MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: February 24, 2008

« February 17, 2008 - February 23, 2008 | Main | March 2, 2008 - March 8, 2008 »

February 29, 2008

Buckley's '69 Preview of a Pax Americana

William F. Buckley, a man so idiosyncratic he could only be described as a caricature of himself, died on Wednesday. A conservative writer, magazine founder, failed NYC mayoral candidate, and television host, Buckley's views and his magazine, the National Review, could very well be considered Mother Jones' ideological counterbalance, a publication that, as described by the New York Times, "isolated [the] cranks from Mr. Buckley's chosen mainstream."

I found this gem of a video today, Buckley going up against Noam Chomsky in a 1969 debate on American imperialism and intervention. It shows a classic Buckley, so enamored with his own mannerisms and quirks that he hardly notices Chomsky tearing him apart. In making the case for an imperialism that seeks to "help" as opposed to exploit, Buckley says, "There is an observable distinction by, ahem, intelligent man between a country that reaches out and interferes with the affairs of another country because it has reason to believe that a failure to do so will result in universal misery, and that country which reaches out and interferes with another country because it wants to establish Coca Cola plants and Chase national banks and whatever and exploit it." And there you have it, one of the founders of the modern conservative movement lays out an ideology that will come in handy for a certain group o' buddies 34 years later.

Video after the jump:

—Andre Sternberg

Clinton Camp to Press: All We Want is Willing Suspension of Disbelief

The Clinton campaign's press call with reporters this afternoon felt like a scene from a bizarro universe, where the suspension of disbelief was demanded at the door.

Reporters were primed for the call by a memo disseminated by the campaign earlier in the morning that referred to the four primaries on March 4 as "Obama Must-Wins." It cited Obama's spending advantage in Ohio and Texas and the fact that he has campaigned heavily in these states. "Should Senator Obama fail to score decisive victories with all of the resources and effort he is bringing to bear," it said, "the message will be clear: Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama and are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer."

The memo didn't bother to answer some obvious questions, such as, Given that the Clinton campaign has lost 11 primaries in a row, how can Obama losing a few close contests on Tuesday in states where he has trailed in the polls be considered a repudiation of his campaign? And considering that streak of losses, how can this be a must-win for anyone but Clinton?

But on these questions and others, the Clinton representatives on the call, including communications director Howard Wolfson and chief strategist Mark Penn, stuck to the party line, no matter how ridiculous.

Ignoring that Clinton had a 15-point lead in Ohio and a 20-point lead in Texas just two months ago, Wolfson said that Obama has "every advantage" going into the contests. He pointed out that Obama "and his allies" are outspending Team Clinton by a minimum of 2 to 1 in Ohio and Texas. If Obama doesn't win, Wolfson said, it will be a "very clear signal that Democrats want this campaign to continue and that there is a some concern and dissatisfaction with Sen. Obama's campaign."

When asked what it would mean if Obama won Texas, Ohio, and Vermont, but lost tiny Rhode Island, the campaign representatives said they couldn't answer the question because they rejected its premise. But despite weeks of treating Ohio and Texas as their firewall, they we're looking ahead to the states that vote after Texas and Ohio, saying, "16 states and territories… want to make their voices heard." Guam, apparently, is now part of the plan.

The campaign also took questions on a new TV advertisement it is running in Ohio that depicts children sleeping in bed, with the voice over, "It's 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House, and it's ringing — something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call."

In response to the claim that the ad is trying to use fear to gain votes, Mark Penn said it is a "positive ad" with "soft images." Multiple members of the campaign insisted that the ad merely raises the issue of national security, and the question of which candidate is better prepared in the event of a crisis.

When asked to point to a national security test that Senator Clinton had faced, the campaign responded that it was a "moment of test" when she stood up in China and said "women's rights are human rights." They added that Senator Clinton has worked with high-ranking members of the military through her post on the Armed Services Committee.

Barack Obama responded to the ad with this statement:

It asks a legitimate question. It says, who do you want answering the phone in the White House when it's 3:00 a.m. and something has happened in the world. It’s a legitimate question. And we’ve seen these ads before. They’re usually the kind that play upon people's fears and try to scare up votes.

I don't think these ads will work this time because the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is, what kind of judgment will you exercise when you pick up that phone. In fact, we have had a red phone moment; it was the decision to invade Iraq.

Ignoring the substance of that response, Penn repeatedly insisted that Obama had given the ad an implicit stamp of approval because he used the phrase "legitimate question." Wolfson added that it is an "insult to voters" that a conversation about national security was being considered fear-mongering by the press and the blogosphere.

The call eventually returned to the topic of expectations. Wolfson dismissed the Obama campaign's argument from earlier in the day that Clinton had no chance to catch it in the delegate count as "mathematical games and fantasies." If Obama didn't win the two states Clinton long insisted she would win, Wolfson added, the press should consider it a "profound signal about Democratic unease about his candidacy."

New Clinton Advertisement: Protect the Kids!

Here's the ad everyone's talking about.

Note that the phone rings six times before Clinton answers it in the ad's final scene. How ready is she, really? Here are the two ads that it reminds everyone of:

This quote might be relevant: "One of Clinton's laws of politics is, if one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other one is trying to make you think, if one candidate's appealing to your fears, and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.'' That's Bill Clinton on the stump, campaigning for John Kerry in 2004.

Update: Obama hits back. His ad, after the jump.

Citing the Delegate Math, the Obama Camp Tells Clinton: You Will "Fail Miserably"

In a conference call with reporters on Friday morning, David Plouffe, Barack Obama's campaign manager, had a stark message for the Clinton camp: You will "fail miserably." He was referring to Hillary Clinton's attempt to overtake Obama in the pledged delegate count.

Plouffe maintained that even if Clinton wins Ohio and Texas she will not rack up much of a net gain in delegates. In Ohio, for instance, if the winner of that Democratic primary triumphs by 5 percent, he or she might only pick up 3 or so more delegates than the loser, thanks to the proportional awarding of delegates. Plouffe ran through the tough math Clinton faces. Currently, he said, Obama has a lead of 162 delegates. (The count at Realclearpolitics.com has Obama up by 155.) If Clinton wins close contests in both Ohio and Texas--and polls now suggest these elections will be close--she might cut Obama's lead to 150 or so pledged delegates. After March 4, there are 611 pledged delegates up for grabs in the subsequent primaries and caucuses. Consequently, Clinton would have to win over 60 percent of those delegates to catch up. And to do so, she would have to score a series of super-majority wins in the remaining states. Plouffe called it a "huge task" for Clinton to erase Obama's pledged delegate lead. And he noted that the Obama campaign could end up netting more delegates from the upcoming contests in Mississippi and Wyoming than Clinton might gain on March 4, should she place first in both Ohio and Texas. If Obama's pledged delegate lead doesn't precipitously drop to 100 in the next few contests, Plouffe asserted, the Clintonites "simply don't have any avenue to the nomination."

Sure, this is spin. But sometimes spin can be true, and the math, at this point, does favor Obama.

In the call, Plouffe also responded to the latest Clinton ad. That spot shows children dozing in bed, and a baritonal narrator somberly says, "It's three A.M. and your children are safe and asleep." But the phone is ringing in the White House: "something is happening in the world." The unseen narrator asks, "Who do you want answering the phone?"

The intent is obvious: convince Democratic voters that Obama is not experienced enough to protect their kids if nuclear missiles are about to be launched at them. The always-dry Plouffe--as he is paid to do--dismissed the ad with a clever quip. Clinton "already had her red-phone moment," he said: "her decision to let George Bush invade Iraq.... It's about what you say when you answer that phone."

While Plouffe was talking to reporters--and declining to state how much money Obama had raised in February (when Clinton bagged a whopping $35 million)--the Clinton campaign sent out an email: its top guns would be holding a conference call in the afternoon.

UPDATE: The Chicago Tribune reports that a fundraiser for the Obama campaign says that in February Obama collected $50 million in contributions.

February 28, 2008

If Obama Is a Woman, and I Vote For Clinton, Am I a Man?

One would think Maureen Dowd had cornered the market on silly-beyond-belief gendered nonsense about Sens. Clinton and Obama. One would be wrong; Newsweek wants to vie for that crown:

It has been a rarity in modern political life: a wide-open race for the nomination of both parties. But whatever happens from here on out, this campaign will always be remembered for the emergence of the first serious woman candidate for president: Barack Obama
.
Obama is a female candidate for president in the same way that Bill Clinton was the first black president.

Yes. The same tediously stupid way.

You have to listen to comedian/civil rights activist Dick Gregory "apologize" to Bill for black people making him think he was black if you're having trouble putting the latter bit of twaddle to rest, but what of the new twaddle?

This—Obama is a 'woman' cuz he's all nice and stuff—seems like yet another example of how Obama isn't 'really' black. (He can't be. He isn't scary.) That makes him acceptable to whites since 'black' men are dangerous and uncooperative and, to put it mildly, not team players. The hardest kind of racism to combat is the kind that pats the 'good' Negroes on the head and sets them up in opposition to the black masses, signaling that 'they' (the black masses) may remain safely marginalized. Pretty obvious wink-and-nod from one white to the other. And you wonder why 'we' still feel discriminated against and despised. Kaleaph Luis, at GenderYouth.org sums up this feeling with sad succinctness in a recent post. He's right to be sick to death of the requirement that black men be hard, gangsta, and oppositional to be considered men.

"In fact, most of the young black men with whom I have deep, personal relationships that exhibit the very same "female" characteristics that Newsweek attributes to Obama: they take an inclusive approach to problem solving, are generally optimistic about life, are modest about having all the answers, and are comfortable with teamwork.

For us, Obama is not a new phenomenon. He's not a "female" one either. He's us. Alas, we are used to our real selves being erased by the gangsta masculinity that society too often seems to expect of young black men, or by the surprise it exhibits when we break the mold.

With all the familiar statistics about young black men about academic underachievement, incarceration, and underemployment, it may be hard for mainstream culture to believe that we, in Sen. Joe Biden's immortal prose, actually are "articulate and bright and clean." Let me assure you, we're already here. Calling Obama the female candidate just recycles the same tired, old stereotypes of masculinity that deny us—and him—a precious opportunity to redefine and expand definitions of manhood for young men."

Likely, Newsweek was just trying to be cute, like Dowd does in most of her columns—playing word games while our society slowly implodes. But the reality underlying this type of thinking is far from ephemeral in its effects on black lives; the masses of black men, not being wunderkinds, are dangerous. Uncivilized. Justifiably marginalized.

Comment Trolls Hit the Ahmadineblog

Like many a personal blog, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "Personal memos" page has gradually lost steam since its debut in 2006. In 2007 the Iranian president posted just three times, down from 10 posts the previous year, and he has repeatedly apologized for his tardiness in responding to readers' letters (he says he has just 15 minutes per week of blogging time).

But at this point, besides a neat feature that allows readers to choose from five background colors, the most interesting thing about the Ahmadineblog is the comments section. Comments are apparently not screened, and, somewhat surprisingly given the president's infamous unfriendliness to dissenters, a few caustic attacks have been allowed to stand.

After the jump, a sample of comments (preceded by country of origin):

(Mexico) Juan Pablo lla Amador: "There are a very few leaders with the intelligence and courage to confront the zionism and the U.S. imperialism, my best wishes for you and all your people."

(USA) Jack Meyhoffer: "I hope someone puts a bullet in your head very soon."

(China) Frank Fu: "Like the title and thank you for your time and for your words of inspiration.I think in this way more and more Chinese will know you and your country better. Thank you very much!!"

(USA) Kevin: "You are the type of man that would start WW3. You say some pretty stupid things sometimes."

(India) ali khan auk: "His excellency, it gives me immense pleasure to visit your site and post my comments this fabulous blog of a leader of free world not only islamic world. i have been following the remarkable efforts that you are pursuing in bringing the world together and making it a more safe place to live"

(USA) Colby Brown: "God bless Iran, Bush and Isreal are unfair to Iran. I am sorry for the way you were treated at our university. All americans are not the same as Bush. Peace god bless Iran and the rest of the world!"

(China) Isis Wong: "I come to your blog just for a glance, its so liberal of you to think ou the idea of setting a blog. I didnt pay much attention to international politics before, but I find you a very intelligent and smart president~ Wish Iran and you all the best!"

(USA) ken mcfly: "die slow ..."

(Germany) John Walker: "nice blog, but you should be posting more often"

Despite the occasional vitriol, Ahmadinejad has written that he personally reads even those comments that "started with a sentence like 'I know that the president is not going to read this message, but….'" Who says this guy can't be negotiated with?

—Justin Elliott

Pelosi Throws Down Gauntlet on Contempt

Today House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took a major step forward on contempt. In a letter to Jeffrey Taylor, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Pelosi certified the subpoena breeches by Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten:

The undersigned, The Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, pursuant to the attached House Resolution 979, One Hundred Tenth Congress, hereby certifies to you the failure and refusal of Harriet Miers, former White House Counsel, to appear, testify, and furnish certain documents in compliance with a subpoena before a duly constituted subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. The undersigned further certifies to you the failure and refusal of Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, to furnish certain documents in the custody of the White House in compliance with a subpoena before said committee. These failures and refusals are fully shown by the certified copy of the House Report 110-423 of said committee which is also hereto attached.

In a second letter—this one to Attorney General Michael Mukasey—Pelosi demanded to know within one week whether the Justice Department plans to forbid Taylor from considering the charges.

According to the testimony of your predecessor, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and your recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department intends to prevent Mr. Taylor from complying with the statute and enforcing the contempt citations against Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten. You claimed that "enforcement by way of contempt of a congressional subpoena is not permitted when the President directs a direct adviser of his∑ not to appear or when he directs any member of the executive not to produce documents." Hearing on Oversight of the Dep't of Justice Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 87-88 (Feb. 7, 2008). You purported to base your view on a "long line of authority," but cited no court decision that supports this proposition.

There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a President unilaterally instructs them to do so. Even if a subpoenaed witness intends to assert a privilege in response to questions, the witness is not at liberty to disregard the subpoena and fail to appear at the required time and place. Surely, your Department would not tolerate that type of action if the witness were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury. Short of a formal assertion of executive privilege, which cannot be made in this case, there is no authority that permits a President to advise anyone to ignore a duly issued congressional subpoena for documents.

Your press spokesman has stated that you will "act promptly" to review this matter and reach a final decision. We will appreciate your acting with appropriate dispatch on this important matter. I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and to ensure that our nation is operating under the rule of law and not at presidential whim. If, however, you intend to persist in preventing Mr. Taylor from carrying out his statutory obligation to present this matter to the grand jury in the District of Columbia, we respectfully request that you inform us of that decision within one week from today, so that the House may proceed with a civil enforcement suit in federal district court.

And so, the gauntlet has been thrown. The letters can be accessed here.

Clinton Campaign Hits Fundraising Peak

According to a conference call held this afternoon, the Clinton campaign has bested its January fundraising haul of $14 million (a record for the campaign up to that point) with a stunning February fundraising haul of $35 million.

The pace of $1 million a day is roughly matches Obama's pace from January. We have yet to see Obama's February numbers.

The Clinton campaign is really hitting its stride in the money department. Campaign Chairman Terry Mcauliffe said on the call that their internet fundraising exploded when the campaign announced that Clinton was loaning herself $5 million, and that the excitement online has continued since.

This continues a pattern we've seen emerge this primary season: every time a candidate loses an important primary, their low-value online fundraising shoots up the next day. I guess it's time for a new maxim. When it comes to presidential fundraising, nothing succeeds like failure.

John McCain: Bad for Children?

The Children's Defense Fund recently rated the members of the Senate by their performance on ten votes that are relevant to the nation's children. The votes were:

1. Increase minimum wage (H.R. 2)
2. Increase funding for children with disabilities (S. Con. Res. 21)
3. Protect children from unsafe medications (S. 1082)
4. 2008 Budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 21)
5. SCHIP Reauthorization (H.R. 976)
6. College Cost Reduction and Access Act (H.R. 2669)
7. SCHIP (H.R. 976 - motion to concur)
8. DREAM Act (S. 2205)
9. Funding child health and education (H.R. 3043)
10. Improving Head Start programs (H.R. 1429)

The lowest-scoring Senator, and the only Senator under 20 percent, was John McCain. (Sorry, I mean John Sidney McCain.) He scored so low because he constantly misses important votes. In fact, he's missed more votes in the Senate than anyone else, save the man who suffered a brain hemorrhage.

Look, all of the presidential candidates have missed something like 30-40 percent of their recent Senate votes (Hillary Clinton deserves credit for having missed only 28 percent). But McCain is in a category by himself: he's missed 57 percent. You can argue that he has neglected the nation's children, but it is more accurate to say he has neglected the nation's business altogether.

PS — This isn't a new problem for McCain. In spring 2007, he went five straight weeks without voting.

(H/T Think Progress)

Knives Come Out on the Clinton Campaign

Yikes. Judging from the New York Observer the last few days, it's safe to say that things are going to get ugly if the Clinton campaign goes into a death spiral in the next few weeks. For a preview of the anonymous jabs that Clinton insiders will likely take at their leadership, see this article on Mark Penn. The more courageous critics, who are willing to go on the record, will likely be like Leon Panetta — one step removed from the campaign and secure in their careers. Here are Leon's thoughts.

And while we're on the topic of news articles that are rough on the candidates, take a look at George Will's devastating take on John McCain from today's WaPo. No liberal could say it better.

Bush's Newest Secret: Who's Funding His Library?

At a White House press conference on Thursday morning, George W. Bush was a bit too cute when it came to an important matter: the funding of his presidential library.

News reports have noted that the library, to be set up at Southern Methodist University, will cost more than $200 million. The question is, who will pay for it? The tabs for presidential libraries are not covered by the taxpayers. They are picked up by nonprofit foundations, and these foundations have no obligation to disclose their sources of money. Bill Clinton has refused to say who is funding his library through the William J. Clinton Foundation, though the Washington Post reported that the royal family of Saudi Arabia contributed $10 million to the Little Rock facility.

It is troubling when the spouse of a presidential candidate receives millions of dollars secretly from one or more overseas sources. But what's more problematic is the prospect of a sitting president obtaining foreign cash for a pet project and not disclosing it. (The Saudis reportedly also gave the presidential library of the first President Bush millions of dollars. After being generous to George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, it's unlikely they will stiff the younger Bush)

At the press conference, a reporter asked Bush if he would disclose the contributions received for his presidential library? He didn't say yes. He replied that "we'll look at the disclosure requirements and make a decision." But there are no disclosure requirements. So that was a non-answer. (Coincidentally--or not--Barack Obama has introduced legislation that would compel the disclosure of donations to presidential libraries.) Bush went on to note that "some people like to give and don't like their names disclosed." That's the issue, isn't it? And he added that he would "probably take some foreign money" for his library.

These comments raise the possibility that he or his foundation might solicit secret contributions from foreign sources--governments, individuals, corporations--while Bush is in office. What an easy way for these foreigners to curry favor. And, of course, the Bush Foundation could hit up American corporations and individuals looking to score points with the White House.

After Bush refused to promise any disclosure, the reporter at the press conference asked, what about the public right to know? Bush replied, "We're taking a look....Nice try, though." Nice try? This is an important matter of transparency and good government, and Bush dismissed the reporter's query as merely another attempt at gotcha. And he smirked.

Photo of Southern Methodist University by flickr user daquella manera used under a Creative Commons license.

GOP: "We're Subverting the Constitution, Can't We At Least Get Paid?"

Love this story from Roll Call (sub. required). Apparently, members of the GOP are angry because the telecom companies they are trying to protect with immunity in the FISA fight aren't rewarding them for their efforts with increased donations.

"It's quite discouraging," said one GOP leadership aide, referring to the disparity in giving from the telecommunications industry in light of the FISA debate, but also the broader lack of support for Republicans from the business community in general.

"These companies just won't do anything," the aide said. "Even when you have the Democrats working against their bottom line."

...Another leadership aide concurred, arguing that business groups vowed to hold Republicans' feet to the fire when they were in the majority while the Democratic leadership seems to be getting a free ride.

"They're funding the campaigns of people who want to put them out of business," the aide said, adding that business groups often rationalize their giving because they think Democrats will be willing to work with them.

Quit yer bellyaching. If you actually believe the telecom companies should not be held culpable for enabling the federal government's warrantless wiretapping program, then you shouldn't expect cash payments in return. Or was this whole thing about money all along?

"John Sidney McCain"

Quick thought. I think Obama should combat the increasing use of his middle name by right-wingers and some portions of the official Republican Party by making a joke out of it. Whenever referring to John McCain from now on, Obama should use McCain's middle name, Sidney. And he should really hit the emphasis on Sidney — the stupid among us will hear vaguely feminine undertones; the intelligent among us will see the absurdist joke. Most of all, it will likely disarm Obama's critics and make them look silly.

Think you know a better way Obama can handle the issue? Let me hear it in the comments.

New Abu Ghraib Pictures Released

Wired magazine just released a batch of ten new Abu Ghraib photos (warning, they're graphic), among them a picture of a naked detainee bleeding profusely from his left leg and another of a female soldier smiling and giving the thumb's up sign next to a corpse. The magazine obtained these photographs from psychologist Philip Zimbardo, an emeritus professor at Stanford University and an expert witness for one of the soldiers accused of abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib, Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick. In 1971, Zimbardo conducted what is now popularly known as the "Stanford Prison Experiment," in which a group of college students were assigned the role of guards or prisoners—an experiment that was stopped when the "guards" took to their roles with too much gusto. When asked how the results of his experiment compared with what transpired at Abu Ghraib, the psychologist told the the magazine:

The military intelligence, the CIA and the civilian interrogator corporation, Titan, told the MPs [at Abu Ghraib], "It is your job to soften the prisoners up. We give you permission to do something you ordinarily are not allowed to do as a military policeman —to break the prisoners, to soften them up, to prepare them for interrogation." That's permission to step across the line from what is typically restricted behavior to now unrestricted behavior.

In the same way in the Stanford prison study, I was saying [to the student guards], "You have to be powerful to prevent further rebellion." I tell them, "You're not allowed, however, to use physical force." By default, I allow them to use psychological force. In five days, five prisoners are having emotional breakdowns.

The situational forces that were going on in [Abu Ghraib]—the dehumanization, the lack of personal accountability, the lack of surveillance, the permission to get away with anti-social actions—it was like the Stanford prison study, but in spades.

February 27, 2008

Civil Rights Hero Makes It Official: I'm Dumping Clinton for Obama

Two weeks ago I identified a possible tipping point for Barack Obama: Representative John Lewis's statement that he probably would vote for Obama as a superdelegate at the Democratic convention.

Now the civil rights hero has made it official by actually endorsing Obama.

Lewis has a lot of cred among House Democrats, among African American Democrats, among superdelegates. His move is an indicator that Clinton, who has a lead in committed superdelegates at this point, may not be able to count on that support. Lewis's announcement--even though it's not so newsy given his previous statement--is rather bad news for the Clinton camp.

Obama Nets Millionth Donor; Makes Public Financing Irrelevant?

In an impressive feat, Barack Obama has surpassed the one-million donor mark. Marc Ambinder has a pretty good explanation for why that negates all of John McCain's bellyaching about Obama reneging on his public financing pledge.

In essence, the argument is: when one million people donate to your campaign in increments of roughly $110 each, that is public financing.

McCain Making Talk Radio Hate Him Even More

This is awesome.

At a recent Ohio rally, John McCain was introduced by right-wing radio nutjob Bill Cunningham. Cunningham spent his introduction slamming Obama, repeatedly referring to him "Barack Hussein Obama" and calling him a “hack, Chicago-style, Daley politician." He made reference to "CBS the Clinton Broadcasting System, NBC the Nobody But Clinton network, the All Bill Clinton channel ABC, and the Clinton News Network."

The nutjobbery was bad enough that McCain immediately approached reporters after the event and denounced Cunningham's comments. His statement:

"I have repeatedly stated my respect for Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton, that I will treat them with respect... I want to disassociate myself with any disparaging remarks that may have been said about them…I did not set up the program but I take full responsibility."

Guess who didn't like that? Bill Cunningham. On his radio show, he went after the man he just introduced:

"He just threw me under the bus for the national media. I have had it... I'm going to endorse Hillary Clinton. I want Hillary Clinton to become the next president of the United States. I am going to throw my support behind Hillary Clinton."

Ha! Hahaha. Now Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others are piling on McCain because of the incident. Let's make it a movement, folks!

You know how McCain was supposed to use this period—the couple months after he sewed up the nomination while the Democrats were still slugging it out—to solidify his support among the conservative base and the conservative elites who hate him?

Not. Happening.

Freedom's Watch Backer to Take Stand in Israeli Lawsuit

Casino mogul and Freedom's Watch backer Sheldon Adelson, who's being sued in Israel, takes the stand tomorrow, Ha'aretz's Yossi Melman reports. Among the allegations in this case and related law suits, Melman reports: Adelson helped the Chinese government derail Congressional human rights legislation that would have called for Beijing not to get the 2008 Olympic games. In exchange, the law suits allege, Adelson received Beijing's nod to open a casino in Chinese-controlled Macau. Various businessmen along the way claim that Adelson cut them out of the deals. Melman:

... Besides Moshe Hananel's suit, there are another four against Adelson for hundreds of millions of dollars that were submitted to American courts about the concession granted to companies he owns for the operation of a hotel and casino in Macau. The suits were filed a few years ago by Chinese and American businessmen and by a New York investment house and a Taiwan bank. All parties claim Adelson promised to compensate them for assistance they had given him to gain the Macau franchise. ...

"Adelson, his assistants and companies deny the claims," the paper reports.

February 26, 2008

Obama and Clinton Debate in Cleveland: No Pain, No Gain

If the political winds in Ohio and Texas are blowing in Barack Obama's favor—and polls in each state show Obama gaining strength—Hillary Clinton did little during Tuesday night's debate in Cleveland to change the weather.

With a week to go before primaries in those important states, this debate was much a repeat of last Thursday's face-off. The two remaining Democratic candidates once again got hot and bothered over the issue of health care insurance mandates. But neither had anything new to say. The Clinton campaign has been pounding Obama for weeks on this front, but the wonky issue has not provided her any traction. And after 16 minutes of grueling back and forth—much of which was devoted to each candidate insisting that unnamed experts had pronounced his or her plan the best—Clinton did not achieve any breakthrough. She claimed the difference between their two health care proposals—she's for a comprehensive mandate that would force all Americans to purchase health insurance; he's for a limited mandate covering insurance for kids—is the defining issue of the Democratic presidential contest. His response: not really. He minimized the gap between their plans. And it's hard for a candidate to have a battle royale with a foe who deftly maintains, we ain't got that big of a dispute here, let's move on. By now it should be clear: mandates are not going to save Hillary Clinton.

The other big squabble of the night came right after the mandates mudwrestle, and it focused on NAFTA, which has emerged as an issue in the past week, with Clinton and Obama competing for blue-collar Democratic voters in Ohio. As part of this tussle, Clinton has in recent days complained that Obama has unfairly tarred her as a flip-flopper on NAFTA. (Her current position: the trade accord is flawed, needs to be renegotiated, and there should be a time-out in negotiating similar treaties.) At the debate, she declared that she's been a critic of NAFTA "from the very beginning." Obama called her out on this—and simultaneously, his campaign sent reporters a link to a YouTube video in which she praises NAFTA. (Obama's campaign website conveniently features a list of Clinton's pro-NAFTA remarks over the years.)

For the rest of the debate, there was little policy disagreement. Tim Russert, who co-moderated with Brain Williams, tried to push the candidates into a catfight over the familiar stuff: experience, judgment, readiness to be commander in chief. Clinton did not go nuclear, and Obama calmly absorbed her well-rehearsed criticisms. He noted that Clinton "equates experience with longevity in Washington" and that this is not "the accurate measure." As always, Clinton was in command of policy details large and small (though she almost could not remember the name of the Vladimir Putin's presumed successor in Russia). Obama seemed more confident than ever in fielding foreign policy questions, and by citing Clinton's vote on the Iraq war resolution, he turned most questions in this area into a referendum on the judgment of the two candidates.

Clinton's few jabs at Obama barely nicked him. He parried successfully all night long. She pointed out that as chairman of a Senate subcommittee on Europe he has not held a single hearing on how to bolster NATO in Afghanistan. He replied that he assumed that post at the start of the presidential campaign and has not had time to do so. She claimed he had recklessly advocated bombing Pakistan. He pointed out that he had called for attacking al Qaeda positions in Northwest Pakistan if the United States comes into possession of actionable intelligence and if the Pakistani government does not take steps to go after terrorists there. And he noted that the Bush administration recently attacked and killed in Pakistan al Qaeda's No. 3 in a similar fashion. (In other words, he's tough enough.) Clinton accused him of voting against lowering the cap on credit card interest rates. He explained this had been a weak provision in a lousy bill that he had opposed for other reasons.

Though Clinton tried to depict herself as a fighter for working Americans, none of her slaps against Obama were too forceful. And Obama repeatedly hailed her experience and accomplishments—and smoothly explained why he believed he was the better candidate: he'd made the right call on the Iraq war, he can bring people together, he can attract independents. He effectively responded to a clip in which Clinton poked fun at his let's-come-together rhetoric. To defeat the special interests, Obama said, a president "will have to mobilize and inspire the American people...and there is nothing romantic or silly about that."

Russert hurled a few gotcha questions at the two. Obama refused to be pinned down on whether he would stick to an earlier pledge to accept public financing in the general election and abide by a spending limit far lower than the amount of money he could raise otherwise. When Russert hit Obama with a question about his being endorsed by Louis Farrakhan, Obama noted he had routinely denounced the Nation of Islam leader for his anti-Semitism. (Clinton took a stab at exploiting this matter by saying that she had not just denounced an anti-Semitic group in New York State during her first Senate run but had rejected its support. Fine, said Obama, I reject Farrakhan as well as denounce him.) In response to a Russert query, Clinton refused to say if she would release her tax returns anytime soon. (One issue is whether the $5 million she loaned her campaign came from a pot of money that includes funds Bill Clinton has received from overseas and special interest sources.) And when a wide-eyed Russert asked each if he or she would vow to re-invade Iraq to take out al Qaeda (should it establish a presence in that country), both Clinton and Obama declined to humor him.

There were no defining moments of this debate—not much to analyze or psychoanalyze. Early on, Clinton complained she always gets the first questions in the debates and alluded to a recent Saturday Night Live skit that parodied the media for being gaga over Obama. This was not quite a shift-the-paradigm gesture. And at the end of the debate, Brian Williams asked both candidates to note an action taken or a statement made during their public career that they wished they could undo. Clinton almost said her 2002 vote on the Iraq war resolution was a mistake. Then Obama showed her up by admitting a true error: that he had not tried to stop Congress from intervening in the Terri Schiavo case. He called this "an example of inaction" and won points for candor.

At debate's end, there was no blood on the floor—and not much enlightenment. Which, of course, benefits the front-runner. Clinton and her advisers had obviously calculated that their best chance now is to plod ahead and not try anything too daring in full public view. After all, by this point, the race and the candidates are well defined. And in Cleveland, Obama did not want to change the overall dynamics of the contest. In that, he succeeded rather well.

Financial Aid at Top Private Universities May Be Kiss of Death for Public Schools

Last week Stanford University jumped on the ever-growing financial aid bandwagon, announcing the the school would extend support to middle- and upper-middle-class income families—a trend initiated by Harvard University and one that is quickly being adopted by top universities nationwide. Whether prestigious universities with bulging endowments are spreading the wealth to level the playing field for the socioeconomically disadvantaged or to gain prestige to further pad their endowments, lessening the financial burden of higher education is undeniably a great direction in which to head.

What's worrisome about this recent trend is what it implies for public universities around the nation, whose student bodies represent more diverse and democratic socioeconomic backgrounds. At UC Berkeley—a state school with bragging rights of its own for its quality of faculty, students, and research—the estimated cost of attendance (including tuition, room and board, and additional fees) is $25,000. This, of course, isn't cheap, but with Stanford's and many other top universities' estimated cost of attendance topping out at an astronomical $50,000, it has always seemed like a bargain.

These differences in tuition have meant that strong public universities could lure top students to attend their schools. But with the influx of generous financial aid incentives being rapidly implemented at top-tier schools, an education at a state school could now cost more than one at Harvard, Stanford, Yale, or Princeton. At this rate, tuition could easily be made free for all students and schools like Harvard would still have plenty of dough to spare.

Such competition would squeeze resources at public universities as they would be forced to reduce tuition or increase aid to compete with new financial assistance standards. This would result in reduced faculty salaries, reduced research facilities, and a decrease in the number of students admitted, which could drain the pool of talent. I'm not advocating for less financial aid, but the private school gifting trend fails to address the root of the problem—which lies in the road to acceptance at these esteemed universities.

The cost of higher education today is just simply unreasonable. And with the Ivies leading the financial aid battle, many deserving students now well-served by public universities could be left with the short end of the stick. If that shift occurs, what will the landscape of higher education look like? My guess is that it may drive further the socioeconomic inequities associated with education that these financial aid policies are hoping to overturn in the first place. Education shouldn’t be a privilege reserved for only the “best and brightest,” those who can pay their way, or the small fraction of socioeconomically advantaged students that have been able to gain acceptance into the hallowed halls of these universities. Rather, these well-endowed universities should be targeting the history of educational disadvantages associated with socioeconomic status. Fixing the system may involve universities examining economic status before admission, or congress stepping in and passing bills for funding. But before all that, what needs to be broken down is a culture that maintains a doggedly narrow and naive perception of meritocracy.

—Joyce Tang

The Military Hates Obama. Oh Really?

How on EARTH can the Washington Times write an article saying the military is "expressing trepidation" about Barack Obama's candidacy, and add quotes like:

"We're very concerned about his apparent lack of understanding on the threat of radical Islam to the United States," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, who is pro-Iraq war and a Fox News analyst. "A lot of retired senior officers feel the same way."

and:

A senior Pentagon official said an Obama swearing-in "will give the Arab street the final victory, the best optics, and the ultimate in bragging rights. They win. We lose."

without ever mentioning the fact that Barack Obama has received more donations from members of the military than any other candidate in the presidential race?

In Letter to Spy Chief, Four National Security Vets Suggest Bush is Fearmongering

Can it be that the evildoers are closer to harming the United States because House Democrats won't roll over for President Bush and pass a bill that awards legal immunity to telecom firms that participated in what might have been illegal surveillance requested by the Bush administration? That's what George W. Bush and his aides have claimed. But four former top national security officials yesterday sent a letter to Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell that challenges that melodramatic--and fearmongering--interpretation. The letter--written by Rand Beers, former senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council; Richard Clarke, former head of counterterrorism at the NSC; retired Lt. General Don Kerrick, former deputy national security adviser; and Suzanne Spaulding, former assistant general counsel at the CIA--is a good retort to the Bush White House. Here are the key parts:

The sunset of the Protect America Act (PAA) does not put America at greater risk. Despite claims that have been made, surveillance currently occurring under the PAA is authorized for up to a year. New surveillance requests can be filed through current [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] law. As you have stated, "Unlike last summer, there is no backlog of cases to slow down getting surveillance approvals from the FISA court. We're caught up to all of it now." As court orders are received, telecom companies are require