Howard Dean 2004: The Medals Matter

March 28, 2008 9:32 PM

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., launches a biography tour next week, which looks to tell the American people about his days as a POW in Vietnam, at least based on his new TV ad (watch HERE) introduced today in New Mexico.

In response, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean issued a statement, saying, “John McCain can try to reintroduce himself to the country, but he can’t change the fact that he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush the last seven years. While we honor McCain’s military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn’t understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.”

The Republican Party has seized upon the term "blatant opportunist" to suggest that Dean is implying McCain is an opportunist for including his POW information in his TV ad.

RNC Deputy Chairman Frank Donatelli said, “Howard Dean owes John McCain an immediate apology and both Sens. Clinton and Obama should unequivocally denounce this disgraceful attack."

That's all noise. What's more interesting are the Dean quotes from 2004 that may come back to haunt him this year.

"The real issue is this," Dean said in March 2004, when endorsing formal rival Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., "Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?"

McCain, by the way, has been awarded the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit, two Bronze Star Medals, a Purple Heart and the Distinguished Flying Cross.

- jpt

March 28, 2008 in McCain, John | Permalink | User Comments (21) | TrackBack (0)

Nader to Clinton: Stay In the Race!

March 28, 2008 8:45 PM

Sometimes it's as if those dudes from The Onion are writing this election.

On Ralph Nader's blog:

"Senator Clinton:

"Just read where Senator Patrick Leahy is calling on you to drop out of the Presidential race.

"Believe me.

"I know something about this.

"Here’s my advice:

"Don’t listen to people when they tell you not to run anymore.

"That’s just political bigotry.

"Listen to your own inner citizen First Amendment voice.

"This is America...

"Just tell them --

"It’s democracy.

"Get used to it.

"Yours truly,

"Ralph Nader"

No, seriously, this is real.

- jpt

March 28, 2008 in 2008: Democrats | Permalink | User Comments (74) | TrackBack (0)

Return of the Podcast

March 28, 2008 7:53 PM

After a three-month break because of intense campaign coverage, the ABC News Shuffle Podcast is back.

This week's episode -- we chat with the University of Chicago Divinity School mentor of the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright and try to get some answers.

LISTEN HERE.

And let me know what you think.

- jpt

March 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Q: Did the 1992 Race Really Go Until June Like Bill Clinton Says? (A: Not Really)

March 28, 2008 5:38 PM

In his efforts to solicit patience from voters and Democratic officials alike, former president Bill Clinton constantly tells voters that the 1992 nomination race kept going until June.

"All these people that tell you, 'Aw we oughta shut this thing down now the Democrats are so divided – that’s a bunch of bull," he said today in  Kannapolis, North Carolina. "I didn't get enough votes to be nominated until June the 2nd, 1992."

That is literally true. Bill Clinton did not secure enough delegates through the primary and caucus process until the California primary, June 2, 1992.

But it is not politically true.

Bill Clinton had sewn up the nomination long before then. Months before then.

Moreover, the first real contest that year was on February 18, 1992. (No one competed in the Iowa caucuses since Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, was a candidate that year) The first real contest this year, the Iowa caucus, was January 3, 2008. So you'd also expect that race to last later in the calendar -- it started more than a month and a half later.

But regardless of that, here are some key dates for that 1992 race that indicate how misleading this argument is.

February 18, 1992 -- Sen. Paul Tsongas, D-Mass., wins New Hampshire primary. A scandal-plagued Gov. Bill Clinton comes in second.

February 20, 1992  -- San Diego Union-Tribune headline: "Tsongas got most votes, but Clinton says he won".

February 25, 1992 -- Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., wins the South Dakota primary.

March 3, 1992 -- Clinton wins Georgia. Tsongas wins Maryland. Harkin wins Minnesota and Idaho. Former California governor Jerry Brown wins Colorado. Still all very much up for grabs.

March 5, 1992 -- With no money, Kerrey ends his campaign. "We were ready to go full throttle," Kerrey says, "but unfortunately we ran out of gas."

March 7, 1992 -- Clinton wins South Carolina.

Harkin announces he will drop out.

March 10, 1992 -- Clinton cleans up on Super Tuesday, winning Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas. Tsongas wins Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Kerrey: "I would say he's got a very clear path to the nomination. But it's not a path without mine fields. There are still things out there that he's got to worry about. He's got to win."

Jim Lehrer on PBS: "David, how close is Bill Clinton to being the Democratic nominee tonight?"

David Gergen: "He's on the verge."

March 17, 1992 -- Clinton wins Illinois.

At this point, it becomes clear Clinton will be the nominee. Tsongas drops out. Only Brown remains in the race.

March 20, 1992 -- The Dallas Morning News: "Former Sen. Paul Tsongas abruptly halted his presidential candidacy on Thursday, effectively ending the Democratic contest and turning the primary campaign into a mop-up operation for Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. 'It was clear that we did not have the resources necessary to fight the media war in (the April 7) New York (primary),' Mr. Tsongas told a packed crowd of supporters in Boston."

The Boston Herald: "A no-holds-barred presidential race between Democrat Bill Clinton and President George Bush - in a clash of generations and vastly different values - was all but sealed yesterday as Paul E. Tsongas ended his quest for the Democratic nomination."

March 24, 1992 -- Brown wins Connecticut. Clinton holds a seven-to-one lead in delegates.

March 26, 1992 -- Harkin endorses Clinton, expressing concern that the fight between Clinton and Brown will cause divisions in the party that would hurt the nominee in November.

"I say it's time for Democrats to link arms, dig in our heels, set our sights to work together to put Bill Clinton in the White House in 1992," Harkin says.

Harkin is the first of Clinton's former opponents to endorse him, and the party begins to officially rally around the presumptive nominee.

April 1, 1992 -- Former President Jimmy Carter endorses Clinton, calling him "an honest, decent, competent, idealistic, practical man" who doesn't deserve to have his character questioned. "Pretty obviously, Gov. Clinton is going to get the nomination," Carter says.

April 4, 1992 -- Before the New York primary, Gov. Mario Cuomo says Clinton would be a "superb president."

April 8, 1992 -- Bryant Gumbel: "Good morning. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, call him flawed, call him slick, but call him a winner this morning. He swept the primaries in New York, Kansas and Wisconsin. Big strides toward the Democratic nomination that seem his for the taking today, Wednesday, April the 8th, 1992."

As a slap in Brown's face, Tsongas -- no longer in the race -- comes in second in New York.

April 12, 1992 -- House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, endorses Clinton. "Bill Clinton will be the kind of president the United States needs to recapture our economic strength and leadership in the post-Cold War world," Gephardt says.

House Speaker Tom Foley, D-Wash: "All the dominoes are falling in favor of Clinton. He is going to be the nominee."

At the California Democratic convention, Brown says Clinton is likely to be the Democratic presidential nominee, and says he will back Clinton if he is nominated.

Austin American-Statesman: "Brown strongly indicated that, having lost the New York primary Tuesday, he will campaign as a crusader for political change rather than as a serious contender for nomination. Ron Brown, national party chairman, said the comments were 'very positive' and hinted that the contest has entered a new phase. The two met privately earlier in the day."

April 14, 1992 -- Clinton wins the final round of Virginia's caucuses. "Uncommitted" comes in a strong second, Brown comes in a distant third.

April 19, 1992 - Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, D-Maine, endorses Clinton.

Earth Day, 1992 - Clinton challenges President George H.W. Bush to a face-to-face debate on the environment.

April 28, 1992 -- Clinton wins Pennsylvania primary, having earned 1,466 of the 2,145 delegates needed to win. Brown has 316 delegates.

And on and on...

This notion that the 1992 presidential race was not over until June is literally true. But it was truly over about five or six weeks after the New Hampshire primary.

- jpt

March 28, 2008 in Weblogs | Permalink | User Comments (34) | TrackBack (0)

Did Obama Say Rev. Wright Acknowledged Offending People?

March 28, 2008 4:14 PM

On "The View" this morning, Barbara Walters asked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., what he would have done had he learned about the incendiary remarks made by his since-retired pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, if Wright had not been on his way out the door?

"Had the reverend not retired and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I think is the great character of this country - for all its flaws - then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church," Obama said.

This seemed to imply that Wright had acknowledged that he'd deeply offended people with inappropriate remarks. Right?

Wrong, says the Obama campaign.

"Sen. Obama was clearly saying that were Rev. Wright not retiring, he would need to be assured that the reverend understood why what he had said had deeply offended people and mischaracterized the greatness of this country," says spox Bill Burton.

Okay, except Obama wasn't "clearly" saying that at all.

Here's a clear way to say that: 'Had the reverend not retired I would have confronted him about his remarks. If after that Wright still refused to acknowledge that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I think is the great character of this country -- for all its flaws -- then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church.'

For an eloquent man, not his most eloquent moment.

- jpt

March 28, 2008 in Weblogs | Permalink | User Comments (147) | TrackBack (0)

The Obama-Casey Ticket

March 28, 2008 3:40 PM

Lots of chatter today about Sen. Bob Casey, Jr., D-Penn., and his surprise endorsement today of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

It's of obvious significance for Pennsylvanians and political dorks (I plead guilty to being both) because Casey and his family represent the voter Obama is struggling the most to win -- white, Catholic, working class men.

Casey and his father, the late Gov. Bob Casey Sr., represent the sort of economically populist, socially moderate voter that one needs in order to win Pennsylvania. They are a segment, in fact, often referred to as "Casey Democrats." They vote for Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., who has worked to have a moderate to liberal position on guns and labor issues. Many are Catholic -- Irish, Italian, Poles. Many oppose abortion rights. Obama needs them if he has any hope of coming within 15 points of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

And it likely bears remembering that Casey Jr.'s father had been humiliated by Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992.

Gov. Casey had been a strong anti-abortion-rights activist -- a law that bore his name that imposed a 24-hour waiting period on those seeking an abortion, while requiring parental consent for minors seeking the procedure became Supreme Court precedent in Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania vs. Casey.

He'd wanted to deliver an anti-abortion speech to the 1992 Democratic convention. Not only was he denied such an opportunity -- which the Clinton campaign worried would create visible party divisions if not outright convention floor chaos -- he was subjected to what he later would deem public humiliation. He was given bad seats from which he watched Kathy Taylor -- a Republican abortion rights supporter from Pennsylvania, one who'd worked to elect the candidate Casey had defeated in 1990 -- got a speaking slot instead.

Upon Casey's death in 2000, the New Republic reported that "DNC officials sent Taylor, with a camera crew in tow, to find Casey in 'Outer Mongolia,' as he put it, to further humiliate him."

His son, Casey Jr., for what it's worth, is one of the most normal-, nice-, and modest-seeming guys in the U.S. Senate. He doesn't seem rancorous at all.

"This campaign is a chance for America," Casey Jr. said today. "A chance to go down a different path. A path of change. A path of a new kind of politics. And finally a path of hope and heeling."

"A new kind of politics. . . Healing."

I'm trying to think how I would feel about a person who was part of a team responsible for my father's greatest public humiliation.

Today's endorsement has also prompted a whole lot of interesting speculation about an Obama-Casey ticket -- like on TNR's The Stump.

What do you think?

- jpt

March 28, 2008 in Weblogs | Permalink | User Comments (42) | TrackBack (0)

Obama & Taxes

March 28, 2008 10:48 AM

On CNBC's "Closing Bell" yesterday, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said he wanted to raise the capital gains tax rate.

Watch HERE

How much would he raise them?

He didn't say.

More than 15%, less than 28%.

"I haven't given a firm number," he said. "Here's my belief, that we can't go back to some of the, you know, confiscatory rates that existed in the past that distorted sound economics. And I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was the 28 percent…. My guess would be it would be significantly lower than that. I think that we can have a capital gains rate that is higher than 15 percent."

Obama said "when I talk to people like Warren Buffet or others and I ask them, you know, what's -- how much of a difference is it going to be if it's 20 or 25 percent, they say, look, if it's within that range then it's not going to distort, I think, economic decision making."

When it was pointed out that 100 million Americans own stocks today, and they are hardly all Warren Buffets, Obama suggested "you could structure something in which people with certain incomes were exempted from this increase and it would stay at 15. The broader principle that I'm interested in is just making sure that we've got a tax code that is fair for all Americans."

What other taxes would Obama raise?

* The Top Marginal Tax Rate

Obama said he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts and return to a top marginal rate of 39 percent.

CNBC's Maria Bartiromo asked Obama why he would raise taxes at all during a period of economic trouble.

"Well, look, there's no doubt that anything I do is going to be premised on what the economic situation is when I take office," he said. "I'm not going to making these decisions based on ideology. I'm not a dogmatist. I know that some, you know, my opponents to the right would like to paint me as this wooly-eyed, you know, liberal or wild-eyed -- "

"You're not a liberal?" Bartiromo asked.

Obama didn't answer. "My attitude is that I believe in the market, I believe in entrepreneurship, I believe in opportunity, I believe in capitalism and I want to do what works," he said. "But what I want to make sure of is it works for all America and not just a small sliver of America."

* Social Security Taxes.  “If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall," Obama wrote in the Quad City Times last September. (Obama has also discussed the possibility of a donut hole, so that the increase would only hit those "making over $200,000 to $250,000" who "can afford to pay a little more in payroll tax.")

* A "Dirty Energy" Tax. “What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas," he told the San Antonio Express-News last month.

He also has discussed taxes on dividends, carried interests, closing corporate loopholes, and returning to the original inheritance tax rate.

And he endorsed New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s proposal to charge drivers a fee to commute through the busiest parts of Manhattan. 

What taxes would he cut?

* He said he wants to cut taxes for those making $75,000 a year or less, through an offset on the payroll tax worth as much as $1,000 for a family.

* "Senior citizens who are bringing in less than $50,000 a year in income, I don't want them to have to pay income tax on their Social Security," he told CNBC

* He wants an additional 10 percent mortgage interest credit, for those who currently don't itemize.

* He has proposed a "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family.

Sen. Clinton also some has tax proposals which I'll look at in a later post.

- jpt

March 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (42) | TrackBack (0)

Obama-Backing Senator Calls for Clinton to Drop Out

March 28, 2008 9:46 AM

Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vermont, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a high-profile supporter of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, has called for Obama's opponent to drop out of the race.

In an interview on Vermont Public Radio, said "There is no way that Senator Clinton is going to win enough delegates to get the nomination. She ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator Obama. Now, obviously that's a decision that only she can make frankly I feel that she would have a tremendous career in the Senate."

Listen to a clip from the interview HERE.

Leahy said he was fretting about the impact of the protracted Democratic race.

"I am very concerned," he said. "John McCain, who has been making one gaffe after another, is getting a free ride on it because Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have to fight with each other. I think that her criticism is hurting him more than anything John McCain has said. I think that's unfortunate."

Campaigning in Mishawaka, Indiana Friday, Clinton didn't specifically address Leahy's comments, reports ABC News' Eloise Harper.

But Clinton did say, "There are some people who are saying, you know, we really ought to end this primary, we ought to shut it down."

"No!" the crowd shouted.

"There was a poll the other day that said 22 percent of democrats want me to drop out and 22 percent  want Senator Obama to drop out and 62 percent said let people vote," Clinton said. "One thing you know about me when I tell you I will fight for you I will get up every day and that's exactly what I will do."

Watch the VIDEO HERE.

Clinton also suggested working for the American people is her calling.

"I believe going to work for you is what I am  called to do," she said.

- jpt

March 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (488) | TrackBack (0)

And Only Count the Votes of Left-Handed People! And Only Count People Who Lettered in a Sport in High School! And…

March 28, 2008 7:23 AM

Great story by ABC News' Teddy Davis, Sarah Amos, and Talal Al-Khatib reporting on former President Bill Clinton on a call yesterday with supporters of his wife's in Texas.

"Right now, among all the primary states, believe it or not, Hillary's only 16 votes behind in pledged delegates," said the former president, "and she's gonna wind up with the lead in the popular vote in the primary states. She's gonna wind up with the lead in the delegates [from primary states]."

There are 40 primary states and territories; 18 caucuses.

"It's the caucuses that have been killing us," Bill Clinton said. "We can still win this thing. We're gonna have a big victory in Pennsylvania. It's gonna change the psychology even further, but we need your help."

Other ways Sen. Hillary Clinton could be the nominee through creative math:

• Only count Arkansas and the states that border it (except for Mississippi, Louisiana and Missouri);
• Only count the votes of people who have heard Chelsea speak in person;
• Ballots en espanol only;
• Nomination determined by who does better in NCAA pool.

Other ideas?

- jpt

March 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (67) | TrackBack (0)

Albright: Iraq War the Greatest Disaster in American History

March 27, 2008 11:05 PM

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told a group of University of Florida students that the U.S. invasion of "Iraq is going to go down in history as the greatest disaster in American foreign policy. Now, that's quite a statement, because it means I think it is worst than Vietnam. Not in the number of Americans who died, or Vietnamese versus Iraqis, but in terms of those unintended consequences. And the biggest unintended consequence in Iraq is Iran. I think one might say that actually Iran has actually won the war in Iraq."

Watch the VIDEO HERE.

Albright could not be immediately reached for comment on why she's supporting the Democratic presidential candidate who voted for "the greatest disaster in American foreign policy" over one who opposed it.

March 27, 2008 in 2008: Democrats | Permalink | User Comments (33) | TrackBack (0)

More Wright Stuff

March 27, 2008 7:54 PM

Some more controversial, even offensive, material emanating from Sen. Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ in the South Side of Chicago, and Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This material attacks Israel, Italians, and the US government.

1) ISRAEL BUILT AN ETHNIC BOMB TO KILL ARABS

The June 10, 2007 church newsletter on the Pastor's Page includes some rather incendiary charges -- made by an Arab-American activists -- claiming that Israel worked with South Africa to develop an "ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs."

2) SLURRING ITALIANS

New York Newsday reports that in the Dec. 2007 edition of the Trumpet magazine, published by Rev. Wright's daughter, the pastor in a eulogy for Asa Hilliard wrote that Jesus's "enemies had their opinion about Him... The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans." He calls the crucifixion "a public lynching Italian style" executed in "Apartheid Rome."

3) THE US GOVERNMENT IS RUN BY WHITE SUPREMACISTS

In that same eulogy Wright says that the US "government runs everything from the White House to the schoolhouse, from the Capitol to the Klan, white supremacy is clearly in charge, but Asa, like Jesus, refused to be defined by an oppressive government because Asa got his identity from an Omnipotent God."

3) HAMAS OP-ED

Bizzyblog has published the July 22, 2007 church newsletter in which Wright reprints an article by Mousa Abu Marzook, deputy of the political bureau of Hamas, which the US government named a terrorist organization in 1995. (UPDATE: The full Bizzyblog post on this can be read here.)

Marzook was named a Specially Designated Terrorist by the Treasury Department In 2004, the Justice Department indicted Marzook for conspiring to violate U.S. laws that prohibit dealings in terrorist funds.

The op-ed was first published on the Los Angeles Times op-ed page.

Sen. Obama in an interview to air Friday on ABC's "The View" says he did not read the bulletins in his church. "I don't purchase all the DVD's and I didn't read all the church bulletins," Obama told the ladies of "The View". "People are mixes of good and bad. I saw mostly the good, there were some things that I disagreed with. But I didn’t see some of the things that were said that I would have taken offense to."

Obama also said he's spoken to Wright since the controversy erupted. "I talked to him after this episode; he had come back from a cruise. I think he’s saddened by what’s happened, and I told him I feel badly that he has been characterized just in this one way, and people haven’t seen this broader aspect of him."

- jpt

March 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (177) | TrackBack (0)

MoveOn.org v. the Clinton Fat Cats

March 27, 2008 4:43 PM

The MoveOn.org Political Action Team is writing to MoveOn members, asking them to join Team Pelosi in her fight against the Clinton Fat Cats. (There's a children's book in that sentence somewhere.)

Says the MoveOn.org letter: "This is pretty outrageous: a group of Clinton-supporting big Democratic donors are threatening to stop supporting Democrats in Congress because Nancy Pelosi said that the people, not the superdelegates, should decide the Presidential nomination...It's the worst kind of insider politics—billionaires bullying our elected leaders into ignoring the will of the voters.

They're suggesting a petition for members "to tell Nancy Pelosi that if she keeps standing up for regular Americans, thousands of us will have her back. And we can more than match whatever the CEOs and billionaires refuse to contribute. ...They're the old guard, and this is how the Democratic Party used to function—the big donors called the shots. But the small donor revolution has changed that."

Really, this letter in so many ways seems clumsy. Why allude to how much money they give the Democratic party? Do they think Pelosi wouldn't know?

Moreover, every one of those donors could have picked up a phone and called Pelosi (and Harry Reid!) and likely had more of an impact without anyone finding out about it.  Now the netroots are all atwitter.

- jpt

March 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (116) | TrackBack (0)

Obama Implies Clinton Thinks It's Her 'Turn' to Be President

March 27, 2008 4:00 PM

At a $1,000-a-head fundraiser at the Credit Suisse building in New York City today, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, took a brand new whack at Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, adding to his usual construct that he “decided to run not because of some long-held ambitions or because I thought it was somehow owed to me" the notion that "certainly I wasn’t presumptuous enough to think it was my turn."

Obama also pooh-poohed the notion that Democratic divisiveness would hurt the part come November, saying the primary and caucus process “has gotten people engaged in politics who were never engaged before or who had forgotten what it’s like to be passionate about politics...“I am absolutely confident that by the time this thing is over, the Democratic party will be completely unified."

He added, "for those of you who are just weary of the primary, and feeling kind of ground down or that it’s like a Bataan death mark, I just want everybody to know that the future is bright.”

- jpt

March 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (233) | TrackBack (0)

I Guess That's Why They Call It The Blues

March 27, 2008 12:47 PM

The Washington Times this morning asked if Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Elton John, who is set to perform at an April 9 fundraiser for her at Radio City Music Hall in New York, would be breaking any laws since John, a British foreign national, is in a way raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for her campaign.

The Federal Election Campaign Act "prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment."

The questions: was John contributing "indirectly" to Clinton's campaign? Was Clinton soliciting contributions or donations from John?

The answers, apparently: No and no.

On its website the Clinton campaign says that since 1987, the Federal Elections Commission "has consistently held that foreign nationals may volunteer their time for campaigns on an uncompensated basis. Elton John is simply volunteering his uncompensated time to appear at the concert. This appearance is consistent with past FEC rulings."

The campaign also quotes FEC spokesman Bob Biersack saying, "I did not intend to convey in my conversation with the Washington Times reporter that there is anything unlawful about Elton John performing in a concert to raise money for a U.S. presidential candidate. The Advisory Opinion 2004-26 is clear in the circumstances of the request that foreign nationals may volunteer and may even solicit contributions from non-foreign nationals, provided they are not soliciting other foreign nationals."

Can you feel the love tonight?

- jpt

March 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (231) | TrackBack (0)

More on those Clinton Fat Cats

March 27, 2008 10:43 AM

The 20 Clinton-backing fat cats who vaguely threatened House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to change her tune on superdelegates lest their purses and pocketbooks slam shut have contributed almost "$24 million to Democratic candidates and committees over the last 10 years," according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

They've donated almost $554,000 to Sen. Hillary Clinton's Senate and presidential campaigns and her leadership PAC -- compared to less than a tenth of that, $52,200, for Sen. Barack Obama.

"To borrow from an investment firm's old ad campaign," says the Center, "when big donors talk, politicians listen."

Also: John Aravosis at Americablog says just under a third of these donors had Lincoln Bedroom overnights. (Perhaps more.)

- jpt

UPDATE:  ABC News' Political Director David Chalian reports that a Democratic operative unaffiliated with either campaign and familiar with the reaction to the letter among Members of Congress says, "Members of Congress - who are superdelegates - make up the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee" or DCCC from which the donors seemed to be threatening to withhold funds.

"Threatening the DCCC is equal to threatening the superdelegates Sen. Hillary Clinton's trying to court. The Clinton donor letter will just push undeclared superdelegates in Congress leaning toward Obama to endorse him sooner.  It also reinforces the narrative that she'll destroy the party to win."

March 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (172) | TrackBack (0)

Questions

March 27, 2008 10:30 AM

What's stopping the Democratic presidential candidates from stepping forward and saying that even more important than electing their individual candidacies is electing a Democrat? What's stopping Sen. Barack Obama from saying if he doesn't win the nomination he will work his heart out for Sen. Hillary Clinton, and vice versa? (Vice versa is actually more important, since Clinton is the one who has implied McCain is more prepared than Obama to be commander-in-chief.)

Where are Roger Clinton, and Tony and Hugh Rodham these days?

That Bosnia sniper story was being questioned weeks ago. Did no staffer tell Clinton to double-check the facts before repeating the embellished tale (and actually making it worse) last week?

Is anyone telling Michelle Obama how some of her comments sound to middle Americans her husband needs? Does she care or is she writing them off disdainfully?

And what is Barack Obama doing to reach out to these blue collar folks? Economic addresses at Cooper Union?

How is it that John McCain is 71 years old and still doesn't know how to give a speech?

- jpt

March 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (38) | TrackBack (0)

Obama Superdelegate Indicted

March 27, 2008 9:43 AM

The Governor of Puerto Rico, Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in February as we were first to report.

And he was indicted today.

Puerto Rico's primary is scheduled for June 1.

Like the Clinton governor/superdelegate who had his own troubles with Johnny Law (Juan Law?), Eliot Spitzer, Acevedo had run for office on an anti-corruption platform.

It's tough to find good anti-corruption governors these days.

- jpt

March 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (23) | TrackBack (0)

Poll Dance

March 27, 2008 8:39 AM

More numbers in....and they ain't good news for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, or for the Democrats in general.

Good Morning America report HERE; Dot-com version HERE.

-jpt

March 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (43) | TrackBack (0)

Clinton Fat Cats Hiss at Pelosi

March 26, 2008 10:10 PM

Were a bunch of Clinton donors threatening to withhold contributions to the Democratic House campaign committee if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., doesn't change her position on superdelegates?

Not directly, no.

But a brouhaha has erupted over recent comments made by Pelosi on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos", when Pelosi, who will chair the Democratic National Convention, seemed to give a boost to the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying "If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party."

Taking umbrage, a list of big Democratic donors who support the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., have written a letter to Pelosi (subsequently released to the press) pointing out that "Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes" and arguing "None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.

"During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984…"

Then the donors -- Marc Aronchick, Clarence Avant, Susie Tompkins Buell, Sim Farar, Robert L. Johnson, Chris Korge, Marc and Cathy Lasry, Hassan Nemazee, Alan and Susan Patricof, JB Pritzker, Amy Rao, Lynn de Rothschild, Haim Saban, Bernard Schwartz, Stanley S. Shuman, Jay Snyder, Maureen White and Steven Rattner -- reminded Pelosi that they have given generously to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which helps fund Democratic House races.

"We have been strong supporters of the DCCC." they wrote. "We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters."

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly in a statement said, "Speaker Pelosi is confident that superdelegates will choose between Senators Clinton or Obama -- our two strong candidates -- before the convention in August. That choice will be based on many considerations, including respecting the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted in primaries and participated in caucuses. The Speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters. This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes."

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, noting the donors' reminder to Pelosi of their largesse, said, "This letter is inappropriate and we hope the Clinton campaign will reject the insinuation contained in it. Regardless of the outcome of the nomination fight, Senator Obama will continue to urge his supporters to assist Speaker Pelosi in her efforts to maintain and build a working majority in the House of Representatives."

-- jpt

March 26, 2008 in 2008: Democrats | Permalink | User Comments (236) | TrackBack (0)

Michelle Obama on Diversity, Comfort Zones, and America

March 26, 2008 6:27 PM

In a January speech at the University of South Carolina, First Lady aspirant Michelle Obama made remarks making the rounds on the internet today.

Talking about her experience at Princeton where she hung with a largely African-American crowd, she said, "We don’t like being pushed outside of our comfort zones. You know it right here on this campus. You know people sitting at different tables- you all living in different dorms. I was there. You’re not talking to each other, taking advantage that you’re in this diverse community. Because sometimes it’s easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance. That’s America. So the challenge for us is are we ready for change?"

I'm sure we all know what she's talking about when she reflects on the comfort many of us feel with those of our specific cultural or ethnic groups.

But her comments are under fire by many conservative commentators because of her construct that seems to imply that feeling justified in one's own ignorance in somehow quintessentially "America."

The Obama campaign says that's a mis-interpretation of her comments, that it was the proclivity for "comfort zones" that she thought was so "America."

(As opposed to the ethnic and cultural open minds in Europe, Asia and Africa, I suppose?)

You can watch a poor-quality (and scathingly titled) recording of her remarks HERE

- jpt

March 26, 2008 in Obama, Barack | Permalink | User Comments (146) | TrackBack (0)