MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: December 9, 2007

« December 2, 2007 - December 8, 2007 | Main | December 16, 2007 - December 22, 2007 »

December 15, 2007

DMR Endorses Clinton, McCain

I goofed earlier when I blogged on the significance of the Des Moines Register's endorsement, which was released just a few moments ago. Specifically, I failed to mention that the Register releases two endorsements, one in each race.

Isn't endorsing a candidate in each party a pretty incredible show of arrogance? If the Register were to endorse one candidate, it would be essentially saying, "Look, we're going to lay our biases on the table. Here's who we support. Take it or leave it." But by endorsing a candidate in each race, the folks there aren't making their decisions based on their values. They're making their decisions based on the belief that they are smarter and better informed than other Iowans and therefore have the authority to tell both Republicans and Democrats how to vote. I know this is common practice, but jeez, I tell you, there is something about Iowa.

Anyway, the Register endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Its rationals after the jump. Updated below: The Boston Globe's picks.

On Clinton:

...the candidates have outlined ambitious policy proposals on health care, education and rural policy. Yet these proposals do little to help separate the field. Their plans are similar, reflecting a growing consensus in the party about how to approach priority issues.

The choice, then, comes down to preparedness: Who is best prepared to confront the enormous challenges the nation faces — from ending the Iraq war to shoring up America’s middle class to confronting global climate change?

The job requires a president who not only understands the changes needed to move the country forward but also possesses the discipline and skill to navigate the reality of the resistant Washington power structure to get things done.

That candidate is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

On McCain:

...for all [the Republican candidates'] accomplishments on smaller stages, none can offer the tested leadership, in matters foreign and domestic, of Sen. John McCain of Arizona. McCain is most ready to lead America in a complex and dangerous world and to rebuild trust at home and abroad by inspiring confidence in his leadership.

Time will tell if the Register's endorsement will provide Clinton and McCain with boosts. Clinton is currently running second in Iowa, whereas McCain is a more distant fifth, so it is definitely she who is in a better position to use the endorsement. Then again, the Register has endorsed losers before.

Update: The Boston Globe tried to steal some of the Register's thunder today, also releasing its endorsements. It went with McCain and Obama. The Globe is distributed pretty widely in New Hampshire, and the endorsements should have at least some impact there.

Today's biggest impact may be felt by John Edwards, whose inability to garner either of the two Democratic endorsements will further marginalize him.

Young Girl Goes on the Attack; Obama Stays Positive

Fun interaction (paraphrased) between Barack Obama and a young attendee at a town hall event here in New Hampton, Iowa:

Young girl: "I just want to say that every time I see a commercial of Mitt Romney on TV I want to throw up."

Barack Obama: "Haha. Okay. I feel you. What's your question?"

Young girl: "I just want to say to anyone who is considering voting for Mitt Romney—"

Barack Obama: "Well, hold on, sweetie. I know you have an opinion on Mitt, but I want to use this forum for questions, not to dog Mitt Romney. Though he sometimes uses his town halls to dog me! So why don't you ask a question."

Young girl: "Uh, I guess I want to know your thoughts on Mitt Romney."

Obama said that Romney is a man of accomplishment with great hair. He declined to engage Romney directly because, he said, he isn't convinced Romney is going to be the Republican nominee. But, boy, Mitt Romney must have run over that little girl's dog.

Update: Maybe that little girl is really, really good at getting the word out.

The Des Moines Register's Big Move

The Des Moines Register is releasing its super-important endorsement in the Democratic primary tonight. In Iowa, where the Drudge Report, the New York Times op-ed page, and the liberal blogosphere all influence opinions far less than they do on the coasts, a nod from the state's largest paper can provide a campaign with a huge boost. It certainly did that for John Edwards in 2004.

So we'll be on that here at MoJoBlog. The NYT has an excellent article on the length campaigns will go to get the Register's endorsement. Right now, the sexy pick is Joe Biden, though that may just be political reporters hoping for a bit of intrigue to cut the monotony of the campaign. A Biden endorsement would probably hurt Clinton, because they share voters who place a higher premium on national security experience and/or hawkishness than anything else. And if you subscribe to the theory that Edwards and Obama have like-minded supporters, a nod for either one will hurt the other. A Clinton choice would likely reenergize her drifting campaign.

December 14, 2007

Double Trouble: China and the U.S. Gang Up on the Environment

China and the U.S. have been quite the bosom buddies lately, both on economic and environmental issues. But is it any wonder? As we discussed in our current feature article, "The Last Empire," China's booming economy is based on a high-consumption, capitalist, American model.

The two countries recently pledged to "conduct extensive cooperation over a 10-year period to focus on technological innovation, adoption of clean technology and sustainable natural resources." The promise to adopt clean technology seems like nothing more than a false gesture, considering both China and the U.S. refused mandatory emissions cuts of 20 to 40 percent by 2020 at the U.N. climate change conference in Bali this week.

For more on this subject, continue reading this post on Mother Jones' environment and health blog, The Blue Marble.

License to Bill: Congress Cracks Down on Contractors

This morning's Washington Post includes a front page story detailing alleged mismanagement and questionable expenditures by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), headed by Stuart W. Bowen, Jr., a former Bush adviser who has earned equal praise from Democrats and Republicans alike for his dogged approach to uncovering... well, mismanagement and questionable expenditures in the Iraq reconstruction.

According to the Post, Bowen's office is the target of at least three ongoing investigations, by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the Presidential Council on Integrity and Efficiency, and the U.S. Army's Equal Employment Opportunity Office. Echoing State Department Inspector General Howard "Cookie" Krongard's recent troubles, all three are said to have resulted from complaints brought by members of Bowen's own staff. Among the charges: that due to abuse of federal overtime policies, at least 10 staff members netted more than $250,000 last year (General Petraeus pulled down $174,900, by comparison); that Bowen's pursuit of a $3.5 million book project about the Iraq reconstruction became a financial sink hole; and that Bowen and his deputies reviewed employee emails without permission, allegedly to identify "who was loyal and who was not," according to one aggrieved staffer. Compounding the misery at SIGIR—which according to another employee quoted by the Post, is "gripped by paranoia" and has taken on "a siege mentality"—is the revelation earlier this year that the office's claim to have saved taxpayers $1.87 billion in reconstruction spending was not only untrue, but way, way off the mark: a new estimate last summer put the figure at just $95 million, or five percent of SIGIR's original claim.

Despite all this, the SIGIR model stands to be expanded in the latest version of the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, which was passed by the House earlier this week and is now awaiting Senate approval before making its way to President Bush's desk. It would create a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) to "conduct, supervise and coordinate audits and investigations of the treatment, handling and expenditures of appropriated funds by the United States government, and of the programs, operations and contracts carried out utilizing such funds in Afghanistan in order to prevent and detect waste, fraud and abuse," according to the bill.

SIGAR would receive an initial operating budget of $20 million for fiscal year 2008. Short of congressional reauthorization, its duties would be scheduled to conclude on September 30, 2010. Once up and running, the office would produce quarterly and semi-annual reports detailing its activities and accomplishments in reducing waste and fraud in Afghanistan.

Although we may not hear as much about it as we do about Iraq, waste in Afghanistan is real and could be undermining the overall U.S./NATO mission there. The U.S. government has already invested some $20 billion in the country since 2001. And, according to critics, it's contractors, not Afghans, who have benefited more. As Sarah Chayes, a former NPR reporter in Afghanistan and author of "The Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After the Taliban," said in a recent interview with Fresh Air's Terri Gross, projects supervised by agencies like USAID are often unnecessarily large and involve far greater numbers of highly paid contractors than necessary. "It costs a fortune, and Afghans see it," she says. "They understand that that was money that was earmarked for Afghanistan, and they see it going back into the pockets of the contractors."

Although SIGAR might help reduce some of this waste, the Pentagon has opposed its creation from the very beginning. The department claims it "does not have a reconstruction role in Afghanistan" similar to the one ongoing in Iraq, and suggests that launching a new oversight office will only add further strain to an already over-burdened staff at DOD's inspector general's office, which must compete with other departmental IGs for trained staff willing to travel to Iraq. Such complaints did not sway lawmakers.

By the way, SIGAR is not the only innovation in this year's defense authorization bill targeting government contractors. The bill would also establish an independent, bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting to focus on Iraq and Afghanistan, which would expand the reach of SIGIR and SIGAR beyond mere reconstruction contracts and for the first time grant them authority to investigate security-related contracts, as well. In addition, the Commission will undertake an investigation into the overall impact of using civilian contractors in war zones.

And if that's not enough for firms like Blackwater, Triple Canopy, and DynCorps to worry about, this year's defense authorization also demands that the Pentagon tighten its policies specifically with regard to security contractors, requiring that it maintain records on individual private security personnel, register and clearly identify contractor vehicles in conflict areas, and brief contractors on U.S., Iraqi, and international laws governing the use of force.

So, after more than four years of war, might we finally be seeing the beginnings of the first serious effort to rein in the private security industry's free-for-all in Iraq? Obviously, it's too early to know, but the signs are pointing in the right direction for once. Thanks, Blackwater...

Steroids: Why We Can't Live Without Them

Alright, so there's steroids in baseball. With the Mitchell Report (spearheaded by former Senator George Mitchell, who is also on the board of directors of the Boston Red Sox) hitting the public yesterday, the world is aghast. This morning President Bush said both that, "My hope is that this report is a part of putting the steroid era of baseball behind us," and that "we can jump to this conclusion: that steroids have sullied the game."

Say what?

Steroids may be dangerous, and cheating, but make no mistake about it: The steroid era is what brought us increased revenues, fancy new stadiums, and a renewed interest in what, when Bush was owner of the Texas Rangers, was a serious flagging interest in America's favorite pastime.

Predictions are now that the blacklisted players, 85 in all, will be summarily booed when they hit spring training (or the signing circuit). Glass houses, folks. The accused, surely not a comprehensive list, includes seven MVPs, two Cy Young Award winners, and 31 All-Stars. Remember, we the fans vote for All-Stars, so we essentially have been voting for steroids, cheering on the muscled, big-headed, giants who give us what we pay the big bucks for: home runs, strikeouts, monster moments.

And what of Barry Bonds? Yesterday was likely not a heroic day in the Bonds household— he's on the list, though he's facing perjury for swearing he didn't use—but this dispels the Bonds-as-the-root-of-all-steroid-evil myth. The whole asterik hubbub around his home-run record, how about stars next to some of Roger Clemens' seven Cy Young awards?

And to all those fans who want users punished and who hope this ushers in a new era of the sport, I say uh-uh. You don't want to see baseball without steroids, for the same reason you don't want to stop shopping at Costco. We like to feel like we're getting a bargain for big packages. I don't blame the fans, it's what we've come to expect, the good deal in exchange for accepting the ridiculously high salaries and bulging box-seat prices. We expect nothing less than big time.

Of course, there are those (and I, being a San Francisco Giants fan, swear I loved Barry Bonds as a base-stealing Pirate much more than as a hometown slugger) who would say that if the entire league gets clean we again have an even playing field, that home runs will rocket again, that pitchers will still prove remarkable. Sure, eventually. But my hunch is that Americans just don't want to wait around for that to happen, nor do ballclubs want to risk that adjustment period.

And one last thing to consider: With baseball being raked over the coals as being the dirty, disgraced sport, what could be going through the minds of the other professional league players, managers, coaches and owners? Football? Hello, are we going to really consider that steroids and baseball are the only alluring match? If we really want pure sports we can't pick and choose which ones, can we? I mean football is about brutal contact, brute strength at its finest, so we're going to let the juice slide? I haven't heard calls yet for the NFL two-year investigation. But if we're serious about wanting honest professional sports then it should only be a matter of time.

Yeah, we'll see.

Reason 4,321 To Hate Wal-Mart

Panties found by a reader of Feministing.com in a North Carolina Wal-Mart—in the section that caters to 12-year-old girls.

After Feministing posted the photo and it made its way through the blogosphere, Fox News reported on Wednesday that outraged parents had prompted Wal-Mart to pull the $2.96 panties off the shelves.

December 13, 2007

Wikileaks vs. Gitmo Security Phreaks

This is my new favorite story. It seems that the folks at Wikileaks—"an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis"—have busted the "mass communications specialists" at Guantanamo for, wait for it,

"conducting covert propaganda attacks on the internet. The attacks include deleting detainee ID numbers from Wikipedia last month, the systematic posting of unattributed "self praise" comments on news organization web sites in response to negative press, boosting pro-Guantanamo stories on the internet news site Digg and even modifying Fidel Castro's encyclopedia article to describe the Cuban president as "an admitted transexual" [sic]."

Following the trail of IP addresses and "traceroutes," Wikileaks states that most of these changes were made by Guantanamo "mass communications specialist" Richard M. Wolff, who also goes by usnavymc1 on Digg.

Wikileaks has quite a bit of fun at Wolff's expense, including posting his query to a muscle fitness group at Yahoo:

Hi all! I am new to the group and in need of some help. I am in the military, did 9 years active-duty, then for the past 5 years I've been in the reserve. When I left AD, I got a little lazy and gained a few pounds, ok more than a few... lol. Anyhow, I've lost most of the fat I gained before, but I also lost a lot of muscle. I've tried combinations of weight gain and intense workouts, even some ripped
fuel, I do a good amount of cardio as well. Does the cardio hurt me from gaining muscle max? Would I be better off just lifting?

I've been in this routine of getting back in shape for about a year now and I'm looking much better than I did, but I feel I'll never get back into that really ripped form I used to have. I am 5'6", 165lbs, 34 years old. Of course my age might have something to do with it since my metabolism might not be as good as it used to be, but I try to eat healthy and things that digest easily. Should I be eating more red meat? I don't at the moment at all, but I do take a multivitamin everyday so I do get all my vitamins.

Any advice would be great! Also, if anyone knows if I should take something besides ripped fuel to help me gain mass more please let me know. Also, what more can I do (like in the other post) to get rid of the little layer of fat over my abs? They're defines pretty good but can't be seen through that damn little layer of flub. Thanks! Rich

We've all been there Rich. Anyway, if you want to geek out on how Wikileaks tracked Wolff to his meatless, sweaty lair, enjoy. And while you're at it read up on the project, which "was founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and startup company technologists....Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations."

Mission accomplished.

Update: Dave had a great post that lists some of Wikileaks' other greatest hits.

New Jersey Cans the Death Penalty; Lawmakers Go Against the Masses

New Jersey joined 13 other states and most of the world's industrialized democratic countries when it banned the death penalty today. It's general assembly voted 44 to 36 in favor of a law that will end the practice, and Governor Jon Corzine is expected to sign it next week. Eight men are currently on New Jersey's death row; their sentences will now be changed to life without the possibility of parole.

Lawmakers were swayed in large part by a report drafted by the Constitution Project's national Death Penalty Committee. The committee, comprised of death penalty proponents and opponents alike, came to one unanimous and startling conclusion:

"Around the country, procedural safeguards and other assurances of fundamental fairness in the administration of capital punishment have been revealed to be deeply flawed."

Funny thing is, most New Jerseyans support capital punishment. A recent poll found that 53 percent oppose ending the death penalty and a whopping 78 percent want to see child molesters and serial killers executed. This is a rare case of our political leaders taking a bold and decisive action because it's morally right, not because it will please the masses.

—Celia Perry

Edwards the Broken Record: Corporations, Corporations, Corporations

Edwards has a well-known hatred of corporations and powerful interests because of their corrupting power in Washington.

But that hatred has come dangerously close to becoming an obsession. Don't believe me? Check the transcript of today's debate in Iowa (DC's analysis here). The man can literally speak of nothing else. Here's the number of times each candidate used the words "corporations," "corporate," or "companies":

John Edwards: 19
Barack Obama: 5
Bill Richardson: 3
Hillary Clinton: 2
Chris Dodd: 1
Joe Biden: 0

I respect Edwards' willingness to speak truth to power, and it's admirable that he can stay on message so well. And I think he's totally correct on this stuff. But there is a very real chance that Edwards is defining himself more and more narrowly in the eyes of Iowa voters as they get ready to caucus. He runs the risk of becoming a one-dimensional candidate who has lacks a well-rounded vision for America.

He can cut his focus on corporation in half and still be the leading candidate on this subject.

Update: More fun debate counting. In the last debate for the Dems, they mentioned Iraq 10 times. In the last debate for the GOP, they mentioned Iraq once.

Clinton Campaign Offical Quitting After Speculating About Obama's Drug Past

Billy Shaheen is quitting the Clinton campaign after wondering out loud if Obama sold drugs as a young man.

His statement, sent by the campaign to reporters via email:

"I would like to reiterate that I deeply regret my comments yesterday and say again that they were in no way authorized by Senator Clinton or the Clinton campaign. Senator Clinton has been running a positive campaign focused on the issues that matter to America's families. She is the best qualified to be the next President of the United States because she can lead starting on day one."

Update: Clinton has apologized personally to Obama. I'm sure this is a story both candidates want to go away. Clinton probably hates that her campaign is associated with these dirty tactics, and Obama probably hates that his drug use is back in the news cycle.

Democratic Debate: We Watch So You Don't Have To (and There Was Nothing To See)

This afternoon, the Democratic presidential candidates gathered in Des Moines for their final debate prior to the Iowa cacuses on January 3. For undecided voters, there was no new material

Here's a brief recap of an utterly uneventful affair. From the horse race perspective, no one flopped, fumbled or drooled. And no one attacked anyone. There were no moments you will see replayed and dissected excessively on cable news shows. There were, essentially no highlights--except perhaps for a moment when Barack Obama was asked how his foreign policy as president would be a break from the past given that he has several ex-Clintonites advising him. Before he could answer, Hillary Clinton said, "I want to hear that." As the crowd laughed, Obama shot back, "I'm looking forward to you advising me as well." That was as spicy as it got.

And for anyone obsessed with policy matters, there was not much there either. (Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel were not invited to attend because the host, the Des Moines Register, determined that neither have a functioning campaign office in Iowa.) Bill Richardson called for a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget and for awarding line-item veto authority to the president--positions most of the other candidates do not back. He also called for scrapping the no Child Left Behind law; the other candidates talked of fixing it. Each declared their intention to end the war in Iraq; there was no detailed discussion about that. But Richardson declared he would leave no residual troops in Iraq. (Iran did not come up.) After Richardson called China a "strategic competitor," Chris Dodd maintained the United States has an "adversarial relationship" with China.

There were no clashes of policy or proposals. Clinton, Obama and Edwards did not revive their past disagreements over Social Security and health care. And while Obama decried "special interests" in Washington, John Edwards repeatedly--and I do mean repeatedly--cited the necessity of crushing "corporate power" and "corporate greed" in Washington, claiming he was the only candidate with the guts and spine to do so.

As soon as the debate ended, it was as if it had never occurred.

Does Obama Have a Political Sell-By Date?

Some belated observations on my recent brush with Obamamania: I caught Barack Obama in Los Angeles Monday night when he spoke to around 4,000 people in Universal Studios' Gibson Amphitheatre. His campaign had promised a star-studded evening, though it was clear that the celebs listed on the program were there to be seen with him, not vice versa. Obama's star power, or at least his aura of novelty, seemed to be the main draw for many in the crowd, myself included. (OK, I also hoped to see Scarlett Johansson.) A fiftyish black woman next to me in the security line said she was a "curiosity seeker," not inclined to vote for Hillary Clinton, but clearly hoping that seeing Obama in person might seal the deal. Whatever people's reasons for lining up on this unusually chilly evening, the audience demographics highlighted one of the greatest arguments for Obama's viability in the primaries and beyond. It was a remarkably diverse group, both in race and age. The $25 student tickets probably helped keep the average age down, but the $250 VIP section wasn't all Boomers, either.

The opening acts were made slightly less tedious by the availability of overpriced french fries, chicken nuggets, and beer. (This was Universal Studios, after all.) The head of Obama's LGBT outreach team kicked off the event by making a lot of obvious references to "triangulation" and describing Obama as "a circle that embraces." He was followed by Los Angeles city council president Eric Garcetti, who dubbed the crowd the "Obama nation," a potentially misconstrued phrase that the campaign would be wise to ban ASAP. Next up were Dancing With the Stars' Giselle Fernandez, the endearingly earnest Kal Penn, and 81-year-old actor James Whitmore, who assured us with Greatest Generational gravitas that Obama was imbued with "wisdom" beyond his years. Ne-Yo busted out his Smooth Criminal dance moves, and the Goo Goo Dolls' bassist kept me amused with his Dewey Finn impersonation. The openers didn't bring much glitz (hey, where was Scarlett, anyway?), but that was incidental to their role in reinforcing Obama's broad appeal.

Finally: Obama. He was good, very good. For a half-hour, he stood tie-less in the bright lights of the catwalk, speaking without notes, delivering a surprisingly extemporaneous-feeling stump speech. Although it never felt canned, it fell short of electrifying. Which isn't to say that the crowd didn't go nuts, cheering and delivering standing Os with increasing frequency until the whole speech felt like one big applause line. Obama obliged them with a mix of feel-good lines and big, soaring crescendos of optimism and hope. He tried out some new material, remarking at his large crowds of late, "After Oprah, that's a whole other story." He quipped that it's "an embarrassing thing being related to Dick Cheney." And he riffed on the Clinton campaign's attempt to dig up his kindergarten writings, mock-confessing, "I experimented with coloring outside the lines. And I pulled a girls' pigtail—and liked it."

Obama made some big promises, such as bringing health coverage to all Americans by the end of his first term, ending the Darfur genocide, tying the minimum wage to the cost of living, and shunning "corporate" lobbyists: "They have not funded my campaign. They will not work in my White House." And, of course, he reiterated his call to get out of Iraq in 16 months. One of the more notable moments was his inclusion of "nonbelievers" in a line recognizing Americans' religious diversity, a subtle retort to the GOP frontrunners' Bible-thumping. There were a couple moments of real passion, such as when he mentioned his experience as an organizer in his twenties, and recalled a recent day spent shadowing an overworked, underpaid home health-care worker. He wrapped up by simultaneously defending himself from accusations of callowness and by putting She Who Must Not Be Named in her place. He said he didn't feel he was "owed" the Oval Office, yet believed that there was no better time for him to take it, given—in the words of Martin Luther King Jr.,—"the fierce urgency of now."

I'd hoped that he would speak longer, both because it was enjoyable to watch a speaker so natural and because I was waiting for some policy specifics that never came. (I suppose it was too much to expect an explanation of why he would not require health insurance for adults, for instance.) I didn't see anything that distinguished Obama's positions from those of his Democratic rivals, but I was left with a strong sense that he could mix things up in an interesting way. That, of course, is a big part of Obama's pitch—that a fresh face is what his party and the nation need most. Which makes "the fierce urgency of now" a compelling argument for supporting him, particularly among Democrats who dread the timewarp that could be a Clinton candidacy (and presidency). But within the urgency argument is a suggestion that Obama has a looming sell-by date. (Conversely, Hillary Clinton's impressive political shelf-life suggests she is packed to the gills with preservatives.) It's an unintentional suggestion, to be sure, but it makes his greatest strength sound like a potential weakness. I'm not suggesting that he lacks substance or seriousness—far from it. But I came away from the movie-studio event thinking he'd be wise to anticipate the day when his celebrity is no longer enough to convert curiosity seekers into true believers.

Sheehan Campaign Sees Opening, Going To 'Hit Hard' On Torture Issue

Right from the time Cindy Sheehan announced her independent Congressional run against Nancy Pelosi, there was an obvious tactical problem: her big lines of attack—the Democrats' failure to impeach the president or effect any policy shift on Iraq—were less about Pelosi herself (who had voted against the war, after all) and more about the Democrats in general. Those criticisms would inevitably be deflected with the "we just don't have the votes" refrain. But with Sunday's Washington Post report that in 2002 Pelosi was "given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites" and its "harsh" interrogation techniques, the Sheehan campaign has been handed a big new line of attack, one that's inescapably about Pelosi's own conduct.

Then-Rep. Porter Goss, who was also at the briefing, told the Post that "the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement." Pelosi hasn't come up with a reasonable explanation for her failure to speak out against torture when it might have actually mattered. She issued a short statement insisting that legal counsel had concluded "the techniques were legal." A Pelosi aide claimed that the Post report was "overblown."

Cindy Sheehan's campaign is on it. "We really plan to hit this hard and not let it go," spokeswoman Tiffany Burns told me yesterday.

"This is one of the key reasons why Pelosi has taken impeachment off the table, because she's complicit in the Bush Administration's crimes," Burns said. Sheehan added in a press release:

"Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress should be using their Constitutional authority to end all use of torture. Acquiring information through use of torture on prisoners of war is as inhumane as it is unreliable."

If I were working at the Sheehan campaign, I would be calling every political reporter in the city and pushing hard to introduce a very simple question into the news cycle: Do Bay Area progressives want to support a Speaker of the House who is personally complicit in the Bush Administration's torture policies?

—Justin Elliott

Income Inequality Hits Record Levels

MoJo fans already know income inequality is a huge problem in America, but they may not know that it's getting worse, and fast.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just updated their invaluable data series on income inequality and the results are startling. Income inequality among households, both before and after Federal taxes, grew more quickly over the last two years of the series, 2003-05, than over any other two-year period on record, back to 1979.

Over those two years, the growth of inequality transferred $400 billion dollars from the bottom 95% to the top 5%. That is, had the income distribution remained as it was in 2003, the income of each of the 109 million households in the bottom 95% would have been $3,660 higher in 2005.

More here. Two Americas, indeed...

Jenna Bush Is Not a Rock Star

ana%27s%20story.jpg
Right now, merely steps away from our humble D.C. bureau, First Daughter Jenna Bush is signing copies of her new book, Ana's Story, at our local Borders. Except for an extra helping of Young Republicans milling around in New Paperbacks, you wouldn't even know she was in there. The turnout is modest at best, a sign, perhaps, that book publishing is a brutal business, even with White House connections. Still, Bush's book ranks a very respectable 729 on Amazon...

More (Weak) Inconsistency Claims Thrown Obama's Way

A little more oppo research on Obama has hit the press. A few days back, a rival campaign gave Politico a 1993 survey that Obama filled out on which Obama indicated positions on the death penalty and on gun control that are slightly different from the ones he holds now.

Now someone has given a similar survey, this time from 2003, to ABC News. Again, Obama's answers are ever-so-slightly different than his current positions. Follow me, after the jump.

Patriot Act:

In that 2003 questionnaire Obama vowed to vote to repeal the USA PATRIOT Act, though he said he "would consider replacing that shoddy and dangerous law with a new, carefully drafted proposal …"

Two years later, Obama voted in favor of re-authorizing the PATRIOT Act.

"This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe," Obama said as he voted to re-authorize the bill.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

Asked by NOW in 2003 if he would support "legislation that eliminates all discrimination in the military based on sexual orientation," Obama then hedged a bit. Though in many of his answers he simply affirmed "Yes," in this one he did not.

"I would have to examine specific legislation," he wrote, "but I would oppose policies that fail to advance equal rights in the military."

Obama today as a presidential candidate -– giving an answer that many gay and lesbian voters no doubt approve of -- has directly called for "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" to be repealed.

Defense of Marriage Act:

Asked in 2003 if he would support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (erroneously called the "Protection of Marriage Act" in the questionnaire), Obama wrote, "I support laws recognizing domestic partnerships and providing benefits to domestic partners. However, I do not support legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act."

Obama changed his mind on that issue in 2004 and now supports repealing DOMA. Per Obama spokesman Bill Burton: "Obama has opposed DOMA. He felt it was a poorly conceived law and, in 2004, after hearing from gay friends who relayed to Obama how hurtful it was for the bill to be law, he supported its repeal."

So... he hoped to repeal the Patriot Act, but then accepted an altered version; his position on Don't Ask, Don't Tell is basically the same; and he reversed himself completely on the Defense of Marriage Act "after hearing from gay friends" about "how hurtful it was." DOMA, an awful bill, was passed under the Clinton administration. Hillary Clinton has also flip-flopped on it.

Not much pop here, folks...

Hillary Wins Big Endorsement: Her Mother

The Hillary Clinton is airing a new 30-second television ad in Iowa today that features...her mother:

DOROTHY RODHAM: What I would like people to know about Hillary is what a good person she is. She never was envious of anybody--she was helpful. And she’s continued that with her adult life with helping other women. She has empathy for other people’s unfortunate circumstances. I’ve always admired that because it isn’t always true of people. I think she ought to be elected even if she weren’t my daughter.

Never envious, always helpful. Insipid? A wee bit. And note that she's been helping "other women," not "other people." With Barack Obama in the lead in the first state, the Clinton campaign is obviously aiming to preserve its support among older women. Is this an indication Clinton and her strategists are worried about their base?

Update: Video of the ad after the jump.

Political Focus on Immigration Raising Hate Crimes, Discrimination Against Hispanics

A disgusting corollary to the anti-illegal immigration zeal gripping our national debate (and the minds of many Republican voters) is increased discrimination and hate crimes against Hispanics, both legal and illegal.

From a very good Washington Post op-ed on "nativist ferocity":

It's a fair guess that this cruel campaign of immigrant-bashing will eventually turn toxic for the Republican Party itself, whose own strategists (Karl Rove, among others) have long grasped the growing electoral clout of Hispanics. Those Hispanic voters, native-born or not, are anxious and angry about the intensifying nativist zeal in political rhetoric, which many are rightly blaming on the Republicans. In a new survey by the Pew Hispanic Center, half of all Hispanics in America reported that the debate on immigration has had a specific negative impact on their lives; 41 percent said that they or someone close to them had suffered discrimination in the past five years -- up from 31 percent in 2002.

The new data undercut the Republicans' frequent protestations that their targets are not legal immigrants but illegal ones. The attacks have become so venomous, and the policy proposals so pernicious, that, predictably, they have caused collateral damage among Spanish-speaking and non-native-born people generally. The anti-illegal-immigrant crowd would have us believe it honors and admires legal immigrants; in fact, it is making America a less hospitable place for them.

Much more after the jump...

[snip]

Virtually all the presidential candidates now tip their hats to tougher enforcement of existing laws, with the Democrats generally differentiating themselves by saying or hinting that illegal immigrants might subsequently be offered a shot at legalization. But in Congress, some Democrats, mostly from red or purple states and wary of being attacked as insufficiently fierce on illegal immigration, are also going the enforcement-only route...

...the rhetorical excess that has accompanied the proposals, and the suggestions that millions of people might be expelled or hounded from the country, not only respond to popular disquiet; they also whip it up. According to the latest FBI statistics, from 2006, hate crimes against Hispanics had increased by more than a third since 2003.

The most fervent anti-illegal immigrant crusaders are often the ones who go to the greatest lengths to insist they are neither racist nor unhappy with legal immigrants. They often say that it precisely because legal immigrants traverse such a difficult path to this country that we should boot those who take short cuts. (There are exceptions—some just don't want immigrants, period.) But their rhetoric is making American hostile to people of a different color, regardless of technical distinctions. They are xenophobic and nativist in effect, if not in intent.

Cheney's Holiday Party: The CIA Chief's View

The WP reports:

After being grilled by the Senate intelligence committee for more than an hour Tuesday, CIA Director Michael Hayden went to Vice President Cheney's annual holiday party, where he endured more interrogation for a full 20 minutes from the Fourth Estate.

Ensnared in a scandal over the destruction of waterboarding videotapes, Hayden fielded questions -- off the record -- from eggnog-lubed reporters. He withstood the friendly Q and A with smiles and a relaxed air (aided by a nice, cold beer) until he spotted someone who could stop the torture: Cheney chief of staff David Addington. "David, save me!" Hayden jokingly shouted.

Addington obliged and physically pulled the Air Force general from the scrum of reporters. (Hayden received no assists from three Iraq war architects who also attended the party: former deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, former defense undersecretary Doug Feith and their boss, former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld.) CIA chief spokesman Mark Mansfield told On the Hill that it was all in good fun. "He was just kidding around," Mansfield said. Hayden, who took his wife, Jeanine, to the vice president's party, was in "good spirits" all day, Mansfield said.

Hayden used Addington's helping hand to break away from the Fourth Estate interrogators because, Mansfield said, he "was out of Schlitz."

That sounds about right.

Al Sharpton Under Investigation. Again

Federal agents issued a half-dozen subpoenas yesterday to associates of the Rev. Al Sharpton ordering them to appear this month before a New York grand jury. The feds are also looking for documents relating to Sharpton's failed bid for president in 2004 and some related business entities. Sharpton seemed surprised by it all, but his lawyer, Michael Hardy, provided the best quote of the day yesterday when he told the AP that no one was especially concerned. "I can't think of a time when the Rev. Sharpton wasn't under investigation," he said.

December 12, 2007

Ryan White's Mother Still Trying To Meet With Mike Huckabee

For the second time, Jeanne White-Ginder, represented by the Human Rights Campaign and the AIDS Institute, has sent a letter to presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, asking him to meet with White-Ginder, the mother of Ryan White. White, at age 13, was diagnosed with AIDS and expelled from his school twenty-three years ago, and his case came to national attention. He died in 1990 at the age of 18.

White-Ginder, HRC and the AIDS Institute are interested in talking with Huckabee because of comments he made in 1992, when he said that people with AIDS should be isolated, even though it was an established fact that the syndrome could not be spread through casual contact. Just three days ago, the former Arkansas governor said that he stands by his belief that AIDS patients and individuals carrying HIV should be isolated.

The letter states: "We look forward to discussing our experiences and personal insight with you and your campaign. This was not and is not an issue of ‘political correctness,’ as you have stated previously. Rather, this is an issue of valuing science-based evidence over unfounded fear or prejudice."

Clinton Supporter Raises Idea of Young Obama Dealing Drugs

Earlier today Billy Shaheen, Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire co-chair and husband of former N.H. governor Jeanne Shaheen, was thinking out loud about electability. He made these comments about Barack Obama, who just climbed into a tie with Clinton in N.H. in a CNN poll that had Obama down 20 points in September:

"The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is [Obama's] drug use."

Okay, fair enough. In making the case that his candidate is more electable, it is reasonable for Shaheen to point out that Obama has spoken openly about using marijuana and cocaine in his early years. That is something the GOP will likely jump on, after all. Shaheen continued:

"It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'... There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

Hey now! That's some strong stuff! Just because Shaheen wrapped his comments in a blanket of sympathy (or supposed sympathy) doesn't hide the fact that he just raised, for the first time in the campaign, the possibility that Barack Obama was a drug dealer.

And this is probably so obvious I don't need to say it, but I will. Any comment along these lines is racially coded. No one—no one—would ask if Mitt Romney slung rock if he were to admit he did drugs as a kid. Same with John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. But for many Americans the young Obama, who went to Columbia and Harvard Law, fits into their mental picture of what a drug dealer looks like.

Shame on Shaheen. I really hope this wasn't coordinated within the Clinton campaign. Right now they're saying, "These comments were not authorized or condoned by the campaign in any way."

Obama's response, after the jump.

Update: Obama camp's response: "Senator Clinton's campaign is recycling old news that Barack Obama has been candid about in a book he wrote years ago, and he's talked about the lessons he's learned from these mistakes with young people all across the country. He plans on winning this campaign by focusing on the issues that actually matter to the American people." Should it be troubling that that's a non-denial denial? I know that answering directly would entail lowering Obama to the level of the accusation, but it would have been nice for everyone to be completely clear.

Mike Huckabee: "Don't Look All That Closely"

This is just delightful.

"Not a crook or a weirdo or a Mormon." Good enough to win this field!

At GOP Debate, No Faith-Based Smackdown--and No Winner or Loser

Okay, so there was no theological smackdown at the GOP presidential debate this afternoon in Iowa. This face-off was probably the most stilted event of the campaign so far. The questions from Carolyn Washburn, the editor of the Des Moines Register were mostly predictable and rarely probing. (In thirty seconds, state how would you better American education.) Consequently, not much happened.

There were no fireworks. No candidate went after another. (In one humorous aside, Fred Thompson said to Mitt Romney that he was getting pretty good at Thompson's own trade: acting.) The sniping over religion that had erupted between Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney was not continued. Washburn did not ask Huckabee about a widely noted remark he made asking if Mormons believe Jesus and Satan were brothers. Rudy Giuliani may have only referred to 9/11 once. (A record?) Romney looked grand and smooth and spoke eloquently about education accomplishments in Massachusetts when he was governor of the state; John McCain touted his years of service and involvement in national security matters, and looked old. Huckabee explained that his faith caused him to believe that all citizens deserve access to good health care and decent education. No one won; no one lost.

That may be good news for Huckabee. Though he has jumped into the lead in Iowa, no one was gunning for him (except fringe candidate Alan Keyes, who inexplicably had been invited to participate in the debate). So Huckabee pranced through the encounter no worse for the wear. And Romney, the previous leader in the Hawkeye State, remains within striking distance of Huckabee.

There were only a few interesting moments in the 90-minute-long session. Two involved Thompson. When Washburn asked the candidates to raise their hands if they believed human-induced global warming is a threat Thompson said he wasn't going to engage in any "hand-shows." The rest of the pack followed suit. Thompson declared he would only answer the question if given a minute to do so. Given that Thompson in a radio commentary last March mocked people concerned with global warming and made comments suggesting he was a global warming denier, his refusal to agree with this basic statement was suspicious.

Then when the subject of the debate turned to the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran that reported Iran in 2003 discontinued a secret nuclear weapons program, Thompson indicated that he didn't accept the NIE and said that a U.S. president ought to rely more on British or Israeli intelligence then the U.S. intelligence community. A "president cannot let a piece of paper by a bureaucrat determine solely what his action is going to be," Thompson insisted. But that was a rather inaccurate description of an NIE. Such a document is not a report dashed off by one bureaucrat; it is the consensus document of the intelligence establishment, which is made up of sixteen different agencies. It can be wrong (as was the sloppy and hastily-compiled NIE on Iraq's WMDs). But Thompson's eagerness to belittle the intelligence system of the government he seeks to head might be considered troubling by voters looking for a president who will resist the I-know-best urge when deciding national security policy. But with Thompson's campaign sputtering, his skepticism toward the Iran NIE and global warming is not a pressing matter.

Minutes after the debate ended, a Thompson campaign email landed in reporters' inboxes that slammed Romney for helping to create a health care program in Massachusetts that covers abortions for a small copayment. The subject head: "Romney -- $50 Abortions in Massachusetts." The Thompson campaign is probably hoping for some viral action on this missive.