Clinton Campaign Exploits Wright Controversy

Another example of how the Clintons will do anything to win, even if it means trampling over core liberal values and crapping on a fellow Democrat in the process. According to Chris Bowers at OpenLeft,

Well, I just returned from my ward meeting tonight in University City, Philadelphia, and two Clinton staffers made an appearance. When one spoke on behalf of Hillary Clinton, he specifically listed Jeremiah Wright as an example of why Obama would be less electable in the general election. The context of his argument was that the Wright story demonstrated that Obama had not gone through the rigors of a presidential election before, and it was possible that more damaging stories like that would come out as the campaign progressed. Aka, the Wright story is demonstrative of how Obama is less electable.

Given the unlikely odds that Hillary will become the nominee, her campaign has no choice but to work the superdelegates and convince them to overturn the will of the primary voters. The campaign has shamelessly made the decision to engage in a “whisper and pressure” campaign to superdelegates, using the Wright controversy as one of their core arguments:

A Democratic strategist said that given the unlikelihood of prevailing [in the primary] any other way, Clinton now must “scare” superdelegates “who basically just want to win.”

The strategist said Clinton aides are now relying heavily on the controversy over Obama’s retiring minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, to sow new seeds of doubt.

“This issue is the first thing that’s come along that I think is potentially fatal to his electability argument,” the strategist said.

It comes as no surprise that, when given the chance to denounce those who erroneously believe that Obama is somehow a closet racist because of his association with a pastor, Hillary instead decides to give the tepid “you will have to ask Senator Obama about that” response. When it’s clear that the GOP is going to do everything it can to use the Wright controversy to damage Obama in the general election, the last thing she needs to do is their swift-boat work.

Hillary Gets Schooled by a 17-Year-Old

Remember this?

Now, watch this.  Too good!

Note to the Clinton campaign: next time you use footage of real people in an ad, make sure they actually support you, and not your opponent.

Huckabee defends Obama…AND Wright?

You be the judge:

Jeremiah Wright is crazy? Give me a break.

So the media’s having a hey-day over “finally” supposedly breaking Obama’s image as the untainted, free-from-scandal politician by fixating on the words of his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It is true that this man’s sermons were filled with controversial and inflammatory statements regarding US foreign policy. While this is all well and good, the fact of the matter is that the same kind of endorsement is being given to John McCain from similar crazies like Rev. Wright.

Reverend Rod Parsley, of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, campaigned with John McCain during the run up to the Ohio primaries. In his 2005 book Silent No More, the leader of this 12,000-member megachurch makes no secret about his incendiary views of Islam:

I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.

As if labeling one of the world’s largest religions as “false” isn’t enough to piss off billions of people, he goes on to rewrite our nation’s history and its founding in terms of this so-called battle against Islam:

It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492…Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began America.

A dream to destroy Islam is what started America? Does that mean that Muslims currently living in America don’t belong in this country? I don’t understand why the media is salivating over Jeremiah Wright’s comments when this xenophobic McCain supporter whose endorsement McCain hasn’t renounced is out spewing vicious attacks and blind hatred against an entire religion. And it’s not just Islamic extremists that this lunatic is singling out. He makes clear that all followers of Allah, a so-called “demon spirit,” are the enemy:

There are some, of course, who will say that the violence I cite is the exception and not the rule. I beg to differ. I will counter, respectfully, that what some call “extremists” are instead mainstream believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam.

Then there’s McCain’s televangelist, rapture-right pal John Hagee, senior pastor at Cornerstone Church in San Antonio and CEO of Global Evangelism Television. Like Rev. Parsley, John Hagee singles out one religion, namely Catholicism, and doesn’t hold back. In his recent book Jerusalem Countdown, Hagee claims that there is a “clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.” Given that he’s called the Catholic Church “the great whore” and “a false cult system,” one can only wonder how the Reverend feels about Islam. You’d be correct in saying that his views on Islam aren’t much different than those of Rev. Parsley, stating that “those who live by the Qu’ran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews” and that “it [the Qu'ran] teaches that very clearly.”

So what’s been John McCain’s response to John Hagee’s endorsement?

All I can tell you is I’m very proud to have pastor Hagee’s support

Did we see McCain make his rounds on Hardball, Hannity and Colmes, Anderson Cooper, and the other news outlets? Not the way Obama has had to. Even as late as today, when this story should already be old news, FOX is still replaying clips of Rev. Wright’s sermons. Will we ever see flashing screens displaying Rev. Parsley or John Hagee’s bigoted comments on Hannity and Colmes? Probably not, since Sean Hannity is a devout Catholic and wouldn’t be able to comprehend how a fellow evangelical theocrat could hate on his religion so much. Instead, the media seems pretty satisfied with McCain’s half-assed attempt to distance himself from these pastors:

…that does not mean that I endorse everything that he [Hagee] stands for and believes in.

Weak.

My Case for a Barack Obama Presidency

As a lifelong aficionado of politics, I couldn’t help but cast a wary eye toward the political process during much of the past seven years. Due to a lack of governmental transparency, an administration that in many ways governed for only one half of America, and a constant perpetuation of politics predicated on fear, I became disillusioned by an institution I had once assumed to be democratic. Because of the repeated absence of disclosure on the part of the Bush brain trust, whether it was with regards to a war formulated on half-truths or the outing of a CIA operative, I slowly, but surely developed a distrust for the executive branch. Furthermore, while President Bush maintained the solidarity of our country’s conservative faction through his policies, he furthered the unnecessary and detrimental bifurcation of America across party lines. In addition, while many initially considered his handling of the tragic events of September 11 a testament to his presidential mettle, by using that fateful day as justification for an inherently flawed war in Iraq disguised as the “war on terror” and by creating an environment in which those opposed to the war have been alienated and painted as being unpatriotic, I truly believe that Bush and many of the Republican party elites have bastardized the most horrific event I have ever witnessed. However, for the first time in seven years, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel, a light that has largely been illuminated by the person whom I believe should take the oath of office in January 2009, Barack Obama.

From day one of his campaign, Senator Obama has exhibited a form of politics that is diametrically opposed to the fraudulent goings on of the Bush administration.  Obama has refrained completely from negative advertisements and rhetoric that plays to our deepest fears.  While many criticize Obama for utilizing supposedly empty rhetoric, I firmly believe that true change requires an attitudinal shift not only among members of Congress, but also within the American citizenry and that rhetoric may often serve as the linchpin for this shift.  Change cannot be forced, and for that reason, rhetoric is powerful insomuch as it inspires people to fight for things that they initially thought may not have been possible.   Given Obama’s superior oratory skills and ability to inspire, I was initially disinclined to latch on to a Clinton candidacy; however, as this campaign has progressed, I have found another reason to cringe at the thought of Senator Clinton being nominated: her integrity.   Instead of rejecting the notion that religion should play any role in this election, she acknowledged the possibility that Senator Obama may be Muslim, implicitly condoning the misguided racist attitudes that pervade pockets of our country.  She waited days to issue a pseudo-apology for Geraldine Ferraro’s reprehensible remarks regarding the media hoopla over a potential black president.  She has stated on multiple occasions that Senator McCain possesses the necessary credentials to lead our country, while explaining that Senator Obama does not.  The more I listen to Hillary Clinton, the easier it becomes for me to recall the reasons for my visceral antipathy towards the right-wing.  In my mind, her campaign strategy and regrettable rhetoric places her in the same camp as the administration that has tainted our country.  Senator Clinton has embraced a politics in which the ends justify the means, even when such ends come at the expense of her own party and the decades of racial progress that this country has made, while on the other hand, Barack Obama continues to illuminate the possibility of a politics that transcends these very divisions that Hillary Clinton and President Bush continue to create. 

 

Hillary’s Race-Baiting Strategy

Does anyone else notice a pattern here?

Bill Clinton:

Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice in’84 and’88, and he ran a good campaign, and Senator Obama has run a good campaign here.

Former Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE), a Clinton supporter:

It’s probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim

I’ve watched the blogs try to say that you can’t trust him because he spent a little bit of time in a secular madrassa. I feel quite the opposite — I think it’s a tremendous strength. Whether he’s in the United States Senate or whether he’s in the White House, I think it’s a tremendous asset for him.

Clinton supporter Adelfa Callejo, a Latino community activist:

Obama has the problem that he happens to be Black…When Blacks had the numbers, they didn’t do anything to support us…They always used our numbers to fulfill their goals and objectives, but they never really supported us, and there’s a lot of hard feelings about that. I don’t think we’re going to get over it anytime soon.

Hillary Clinton, in an interview responding to the question of whether she believes Obama is Muslim:

No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

And of course, Geraldine Ferraro:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.

In addition to these statements, there’s also the recent revelation of the campaign’s deliberate efforts to make Obama look “blacker”.

And there’s the leaking of a photo showing Obama wearing traditional Somali garb by someone within the Clinton campaign.

All of these instances point to one conclusion: that there is at work a systematic attempt to inject Barack Obama’s race and heritage into the campaign. It’s deplorable that within the party of immigrants, minorities, and the underrepresented that such tactics are given an arena within which to fester, especially when they are practiced by someone as historic as the first woman presidential candidate. And it’s not enough for Senator Clinton to just wink and nod at these Republican-esque instances of racially divisive politics. If she wants to stand for equality and decency in politics, then she should, in her own words, “reject and denounce” this racist garbage that cheapens the country’s political discourse and distracts the media from covering the issues that actually matter.

Cindy McCain: First Lady or First Trophy Wife?

If you go to John McCain’s campaign website, you’ll find that his wife Cindy has her own page with a bio, a journal, and even a little section called “Cindy’s Recipes” tucked in the lower right corner. I’m not sure how knowing about a presidential candidate’s wife’s cooking skills helps voters make a better informed decision as to why they should vote for McCain.

John McCain 2008 — because the terrorists hate our Ahi Tuna with Napa Cabbage Slaw?

Obama Strikes Back

After Senator Clinton’s negative tactics proved largely successful Tuesday night, I argued that Senator Obama should not have been so complacent in his response.  While he remains the candidate of hope, there’s nothing wrong in fighting back a bit, and it looks like he’s beginning to do just that.  Yesterday, Obama questioned Clinton’s purported foreign policy experience:

What exactly is this foreign experience that she’s claiming?  I know she talks about visiting 80 countries. It is not clear. Was she negotiating treaties or agreements or was she handling crises during this period of time?  My sense is the answer’s no.

After the release of a picture implying Obama has Muslim ties, the NAFTA memo leak (insinuating that Obama’s stance on NAFTA is merely political posturing), and Clinton telling reporters that Senator McCain is more experienced than Obama, I think Obama has grown sick of Clinton’s strategy.  My advice: Obama needs to continue to hack away at Clinton’s purported experience.  In reality, she only has a few more years in the Senate, while she lacks his experience in a state congress.  I’ll grant that she was in the White House for 8 years, but the tactics she used in trying to get healthcare reform through proved unsuccessful, and there’s no reason to believe that her approach this time would be any different.

Why Hillary needs to throw in the towel

Today’s the do-or-die day for Hillary Clinton and her struggling campaign. Or is it? This Super Tuesday part II (Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont) isn’t so much a pivotal date in determining the Democratic nominee as it is a manufactured media celebration organized by the Clinton campaign. It’s time for Hillary to swallow her pride and step out of the way. Here’s why:

1) There is a clear incentive for the media to play this thing out for as long as possible. Obviously, it’s people like you and me who are hooked to our TVs, have our home pages set to our favorite news website, and have taken up blogging for the first time who are driving this already drawn-out primary process even further. The major news networks must have made a calculation, based on statistics indicating increased viewership over the past few months, that keeping this race up-for-grabs means higher ratings and higher profits. Face it, we’re hooked because we want to know our nominee. But prolonging this process isn’t drawing any more contrasts between the two candidates, because there really aren’t that many. It’s time for the voters to step up and tell the media that they need to start focusing on the race that actually matters with the Republicans. But so long as Hillary makes this primary a personal battle rather than a political one, she runs the risk of wearing out the electorate and distracting the party from the real battle ahead.

2) The numbers don’t lie — Hillary overtaking Obama in the delegate count is going to require reinventing the rules of arithmetic. As each state’s primary goes by, either candidate picks up a sizable number of delegates, but what really counts is the NET gain relative to the other. Each state assigns delegates in proportion to the popular vote won by either candidate, so even if Clinton beats Obama in both Texas and Ohio, it’s the margin by which he beats him that matters, not the victory itself. Marc Ambinder of the The Atlantic has performed a state-by-state projection of the delegate count post-June, after every state has held a primary. Based on his estimates, which, though based on numbers he pulled out of his ass, still appear to be reasonable expectations, Obama will net more delegates than Clinton (and by the way, his predictions assume that Clinton wins the popular vote in TX and Ohio, which in my view is optimistic). This is troubling for Clinton. At this point she needs to be not only pulling even with Obama in the number of delegates she picks up, but also exceeding his net gain in order to close the already-existing lead he enjoys. As Ambinder puts it, her chances of taking over Obama in the delegate count look pretty bleak:

If, say, voting ends and the press discovers that Obama has a secret second family in Idaho and all his superdelegates abandon him; if, for some reason, she wins 75% of the popular vote in the states after Ohio and Texas and half the remaining superdelegates; if, by slow attrition, he closes the delegate gap to about 70 and picks off two thirds of the remaining superdelegates; if the pledged (Obama) delegates concur with the credentials committee and seat the (Clintonian) Florida and Michigan delegations) — then, yes, it’s possible [for Hillary to win the nomination].

In a similar piece, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek uses equally improbable projections heavily favoring Senator Clinton and concludes the following:

So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged-delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. Hillary would then have to convince the uncommitted superdelegates to reverse the will of the people. Even coming off a big Hillary winning streak, few if any superdelegates will be inclined to do so. For politicians to upend what the voters have decided might be a tad, well, suicidal.

The Clinton campaign is probably relying on the possibility that they may harness some momentum after today’s big primaries, but polls show that any victory on her part will be marginal at best, leaving her still trailing Obama in delegates. In any case, she isn’t giving up anytime soon.

3) The Clinton campaign is effectively fighting a proxy war for John McCain and the Republicans. The longer this campaign has gone on, the more negative it has become. From the plagiarism charges, to leaking pictures of Obama wearing African garb, to fear-mongering voters with myths of Obama’s inability to handle a crisis situation, the Clinton campaign has done some of the dirty work of Karl Rove free of charge. And that’s not conducive to a unified Democratic party that’s set on taking back the White House in November. You can just imagine either of the Clintons being featured in an attack ad against Obama. Moreover, the Clintons remain wildly popular among the party, and it’s hard to envision either of them stumping for Obama and speaking at the convention in Denver without sounding a bit hypocritical. They’ve pushed their limits on how far to go in attacking Obama, and it’s high time they recognize that their efforts are counterproductive to a general election victory.

Ralph Nader: Return of the Spoiler

Last week, Ralph Nader announced that he would run for the presidency again this coming fall.  His decision was  “driven in part by his frustration over the efforts to thwart his last run.  ‘If there was no other reason to run — other than the civil liberties, civil rights issue of ballot access — it’d be worth it,’ Mr. Nader said in a telephone interview after announcing his candidacy on ‘Meet the Press.’”  While I applaud the notion that civil liberties are what distinguish America from many other countries, I question Mr.  Nader’s motives.   He seems to conveniently enter himself into crucial elections in which his votes can indirectly play a deciding role.    In an interview with US News & World Reports, he gave his reasons for running:

Because there are too many necessities of the American people that are being opposed or ignored by the major candidates in the Democrat and Republican parties… They are opposed to a single-payer health insurance [and] Medicare for all, which is supported by the majority of the American people. They are opposed to cutting the huge bloated military budget, which now consumes half of the federal government’s operating expenditures, and there’s no more Soviet Union. They are opposed to cracking down on the corporate crime wave that has drained and taken trillions of dollars in the last 10 years from pension holders, investors, and workers….

Hmm…sounds like he has chosen to completely ignore the campaign of both the Democratic candidates.  For instance, Obama is for a universal health care system, a withdrawal in Iraq, a fundamental shift from our unilateral war hawk mindset to a more balanced outlook on foreign policy, and he is the most viable anti-lobby candidate that the Democrats have had in recent memory.  If Nader truly cares about having his voice heard, I’d suggest that he meet in private with the Democratic nominee and agree not to run if the nominee agreed to lend credence to some of Nader’s issues (without of course actually mentioning Nader’s name in any speech since that would be political suicide). 

I’ll end this post with a fitting quote from Obama, who always seems to know how to tie things up both accurately and concisely:

Ralph Nader deserves enormous credit for the work he did as a consumer advocate. But his function as a perennial candidate is not putting food on the table of workers.