Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and It's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

Oh, and guess what? Hillary lied. MoveOn's Executive Director Eli Pariser just gave the following statement to the Huffington Post:

"Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim.

The larger irony is that Obama never did a lot of outreach to the Netroots. His outreach was actually the worst of any of the big campaigns (Edwards was the best, and Hillary's was still better than Obama's, which didn't really exist at all). Yet, somehow, the Netroots still ended up supporting Obama over Hillary, even though they didn't know his people, but they sure knew hers. Just food for thought.

It's funny. Hillary was a big fan of the online grassroots (or Netroots, as we call it) when ABC was defaming her husband in its fictional account of September 11, "The Path to 9/11." At that time, we led a ferocious counterattack that put ABC in its place by exposing the serious errors in ABC's bizarrely inaccurate account of that day's fateful events. The Clintons didn't seem to have much of a problem with the Netroots when we came to their rescue. But now that we're defending Obama against the same biased attacks from ABC, Hillary dismisses us with a wave of her regal palm.

To paraphrase Rev. Martin Niemöller, Hillary has embraced so many right-wing talking points in her campaign, and bashed so many core Democratic constituencies (blacks, gays, gun control advocates, and now the Netroots), that pretty soon she'll have no more Democrats left to blame. Nor will she have any Democrats left to support what has become a truly pathetic caricature of what was once a great Democratic family. Read the rest of this post...

Oil hits new high, Dow burst with excitement

A warm welcome to yet another record high with oil prices. I'd say it's safe to say that the $115 support level has been thoroughly tested and it folded faster than Iraqi troops in Basra. Oil closed at $116.79, with $120 looking like an easy target. See what happens when you let industry choose the energy policy of a country?

There is something so wrong about the recent surge from the Dow which celebrated 9,000 job cuts from Citi just after 3,000 from Merrill Lynch. Strange days, though strange days tend to meet reality sooner or later. I'm thinking sooner. Read the rest of this post...

Huff Post: "Hillary slams Democratic activists"

Developing story over at the Huffington Post. I hear you won't be pleased when you find out what she said. Stay tuned... Read the rest of this post...

Hillary's donors are on the attack again

Last month, Hillary's fundraisers attacked Nancy Pelosi.

Today, they are on the attack again. This time the target is Howard Dean.

Don't these rich people have better things to do? Just a suggestion, but it might be a wiser use of their time to raise the money to pay off Hillary's debts, which were $8.7 million at the end of February -- and also start paying some of the small business owners who have been getting stiffed by the Clinton campaign.

NOTE FROM JOHN: Well, that didn't take long. You'll recall that I predicted the following less than 24 hours ago:

Get ready for the Hillary donors to once again threaten to destroy our majority in the Congress, and help John McCain become president, if Hillary's divine right of kings isn't honored.

Read the rest of this post...

National Defense Institute: Iraq is "an incubator for terrorism"

DKos reports that the National Defense Institute has just come out with a paper on the Iraq war, calling it "a major debacle," "an incubator for terrorism," and then blasting Condi Rice and Stephen Hadley, among others. This would be the war that John McCain says is going really well. Read the rest of this post...

Ignoring the 800 pound question in the room

ABC's George Stephanopoulos in today's Washington Post, defending his handling of the Democratic presidential debate earlier this week:

"You can't do a tougher question for Senator Clinton than 'six out of 10 Americans don't think you're honest.' "

Oh please. How about any question that starts with the words "Monica Lewinksy."

The fact is that ABC thought it would be rude and boorish to ask anything about Monica or Bill Clinton's affairs, even though we will most certainly be hearing about them in the fall should Hillary be the nominee. (And after all, isn't that ABC's standard for smut? If it's going to come up in the fall, we'll ask it first!) And it didn't have to be a sex question for Hillary, it could have been a character question.

For example... I spoke a short while back with a women's rights leader about Hillary, and asked her why she was upset with Hillary for not leaving Bill Clinton. I argued - believe it or not - that Hillary was right to get some return on her investment in this marriage in order to finally help her career too. The women's leader responded: "Your self-respect is more important than a job." That's the kind of Monica question ABC could have asked Hillary, one that would have been relevant to her character. But they didn't.

ABC went there with Obama - I mean, come on, asking him if his pastor loves America? - but ABC didn't go there with Hillary. I'm not sure going there with both candidates would have made anyone happier, but please don't insult our intelligence and suggest that there were no harsher questions you could have asked Hillary. ABC decided to make no topic untouchable in Obama's life. But they did in Hillary's. Read the rest of this post...

WWII vets ticked at Mrs. Cheney for abusing Iwo Jima symbol

Iwo Jima vets are just LIVID with the vice president's wife, Lynne Cheney, for using the symbol of the Iwo Jima memorial to sell her children's book, America: A Patriotic Primer. Here's Cheney's cover:



Wow. Imagine taking the image of the Iwo Jima memorial and using it for your own purposes as a cover to a publication. Man, that Mrs. Cheney is an evil one. No wonder the vets groups are so upset with her. Oh, wait a minute. Mrs. Cheney's use of the memorial is fine, it's TIME magazine's use of the memorial as a cover for a publication that isn't fine with the vets groups because, uh, you know, Mrs. Cheney's book uses Arial font and TIME uses, um, Garamond? I mean, duh.



In all fairness to the vets, I'm sure they didn't know that Mrs. Cheney also absconded with their sacred symbol of untouchable patriotism and uber-manliness, so we should be hearing them excoriating Mrs. Cheney any time now. (Hat tip to ABlog reader Robert for finding the Cheney book cover.) Read the rest of this post...

Cliff's Corner

4/18/08

Another week, more preposterousness to report.

Many have already pored over the ins and outs of a Democratic debate tailor-made for "Enquiring minds" earlier this week on ABC. Well guess who just happens to be coming to dinner...or This Week, this weekend?

Why none other than John McCain!

So in the spirit of seeing how all the candidates deal with "scandal," or just being queried about everyone they have associated with since that 6th grade teacher who crossed the street against a red light (do you denounce her Senator Obama? Denounce and reject her!?! Or perhaps just reject?), here are some questions that John McCain should be asked on your show this weekend, Mr. Stephanopoulos (sorry, old habit from when I had you as a professor at Columbia).

First a great list I came across, and then a few of my own I found in my research for my book The Real McCain. This list is from Perrspectives, a fantastic compilation, in my always humble opinion:

1. Do you agree with Pastor John Hagee that war with Iran is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy?
In February, you shared a stage with Pastor John Hagee and said you were "very proud" to have his endorsement. You also called the Reverend Rod Parsley, a man who said of Islam "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed", your "spiritual guide." Do you believe America's mission is to destroy Islam? Do you join Pastor Hagee in believing the United States must attack Iran to fulfill the biblical prophecy of Armageddon in Israel in which 144,000 Jews will be converted to Christianity and the rest killed? Is that why you joked about "bomb bomb Iran?" If not, why will you not renounce the support of Hagee and Parsley?

2. Doesn't your legendary temper make you too dangerous to be trusted with the presidency of the United States?Your anger, even toward friends and allies, is legendary. You purportedly dropped the F-Bomb on your own GOP colleagues John Cornyn and Chuck Grassley. In the book, The Real McCain, author Cliff Schechter claims you got into a fist-fight with your fellow Arizona Republican Rick Renzi. Allegedly, you even publicly used a crude term, one which decorum and the FCC prohibit us from even saying on the air, to describe your own wife. Which if any of these episodes is untrue? Don't your anger management problems make you too dangerously unstable to be president of the United States?

3. Doesn't your confusion regarding basic facts about the war in Iraq, including repeatedly citing a nonexistent Al Qaeda-Iran alliance, make you unfit for command?
On four occasions in one month, you confused friend and foe in Iraq by describing Sunni Al Qaeda as being backed by Shiite Iran. Then you showed a misunderstanding of the U.S. chain of command when you claimed you would not back shifting forces from Iraq to Afghanistan "unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that," a decision which Petraeus himself told you and your Senate colleagues only the week before rests not with him but with his superiors. Doesn't your lack of understanding and judgment when it comes to basic facts of America's national security disqualify you as commander-in-chief?

4. Given your past adultery, should Americans consider you a moral exemplar of family values?
You are the nominee of a Republican Party which claims to support so-called "family values." Yet you commenced an adulterous relationship with your current wife Cindy months before the dissolution of your previous marriage to your first wife Carol. Should Americans consider you to be a moral exemplar of family values?

5. Doesn't your flip-flop on Jerry Falwell being an "agent of intolerance" show your opportunistic pandering to the religious right?
In 2000, you famously called the late Jerry Falwell "an agent of intolerance," a statement which may have cost you the decisive South Carolina primary. But as you ramped up your next presidential run in 2006, you embraced Falwell and gave the commencement address at his Liberty University. When Tim Russert asked that spring if you still considered him an agent of intolerance, you said, "'no, I don't." Why shouldn't the American people consider you a flip-flopping opportunist who cynically courted the religious right to further your 2008 presidential ambitions?

6. Given your wealth and privileged upbringing, aren't you - and not Barack Obama - the elitist?
You have called Barack Obama an elitist. Yet you recently returned to your exclusive private high school, one which now costs over $38,000 a year to attend. Your wife is the heiress to a beer distribution company, reputedly owns 8 homes and has a net worth well over $100 million. Your children all attended private schools, academies which also happened to be the primary beneficiaries of funds from your supposed charitable foundation. Shouldn't the American people in fact view you as the elitist, and a hypocritical one at that?

7. What is your religion, really? And has the answer in the past changed as the South Carolina primary approached?
I want to ask about your seemingly ever-changing religious beliefs. In June 2007, McClatchy reported, "McCain still calls himself an Episcopalian." In August 2007, as ABC reported, your campaign staff identified you as "Episcopalian" in a questionnaire prepared for ABC News' August 5 debate. But as the primary in evangelical-rich South Carolina neared, in September 2007 you said of your religious faith, "It plays a role in my life. By the way, I'm not Episcopalian. I'm Baptist." But in March 2008, Pastor Dan Yeary of your North Phoenix Baptist Church refused to comment on why you have refused to finally undergo a baptism ceremony. Congressional directories still list you as an Episcopalian. In the past, you've said, "When I'm asked about it, I'll be glad to discuss it." So what is your religion? And couldn't Americans be forgiven for assuming your changing faith is tied to your changing political needs?

8. Didn't President Bush betray you with his signing statement on the Detainee Treatment Act? You claim to be against torture, but aren't you a hypocrite for voting "no" on the Senate waterboarding ban?
You've said that "we can't torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured". And in December 2005, you famously reached a compromise with President Bush on the Detainee Torture Act banning cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees. But just two weeks later, President Bush issued a signing statement making it clear he would ignore the compromise you just reached. Then in February 2007, you voted "no" on a Senate bill banning waterboarding. Isn't it fair to say President Bush betrayed you with his December 30, 2005 signing statement? And isn't it fair to say you caved to the right-wing of your party on the issue in order to win the Republican nomination?

9. Why did you flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts you twice opposed? Why do you now support making them permanent for the wealthiest Americans who need them least?
You twice voted against the Bush tax cuts. Now you support making them permanent. In 2001, you said, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief." Now, according to the Center for American Progress, your tax plan would cost more than $2 trillion over the next decade and "would predominantly benefit the most fortunate taxpayers, offering two new massive tax cuts for corporations and delivering 58 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent of taxpayers." Isn't it true that you flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts? Isn't it fair to say that you now favor a massive expansion of the federal budget deficit in order to fund a tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans who need it least?

10. With the economy tanking, shouldn't Americans be concerned over your past statements that "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should?"
Americans consistently report that the economy is the issue that concerns them most. Yet more than once, you proclaimed your ignorance when it comes to the economy. In November 2005, you told the Wall Street Journal, "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." Then in December 2007, you admitted, "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." Shouldn't the American be worried about President McCain's ability to lead the United States out of recession? Given your past statements, shouldn't the American reject out of hand your claim that "I know the economy better than Senator Clinton and Senator Obama do?"

All of these are fantastic questions, now let me add two from The Real McCain:

11) How can you call yourself a straight-talker in light of the fact that you have changed your positions or rhetorically flip-flopped on the following issues: Abortion, Creationism in science class, immigration, intervention abroad, tax cuts for the wealthy, civil unions, a Martin Luther King holiday, the Confederate Flag, the Christian Right, Bob Jones University, whether Rumsfeld did a good job, whether Dick Cheney is doing a good job, whether President Bush is an honest man, a Patient's Bill of Rights, global warming, campaign finance reform in general, public financing of campaigns specifically, lobbying reform, whether the War in Iraq would be "easy," whether Sunni and Shiite are working together, whether "Iraqi blood should be traded for American blood," military readiness, how many troops are necessary for the surge to succeed in Iraq, ethanol subsidies, the continuing existence of a minimum wage, closing the gun-show loophole, healthcare for children...and I could go on, but how about we start with those?

12) Finally, if Barack Obama must account for everyone he has ever passed within a 100 square mile radius of, then here are some associations you might want to explain, with the indicted, the white supremacists and the downright corrupt: Rick Renzi (indicted), Terry Nelson (racist ads against Harold Ford in 2006), Trent Lott (pining for a Strom presidency), The Wyly Brothers (corrupt), Bob Perry (Chief Swift Boater), Richard Quinn (white supremacist), Rev. Richard Land (homosexual hate), Ken Blackwell (Ohio election suppression), Charlie Black (lobbyist and according to John Gorenfeld's new book, Bad Moon Rising, Reverend Moon lover). That would be a start.

I don't write this to pile on Mr. Stephanopoulos. I have usually found you to be a fair-minded host. Yet, if you are to right the wrongs of that debate, please give equal time, and make John McCain answer for aspects of his political career which are much more relevant than a flag lapel pin to whether he or Barack Obama would make a better president.

Cliff Schecter is the author of The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him And Why Independents Shouldn't. Read the rest of this post...

I'm bitter about Hillary constantly mentioning "San Francisco" to curry favor with the religious right

Anyone else notice that Hillary and her staff keep gratuitously mentioning "San Francisco" when talking about Obama's "bitter" comments? Markos noticed it too: "I remember the good ol' days when only Republicans used to demonize San Francisco," Markos wrote yesterday. A DailyKos diarist noticed it too, as did the readers at popular gay news and culture site Datalounge. As did some folks interviewed by the SF Chronicle:

So the most shocking part of the whole incident, he said, has been the appearance that "Hillary Clinton wants to ... throw in with the critique from the far right" in appearing to feed the image of an out-of-touch "San Francisco-style Democrat."

It suggests "that the Clintons are so committed to the political tactics that they'll do virtually anything to advance a step without regard for the long term implications," he said. "Most Democrats and most Republicans will not attack their opponent in such a way as to give massive fodder to the other side in the general election."

But "she's just writing the playbook for the Republicans in November..."

And we all know what San Francisco is code for. Now let's examine what Hillary was after. From the NYT:

Some Clinton advisers also said that the focus on Mr. Obama’s “guns or religion” comment was a way to put him on the spot with so-called values voters...

Value voters. That's PC media slang for the religious right. Here are a few examples of Hillary dropping the SF-bomb concerning the bitter thing:

Hillary's appearance at the Alliance for Manufacturing Forum in PA:

"I am well aware that at a fundraiser in San Francisco, he said some things that many people in Pennsylvania and beyond Pennsylvania have found offensive.

Then at the Compassion Forum (irony much?) on April 13, she did it again:

CAMPBELL BROWN: But, senator, you’ve been out there on the stump attacking him pretty aggressively over this. And his response has been, and he said it pretty bluntly tonight, shame on you. You know that he is a man of faith—this is what he's saying—and to suggest that he is demeaning religion is you playing politics.

HRC: I do think it raises a lot of concerns and we've seen that exhibited in the last several days by people here in Pennsylvania, in Indiana where I was yesterday, and elsewhere, because it did seem so much in line with what often we are charged with. Someone goes to a closed door fund-raiser in San Francisco and makes comments that do seem elitist, out of touch and, frankly, patronizing.

Again, why throw in San Francisco?

Then check out Hillary's Web site. It's littered with "bitter" San Francisco references, including the last one, that's quite damning. Here, here, here, here, and especially here:

MT Endorsement Watch: “Yellowstone County Commissioner Bill Kennedy says he is endorsing Hillary Rodham Clinton…[Kennedy said:] ‘In Montana, going to church or going hunting is part of our heritage, not something we ‘cling to’ out of bitterness or frustration…Sen. Obama showed a real disconnect with rural Montana. It might work to look down on us from San Francisco, but it won’t sell when he comes back to Montana.’”

Really? From San Francisco? What is that supposed to mean? Oh, and before I have to deal with all the "Hillary is SUPER pro-gay" responses, yes she is. She's also super pro-black, pro-gun-control, and pro-NAFTA. But when it became expedient for her campaign to race-bait, embrace guns, and then claim she was always anti-NAFTA, Hillary flipped on a dime.

As for the gays, yes, the Clintons are very pro-gay, until they're not. Remember DOMA, and Bill Clinton's radio ads touting his support for the anti-gay bill? Here's the NYT coverage of the ads at the time:

In a radio advertisement aimed at religious conservatives, the Clinton campaign is showcasing the President’s signature on a bill banning gay marriages in spite of earlier White House complaints that the issue amounted to ”gay baiting.”…

Mr. Clinton signed the law early on a Saturday morning, minimizing news coverage. He said he had long agreed with the principles in the bill but hoped it would not be used to justify discrimination against homosexuals…

Longtime Clinton friend David Mixner reminds us:

In fact, after proclaiming to the community how painful it was for him to sign it, President Clinton’s reelection campaign had ads up in the South touting the legislation within two weeks!

Let's also revisit my post of last June in which we learned that Bill Clinton was advising John Kerry to endorse the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. What kind of advice do you think Bill is giving Hillary about how to reach "values voters" - well, we already know his advice, throw the gays under the bus - and do you really think she's not taking it?

Let me also share the story of how Hillary's people freaked when Joe and I told them we were going to ask Hillary a "gay" question at the Democratic National Committee winter meeting a year ago (I mean, the question was about DOMA and civil unions, hardly anything she hasn't answered before). Joe literally got yelled at for even suggesting that we were going to ask Hillary something about DOMA. We were told that we had to give Hillary and her people the question in advance. We refused. We were then told that we couldn't ask her about DOMA since her husband signed it into law - apparently, it would be embarrassing to her. You'll be surprised to hear that we never got the interview. And remember that a year ago February, we were one of the only top blogs that even liked Hillary. Senator Dodd, on the contrary, had no problem answering the same question at the same meeting. Wesley Clark gave a great answer as well. Read the rest of this post...

NYT: "Superdelegates unswayed by Clinton's attacks"

I think I finally figured out what's going on with the SuperDelegates. Why half of them are refusing to makeup their minds. First check out this quote from today's NYT:

[D]espite giving it her best shot in what might have been their final debate, interviews on Thursday with a cross-section of these superdelegates — members of Congress, elected officials and party leaders — showed that none had been persuaded much by her attacks on Mr. Obama’s strength as a potential Democratic nominee, his recent gaffes and his relationships with his former pastor and with a onetime member of the Weather Underground.

Then read this, the paragraph that I think explains everything:

John W. Olsen, an uncommitted superdelegate from Connecticut and president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. there. “I also want to wait and hear from all of the Democrats in the primaries and caucuses who haven’t had a chance to choose and vote yet.”

Here's what's going on. The SuperDs are scared of Hillary and Bill, and their supporters, and while they plan on voting for Obama, they want "cover." And their "cover" is going to be waiting until almost every primary is done - at least the big primary in PA - so they can THEN say "gosh, Obama got the majority of the public and the majority of the delegates - who knew?! - I guess I'll have to support him now." Obviously, that same argument applies now - there is no mathematical way that Hillary can win the popular vote or the delegate count from the primaries and caucuses - but the SuperDs are scared of picking sides. So they want a clearer fait accompli, one they think they'll have after Pennsylvania votes.

It's a bit immature. But there you have it. They're going to vote for Obama, they're just waiting until it's "safe." Whatever. Read the rest of this post...

"Bosnia and Back Again" is a YouTube blockbuster

Wednesday, we posted Jed's latest video, "Bosnia and Back Again." So did a lot of other people. The video has had over 244,000 253,000 268,000 282,000 views on YouTube and lots of honors - including 6th most viewed video on all of YouTube. Ari Melber from the Nation wrote about the video and Andrew Sullivan posted it. Yesterday, it was the top story on Digg.com with over 6100 Diggs.

It's a YouTube blockbuster worthy of a YouTube Oscar for Jed.
Read the rest of this post...

NBC's Chuck Todd, et.al.: "The left-wing blogosphere is MUCH more powerful than what you see on the right this cycle." SuperDelegates take note.

NBC's Chuck Todd is one of the more astute political observers out there (we thought this before he penned this morning's post, below).

Curious of what the bitterness and anger could look like if Obama is somehow denied the Democratic nomination? Check out the reaction from the ObamaNation over Wednesday’s debate. To put it simply, ABC was under siege yesterday. This may only be a taste of how the ObamaNation would react to a Clinton nomination. If MoveOn is motivated to do a petition campaign against the media over a debate, imagine what Clinton delegates and undecided superdelegates would face this summer if there is doubt. And as the Politico’s Ben Smith pointed out yesterday, it’s also what the GOP would face in the general election, especially if Obama is nominee. The level of devotion among Obama's supporters rivals what Bush had with his flock in 2004. The left-wing blogosphere is MUCH more powerful than what you see on the right this cycle and it reminds us of the advantage Bush had in '04. While we all know about that so-called right-wing voice machine, don’t forget that there is now a left-wing noise machine (on the internet) as well. And it has found its voice.

Here's what Ben Smith had to say:

The ABC debate, according to the network, got 10.7 million viewers.

It also triggered the most furious outrage I've seen from the huge, and growing, Obama activist base, which in this case merged with the liberal Netroots -- which aren't always on the same page -- to generate a volume of complaints about the first 45-minutes of questioning that are pretty impossible to miss.

It's just a small glimpse, I think, of the level of heat the media is going to take in the general election, and John McCain doesn't seem to have any equivalent.

Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. The Republicans have an amazing ability to turn defeat into victory (and Democrats, the opposite), and they've been playing the media refs for going on 3 decades now. But I've been telling people for a while that the right-wing blogosphere is next to non-existent in power as compared to the left. In a future post, I'll try to analyze why this is. But for now, suffice it to say, there's a reason we bloggers do what we do. You, and we, together make up a rather relevant and powerful force in Democratic, and overall US, politics. Be proud. Be vigilant. And be active. It matters. Read the rest of this post...

WaPo-ABC poll: Americans pessimistic on economy and Iraq

This is seriously bad news for McCain as he runs for a third Bush term. When the Democrats lock down their Presidential candidate, McCain is in for some rough seas. A few highlights of note:

The percentages of Democrats and independents advocating withdrawal and seeing Iraq as distinct from the U.S. terrorism fight are also at or near high marks. And three-quarters of Democrats and nearly six in 10 independents do not see significant progress in Iraq.

And...

Two-thirds of Democrats call the economy downright "poor," as do a majority of independents. But while a wide majority of Republicans rate the economy negatively, only about three in 10 describe conditions as that dire, and most have a positive take on the future. Most Democrats and independents, however, hold pessimistic views about the next 12 months.

Economic ratings are flagging across partisan lines, and overall optimism is at a new low among all Americans: Nearly six in 10 said they feel pessimistic about the economy for the coming year, a seven-point increase since early February. And those who think the situation is already in poor shape do not have high hopes for recovery anytime soon; nearly three-quarters of them have a negative view about the next 12 months.

The Republicans can write off Democrats - they can't write off independents. Read the rest of this post...

AP/Yahoo News Poll: Obama Now More Electable

Seems the drawn out nomination process is officially backfiring...on Clinton. Anecdotal evidence is one thing. Now we're getting the numbers to back it up:

By tracking the same group throughout the campaign, the AP-Yahoo! News poll can gauge how individual views change. It suggests that Clinton has paid a price for hammering Obama since early February on several issues as she tries to overcome his lead in delegates and the popular vote. Among those Democrats who no longer consider her the more electable of the two, most now see her as less likable, decisive, strong, honest, experienced and ethical than they did in January.

Meanwhile, those same voters are more likely to see Obama as strong, honest and refreshing than before.

Here's the graph (ps. I just noticed the source date is wrong at the bottom of the graph. I think it should be April 2008 not 2007):

Read the rest of this post...

Friday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Finally, it's Friday. This just seemed like a long, long week.

I missed the all new South Park on Wednesday night because of the debate. Says a lot about the state of the media when I think Stan, Kyle, Cartman and even Kenny make more sense than Stephanopoulos and Gibson. I did watch the new episode last night. Very funny episode, "Over Logging" for all of us who might be a little too dependent on our internet. It's also a little frightening to realize that South Park keeps me sane.

Anyway, what do we need to know? Read the rest of this post...

Iraqi troops abandon positions, again

This ought to be a real boost to the pro-war crowd in Congress and McCain who keep telling us we need to stay for 100 years. If the Iraqi troops don't want to stand up, why should US troops or voters support the ongoing war? Let the GOP and their Big Oil friends fund this fiasco or ask Iraq to use their oil wealth but enough is enough.

A company of government troops abandoned its positions in Sadr City when the forces came under attack from Shiite militiamen who took advantage of a sandstorm to attack, police said Friday.

The clashes overnight killed two people and injured nine, a police commander said. The officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to release the information, said it was unclear whether there were any casualties among the soldiers.

The reports of the latest setback for the Iraqi army come after government officials acknowledged that during fighting last month against Shiite militias in the southern city of Basra, more than 1,300 Iraqi soldiers and police deserted or refused to fight.

Read the rest of this post...

'Jingle mail' catching on as Americans walk away from houses

It's no surprise that the banks are adjusting their risk calculations and receiving more 'jingle mail' (house keys in the envelope) as housing prices decline. Since McCain is talking about the economy now, can we see his detailed record from his long Senate history, where he speaks out against the system that his party and advisers created? What's that? He supported all of this? Oh...nevermind.

Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com estimates that 10.6 million homeowners will have zero or negative equity by the end of June, or 21 percent of first mortgage holders.

The impact of a new wave of defaults will also be potentially important.

Banks and other investors in mortgages, as has been seen, will take further hits to their already weakened capital.

While few might shed tears for banks, this means a longer and deeper credit crunch.

Read the rest of this post...

China ships 77 tons of military equipment to Zimbabwe

Oh the Olympic spirit! Nothing says 'Olympic spirit' quite like a massive new arsenal of guns and ammo for a dictator to repress a nation who just voted him out. All of the critics of communist China should just understand that Robert Mugabe has the full authority to kill and torture anyone and everyone because it's an internal matter and has nothing to do whatsoever with human rights or the world community. The world should ignore such violations and mind their own business. A friend in need is a friend indeed. Thabo Mbeki is also doing the right thing by allowing safe passage of weapons because after all, the papers are all in order. That's fair, right?

A Chinese cargo ship believed to be carrying 77 tonnes of small arms, including more than 3m rounds of ammunition, AK47 assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, has docked in the South African port of Durban for transportation of the weapons to Zimbabwe, the South African government confirmed yesterday. It claimed it was powerless to intervene as long as the ship's papers were in order.

Read the rest of this post...