Politics 2010

Captain Pamela Barnett Law Suit Dismissed

2009-12-02T08:32:00.001-05:00

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Captain Pamela Barnett, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Barack H. Obama, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________
)))))))))))))))))
CASE NO. SACV 09-0082 DOC (ANx)
O R D E R REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS
Before the Court is Defendants President Barack H. Obama (“Obama” or

“President”),
Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton (“Clinton”), Joseph Biden (“Biden”), and Robert Gates’
(“Gates”) (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss. After considering the moving,
opposing, reply, and sur-reply papers, as well as the parties’ oral argument, the Court

hereby
rules as follows.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Introduction
On January 20, 2009, the day on which Barack Obama was sworn in as President and
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 1 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
took office, Plaintiffs brought this suit. The action was filed at 3:26 p.m. Pacific

standard time,
following President Obama’s formal assumption of office. The suit alleges, in

pertinent part,
that President Obama does not meet the qualifications required for the Office of the

President, as
specified by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution, which

reads, “No
Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of

the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” More

specifically,
Plaintiffs allege that the President has not shown that he is a “natural born citizen” of

the United
States and assert that he should have to establish his citizenship by “clear-and-

convincing
evidence.” Plaintiffs argue that despite the fact that President Obama has produced a

birth
certificate from the state of Hawaii, there is evidence to show that the President was

actually
born in Kenya, thus making him ineligible to be President. Plaintiffs also argue that,

even if the
President was a natural born citizen, he abandoned his citizenship while living in

Indonesia and
has not gone through the proper immigration procedures to regain his United States

citizenship.
Plaintiffs are third party candidates from the American Independent Party for president
and vice president in the 2008 presidential election, inactive and active military

personnel, and
state representatives. The third party candidate plaintiffs are Alan Keyes, Gail

Lightfoot, and
Reverend Wiley Drake. Keyes and Drake received a total of four-hundredth of one

percent of
the popular vote for President.
Because Plaintiffs failed to bring their claims in this Court until after President Obama
was sworn into office, the Court has been presented with much more than an action

against a
political candidate asking the Court to interpret the candidate’s qualifications to run for

office.
Instead, Plaintiffs ask this Court to declare that the current President of the United

States is
illegitimate and fails to meet the constitutional requirements to hold office. In their

Motion to
Dismiss, Defendants challenge the ability of the Court to hear Plaintiffs’ claims and

redress their
alleged injuries through the removal of the sitting President.
B. First Amended Complaint
Plaintiffs have since filed a First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”), which adds to the
original complaint and which is the subject of this Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs allege

that
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 2 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
declaratory judgment is proper pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”),

5 U.S.C.
§ 552(a)(4)(B), and through a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988.

First Am.
Compl. (“Compl.”) ¶ 60, July 14, 2009. Plaintiffs’ Complaint sets forth ten questions

for which
they request declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202. Id. ¶¶ 11-21.

The
questions all relate to the meaning of the Constitution’s natural born citizen clause and

the
appropriate recourse should a sitting president not meet the “natural born citizen”

requirement.
Plaintiffs frame these questions as seeking “an answer to the simple question of

constitutional
qualifications . . . [and seeking] a declaratory judgment confirming their fundamental

civil or
constitutional right to ask and know the constitutional qualifications of any person

elected or
appointed to public office in the United States of America.” Id. 3:8-12. Beyond this

“simple
question,” however, Plaintiffs make a significantly more expansive request. Plaintiffs

seek
“injunctive relief against all four office-holding defendants [the President, Secretary of

State,
Secretary of Defense, and Vice President] to limit their powers to order new

deployments or
assignments of any armed forces of the United States outside of the territorial limits of

the
United States without express Congressional approval, and further to limit the

execution of
certain orders of the President of the United States relating to the conduct of foreign

policy by
and through the use of currently deployed and assigned military force, as well as the
appointment of judges or justices and the ratification or modification of treaties during

the
pendency of this lawsuit until and unless Defendant Barack Hussein Obama’s

constitutional
qualifications are established in this court by clear-and-convincing evidence.” Id. 3:13

-22. In
other words, Plaintiffs do not propose succession by Vice President Biden but

instead seek a
complete shutdown of the government by enjoining it from acting while holding a new
presidential election.
Plaintiffs also request that the Court order the production of documents pursuant to

FOIA.
Id. ¶¶ 60-109. Plaintiffs further allege a violation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§

1983,
1988(a). Id. ¶¶ 110-122. Finally, Plaintiffs make a request for a writ quo warranto, in

which
Plaintiffs state, “This Court has the power to order Barack Hussein Obama to appear

and to
show cause all the relief sought by this complaint should not be upheld (or entered)

against
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 3 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
him.” Id. ¶ 121; see also id. 4:3-19. The prayer for relief states the resolution sought

in the
action as:
This Court should issue an order to Barack Hussein Obama to show
cause why the full measure of relief requested by the Plaintiffs in this
case should not be granted, and should in particular order that the
contours of the final judgment under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a), including
the extension or modification of common and statutory law to protect
the civil rights of the people of the United States to demand clearand-
convincing evidence of the constitutional qualifications,
elegibility [sic], and competence of their elected (as well as their
non-elected [sic]) officials, representatives, and executive agents.
Id. ¶ 126.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a complaint must be dismissed if the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims. Once subject matter

jurisdiction
is challenged, the burden of proof is placed on the party asserting that jurisdiction

exists. Scott v.
Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that “the party seeking to invoke

the
court’s jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists.”).

Accordingly, the
Court will presume lack of subject matter jurisdiction until the plaintiff proves otherwise

in
response to the motion to dismiss. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511

U.S. 375,
377, 114 S. Ct. 1673 (1994).
Defendants assert that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this action on five
bases: (1) Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate Article III standing; (2) the issues in

this action
present non-justiciable political questions; (3) this Court is not the appropriate forum

for
Plaintiffs’ quo warranto claims; (4) this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction

pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988; and (5) Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim with respect

to their
Freedom of Information Act claims and all claims against Defendants Clinton, Gates,

Michelle
Obama, and Biden.
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 4 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
III. DISCUSSION
The Court must establish that it has jurisdiction before it may reach the question of
interpreting the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution. “[I]f a case can be

decided on
either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of

statutory
construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter.” Ashwander v. Tenn.

Valley
Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 347, 56 S. Ct. 466 (1936) (Brandeis, J. concurring) (citing

Siler v.
Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 213 U.S. 175, 191, 29 S. Ct. 451 (1909); Light v. United

States,
220 U.S. 523, 538, 31 S. Ct. 485 (1911)).
A. Jurisdiction Under Article III
Rule 12(b)(1) mandates that the Court dismiss claims for which it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. Standing is an element of subject matter jurisdiction. Warren v. Fox Family
Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2003). To establish standing under

Article III of
the Constitution, a plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) an ‘injury in fact’ – an invasion of a

legally
protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized,” meaning that the injury

must “affect
the plaintiff in a personal and individual way,” and (b) “‘actual or imminent,’ not

‘conjectural’
or ‘hypothetical;’” (2) “there must be a causal connection between the injury and the

conduct
complained of – the injury has to be ‘fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of

the
defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not

before the
court;’” (3) “it must be ‘likely,’ as opposed to merely ‘speculative,’ that the injury will be
‘redressed by a favorable decision.’” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,

560-61, 112
S. Ct. 2130 (1992) (internal citations omitted). Each element of standing is “an

indispensable
part of the plaintiff’s case,” and accordingly “must be supported in the same way as

any other
matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden, i.e., with the manner and degree of

evidence
required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Id. at 561.
The caption of the Complaint in this matter lists forty-four (44) plaintiffs. The Complaint
does not individually identify the bases for standing for each of these plaintiffs, but

alleges
generally, “The Plaintiffs are all American citizens, the majority with military service
backgrounds (retired or inactive but subject to recall), a number of former and

possible or
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 5 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
prospective political candidates, including a number of state legislators and third-party
candidates for President and Vice-President.” Compl. 3:5-8.
Plaintiffs are comprised of six groups which claim standing: (a) active military

personnel;
(b) former military personnel; (c) state representatives; (d) federal taxpayers; (e)

relatives of
President Obama; and (f) political candidates. The Complaint identifies eleven

plaintiffs who
fall within these groups. Thirty-two of the named plaintiffs are not identified in the

Complaint
with any particularity. The Court must assume that the remainder of the plaintiffs fall

into one
of the aforementioned six categories.
The majority of Plaintiffs are addressed through the first prong of Article III standing,
which requires that Plaintiffs demonstrate the “invasion of a legally protected interest”

which is
both “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.
a. Active Military Personnel
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff Lieutenant Jason Freese (“Lieutenant Freese”)

has
standing because he is on active military duty in Alaska. Compl. ¶ 6. The Complaint

states that,
because Lieutenant Freese is on active military duty, he has standing “to challenge

and demand
clear-and-convincing proof of the constitutional qualifications of the Commander-in-

Chief and
the legality of the current chain of command.” Id. Plaintiffs argue that Lieutenant

Freese’s
standing stems from the oath that military officers are required to take in which they

swear to
support and defend the Constitution. Pl. P.B.’s Opp’n 9:12-13:19. The oath that all

military
personnel take when enlisting in the military states as follows:
I, _______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
same; and that I will obey the orders of the United States and the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations
and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
10 U.S.C. § 502.
Plaintiffs rely primarily on Board of Education v. Allen for their argument that Plaintiff
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 6 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
has standing as an oath taker. 392 U.S. 236, 88 S. Ct. 1923 (1968). In Allen, Plaintiffs

who
were serving on the Board of Education took an oath in which they pledged to uphold

the
Constitution. Id. at 241 n.5. Plaintiffs alleged that if pursuant to that oath they refused

to follow
a law requiring them to lend books to parochial schools on the basis that the law

violated the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution, then they would

face the
injury of likely being expelled from office and having state funds to their school district

reduced.
Id. While the issue of standing was not before the Court, the Court observed in a

footnote that it
had no doubt that the plaintiffs had a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation. Id.
Plaintiffs argue that this action is similar to Allen because Lieutenant Freese has taken

an oath to
support and defend the Constitution, and if pursuant to that oath he refused to follow

the orders
of President Obama on the basis that all orders from the President are

unconstitutional because
he does not satisfy the natural born citizen clause, then Freese would face the injury

of likely
disciplinary action within the military.
The footnote regarding standing in Allen is not binding Supreme Court precedent. In
addition, the Supreme Court has significantly tightened standing requirements

subsequent to the
Allen ruling. City of South Lake Tahoe v. Calif. Tahoe Reg. Planning Agency, 625 F.2d

231, 236
(9th Cir. 1980). The Ninth Circuit has rejected the reasoning of the footnote in Allen on

the
basis that the real source of an oath taker’s complaint is not sufficiently concrete to

establish
standing. The Ninth Circuit, discussing the standing of oath takers to bring an action

for
injunctive and declaratory relief regarding the constitutionality of an action, reasoned

that oath
takers hold merely an abstract objection to an unconstitutional act because they

generally face
only an abstract injury should they choose to object to the act. Id. at 237. The Court

found that
the oath takers’ objection was insufficient to invoke standing because “the difficulty

with
abstract constitutional grievances is that they lack the specificity and adversarial

coloration that
transmute vague notions of constitutional principle into a form historically viewed as

capable of
judicial resolution.” Id. at 237-38 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Pursuant

to the
reasoning under South Lake Tahoe, Plaintiff Lieutenant Freese fails to establish

standing based
on his military oath because his injuries are not sufficiently concrete to establish Article

III
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 7 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
standing.
The Complaint also requests that this Court enjoin the President’s “powers to order

new
deployments or assignments of any armed forces of the United States outside of the

territorial
limits of the United States without express Congressional approval, and further to limit

the
execution of certain orders of the President of the United States relating to the

conduct of foreign
policy by and through the use of currently deployed and assigned military force.”

Compl. 3:14-
19. This “cut and run” call to lay down arms and leave this country defenseless is an

effort by
Plaintiffs to emasculate the military.
Plaintiffs have inappropriately requested that this Court interfere with internal military
affairs. See Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93-94, 73 S. Ct. 534 (1953) (“[J]udges

are not
given the task of running the Army.”). Plaintiffs only seek to enjoin acts that the

President takes
as Commander-in-Chief internationally, not domestically. This peculiarity leads the

Court to
suspect that the constitutional objection is being used as a veil to avoid deployment to

countries
where the United States military is currently active, such as Iraq or Afghanistan. See

Rhodes v.
Thomas D. MacDonald et al., No. 4:09-CV-106 (CDL), 2007 WL 2997605 (M.D. Ga.

Sept. 16,
2009) (Plaintiff objecting to President Obama’s natural born citizen status “had no

concerns
about fulfilling her military obligation until she received orders notifying her that she

would be
deployed to Iraq in September 2009”). Furthermore, Lieutenant Freese’s claims are

based upon
the notion that his duty to serve is based upon who is in office. The duty to defend is

not
dependent upon a political or personal view regarding the individual who serves as

President and
Commander-in-Chief. It is an unequivocal duty to defend our country.
This Court will not interfere in internal military affairs nor be used as a tool by military
officers to avoid deployment. The Court has a word for such a refusal to follow the

orders of the
President of the United States, but it will leave the issue to the military to resolve.
Plaintiff Freese fails to meet the Article III standing requirements.
b. Former Military Personnel
The Complaint states that all inactive or retired military personnel “have standing to
challenge and demand clear-and-convincing proof . . . [because] they are subject to

recall and
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 8 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
service at any time under and subject to the de facto chain of command.” Compl. ¶ 7.

In order
for Article III standing to be met, the Supreme Court requires that the injury be “actual

or
imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical,’” and that the injury must be likely, not

merely
speculative. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61 (citations omitted). Currently, Plaintiffs are

inactive in
the military and therefore are not subject to any orders from the Commander-in-Chief,

President
Obama. Therefore, Plaintiffs base their standing on the possibility that they could be

called back
to service at any time and would at that point have to follow the Commander-in-Chief’s

orders.
Plaintiffs argue that following such orders would be injurious because they would have

to follow
the commands of someone who does not meet the requirements to hold the position

of
Commander-in-Chief. However, the chance that Plaintiffs would be called back to

active duty
fails to meet the requirement that the injury not be merely hypothetical or speculative.

Whether
or not Plaintiffs will be called back to active duty depends on future unknown events,

and is
thereby both hypothetical and speculative. See Bates v. Rumsfeld, 271 F. Supp. 2d

54, 62 (D.
D.C. 2002) (where plaintiff challenging the military’s policy of forcing personnel to

receive
anthrax vaccine was no longer on active duty and the vaccine was only being

administered to
select units, plaintiff did not meet requirement that injury be concrete and actual or

imminent).
As such, inactive or former military personnel fail to meet the Article III standing
requirements.
c. State Representatives
The Complaint additionally identifies a group of “Plaintiff State Representatives” as
having “unique standing.” Compl. ¶ 8. While the Complaint does not specifically

identify these
representatives serving in the state government, from the caption of the Complaint it

appears
they are Tennessee Representative Glen Casada; New Hampshire Representative

Timothy
Comerford; Missouri Representative Cynthia Davis; Missouri Representative Timothy

Jones;
Tennessee Representative Frank Niceley; and Tennessee Representative Eric

Swafford
(collectively, the “State Representatives”).
The Complaint alleges that the State Representatives have “a special non-delegable
constitutional right and responsibility to verify the qualifications of the Chief Executive

Officer
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 9 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
of the United States of America who is responsible for allocating large sums of funds,

since
receipt of funds from any officer without legal authority would be complicity in theft or
conversion.” Id. Defendants argue that this allegation is “wholly insufficient to

constitute
injury-in-fact” because it is “neither actual or imminent” and is “highly speculative.” Mot.

8:13-
14. Morever, Defendants assert that the allegation fails to “withstand any logical

scrutiny”
because the causes of action of theft and conversion require intent. Id. Since

Plaintiffs state that
they do not know with certainty that President Obama was not born in the United

States, they do
not have the requisite intent to be held liable for theft or conversion. Id. 8:8-21.
In effect, Plaintiffs allege that the State Representatives have standing because they

could
be held liable for theft or conversion should they accept federal funds pursuant to an
unconstitutionally elected president. The threat of liability for theft or conversion

against these
representatives is highly speculative. See City of South Lake Tahoe, 625 F.2d at 238

(exposure
of plaintiffs to civil liability was wholly speculative where no lawsuit was currently

threatened);
see also O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 497, 94 S. Ct. 669 (1974) (“attempting to

anticipate”
whether respondent will be charged with a crime which will possibly lead to them

suffering a
constitutional violation takes the Court into “the area of speculation and conjecture”).

The State
Representatives’ liability for theft or conversion is speculative because it takes

multiple logical
leaps to assume that the representatives would be prosecuted criminally for theft and

conversion
for taking funds from the President who has been elected and sworn into office.

Because the
alleged harm faced by the State Representatives is highly speculative and conjectural,

this group
also fails to satisfy the standing requirements.
Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiffs allege State Representatives have standing

based on
an oath to uphold the Constitution, the allegation is insufficient to establish standing

under the
reasoning of City of South Lake Tahoe, as discussed above.
d. Federal Taxpayers
Plaintiffs argue that they have standing to challenge President Obama’s

unconstitutional
presidency as federal taxpayers. However, Plaintiffs concede that current Supreme

Court
precedent would not allow for standing in this situation and that the Court could only

find
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 10 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
taxpayer standing should it expand the Supreme Court’s holdings. Pl. P.B.’s Opp’n

19:22-20:11.
As a basis for this standing, Plaintiffs encourage the Court to expand the Supreme

Court
holding in Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S. Ct. 1942 (1968). In Flast, federal

taxpayers sought
to enjoin the expenditure of federal funds by Congress on the purchase of textbooks

and other
materials for use in parochial schools on grounds that it violated the Establishment

Clause of the
First Amendment. Id. at 85. The Supreme Court rejected the Government’s position

that
standing could never be established on the basis of taxpayer status and held that

taxpayer
standing could be established if the taxpayer demonstrates “that the challenged

enactment
exceeds specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of the

congressional taxing
and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the

powers delegated
to Congress” by Article 1, Section 8. Id. at 103. The Court stated that it lacked

confidence that
the issues would be framed with the necessary specificity to establish standing in

cases “where a
taxpayer seeks to employ a federal court as a forum in which to air his generalized

grievances
about the conduct of government or the allocation of power in the Federal System.”

Id. at 106.
Flast involved the challenge of congressional spending, whereas Plaintiffs in this case
appear to be challenging the President’s role in making any executive decisions,

presumably
including spending, even though Congress, not the President, is granted the taxing

and spending
power in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Plaintiffs’ taxpayer standing argument

ties into
their universal argument that if the President has been elected without meeting the

Constitution’s
requirements, then every presidential order is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs’ dispute

against the
President is a generalized grievance, not tied to a specific spending measure in

violation of the
Constitution. Tellingly, Plaintiffs make no argument pertaining to a particular spending
provision, and their argument does not even relate to the limits of the congressional

taxing and
spending power as discussed in Flast.
Plaintiffs encourage the Court to expand standing grounds, arguing that the reasoning

of
Flast regarding the Establishment Clause is analogous to the natural born citizen

clause because
it is “an absolute limitation on the unconstitutional exercise of power by government

whose
effect (i.e. injury) will always be by definition diffuse rather than particularized.” Pl.

P.B.’s
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 11 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
Opp’n 20:5-11. Even ignoring the fact that Flast’s holding was limited to Establishment

Clause
claims which are not present here, Flast clearly required that in order for taxpayer

status to
create standing, the taxpayer must demonstrate a nexus between the challenged

spending and the
constitutional right. Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 605,

127 S. Ct.
2553 (2007) (requiring a “link” between congressional action and constitutional

violation).
Here, Plaintiffs do not show a nexus between any challenged spending provision

passed by
Congress and the constitutional requirement that the President be a natural born

citizen. See
Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 228, 94 S. Ct. 2925

(1974)
(taxpayers did not have standing because they failed to establish a nexus between the

challenged
act and the constitutional violation where the challenged action was one of the

executive
branch).
Under Flast, Plaintiffs do not have standing as taxpayers to challenge the President’s
qualifications. Furthermore, expanding the Supreme Court’s holding in Flast to the

current
situation would be contrary to later Supreme Court jurisprudence reaffirming the

narrow
circumstances in which taxpayer status establishes standing. See, e.g., Hein, 551

U.S. at 615
(rejecting broad reading of Flast and affirming its application only to Congressional

action,
stating, “in the four decades since Flast was decided, we have never extended its

narrow
exception to a purely discretionary Executive Branch expenditure.”); Bowen v.

Kendrick, 487
U.S. 589, 618, 108 S. Ct. 2562 (1988) (reaffirming Flast and acknowledging that Flast

creates
only a “narrow exception” to the “general rule against taxpayer standing”). The

taxpayer
plaintiffs have failed to allege injury-in-fact.
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 12 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
e. Relatives
The Complaint further alleges that Plaintiff Kurt Fuqua (“Fuqua”) has “traced his
genealogy to be common with Mr. Obama’s” and that he thereby has standing

because of
“family relationship” and “concerns of the family medical history.” Compl. ¶¶ 49, 52.

The
Court finds that Plaintiff Fuqua also fails to satisfy standing requirements based on his

alleged
familial ties to President Obama. The Complaint alleges that this family relationship,

as well as
purported concerns Plaintiff has regarding his family medical history, establish

standing. Id. ¶
52. The Court takes this to mean that Fuqua has a greater interest in finding out where

President
Obama was born than the average citizen. Plaintiff Fuqua’s injury from an allegedly

unqualified
president is not any greater than the common citizen’s injury simply because he is

allegedly
related to President Obama.
The “general right” of “every citizen, to require that the government be administered
according to law” is insufficient to establish standing. Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S.

126, 129,
42 S. Ct. 274 (1922). Plaintiff’s stake in this controversy as a citizen is no greater than

the
millions of other United States citizens, and the harm he alleges is too vague. As such,

Fuqua
has not alleged an injury-in-fact because the grievance of a citizen in the alleged

violation of the
natural born citizen clause is too generalized. See Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp.

2d 63 (D.
N.H. 2008); Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2008).
f. Political Candidates
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs Wiley S. Drake (“Drake”), Alan Keyes (“Keyes”),
Gail Lightfoot (“Lightfoot”), and Markham Robinson (“Robinson”) have “unique political
standing” because they appeared on the California ballot as candidates for president

or vice
president in the 2008 national election. Compl. ¶ 5. Keyes was the presidential

nominee for the
American Independent Party (also called America’s Independent Party on some

ballots) in the
2008 Presidential election, and Plaintiff Drake was the vice presidential nominee for

the
American Independent Party in the 2008 Presidential election on the California ballot.

Pl.
W.D.’s Opp’n 1:6-13. Lightfoot was also a vice presidential nominee for the American
Independent Party. Plaintiff Robinson was “a pledged Presidential elector for the

American
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 13 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
Independent Party in the 2008 Presidential election for the California ballot.” Id.
In order to establish injury-in-fact, the injury must “affect the plaintiff in a personal and
individual way.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61 n.1. Defendants argue that the political

candidate
plaintiffs have failed to establish injury-in-fact because they were not serious enough

contenders
for the presidency that another candidate’s alleged lack of qualifications for the

position could
cause them any harm. Notably, President Obama’s primary opponent for the

Democratic Party
nomination, Secretary Hillary Clinton, and President Obama’s Republican Party

opponent,
Senator John McCain, did not initiate any suits against President Obama regarding his

birth
status. These candidates, who were poised to benefit the most from the removal of

Obama as a
candidate, chose to refrain from bringing suit under the natural born citizen clause.
Defendants argue that because the third party political candidates would have lost the
election in any event, they have not been harmed by competing against a candidate

who did not
qualify. Defendants state that the Plaintiffs cannot meet the injury-in-fact requirement

because
they “cannot counter the argument that, from a simple mathematical analysis, . . . they

were not
on the ballot in enough states in the 2008 Presidential election to even hope that they

could gain
the requisite 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency or Vice Presidency of the

United States.”
Defs.’ Reply 3:6-11. If there should in fact be a dividing line for that is dependent on

the
likelihood of success in the election, then this is not a case which would hover on that

line as
Plaintiffs received only four-hundredth of one percent of the vote. The Court may have

already
met this entire group of voters at the hearings on this matter.
In this case, it does seem highly unlikely that the replacement of President Obama

with
another Democratic nominee such as Hillary Clinton would have resulted in a victory

for
Plaintiffs Keyes, Drake, or Lightfoot of the American Independent Party. However,

creating a
dividing line for standing according to chance of success in political elections is, by

the nature of
our political system, an especially difficult determination because political elections

lack
predictability and can be greatly affected by a single speech or action of a candidate.

At the
same time, perhaps it is precisely this unpredictability of political elections that makes

the claim
of a third party candidate, who received less than one percent of the popular vote in

the 2008
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 14 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
national election that did take place, too speculative to establish standing.
In addition, Defendants’ arguments raise obvious slippery slope objections. Would a
candidate such as Ross Perot, who received nearly twenty percent of the popular vote

but no
electoral college votes in the 1992 election, have a sufficiently strong chance of

winning the
election to establish standing to challenge a major party candidate’s qualifications? At

the same
time, if every candidate has standing to challenge an opposing candidate, would that

include
write-in candidates who receive minimal votes? Where to draw the line between which

political
candidates have standing and which candidates do not have standing to challenge

their opposing
candidates’ qualifications is an amorphous determination that would need to take into

account, at
the very least, the number of states in which the candidate was on the ballot.
The Court is troubled by the idea that a third party candidate would not have standing

to
challenge a major party candidate’s qualifications, while the opposing major party

candidate
may be able to establish standing because he or she has a better chance of winning

the election.
Defendants’ argument encourages the marginalization of the voice of a third party in

what is a
dominantly two-party political system and would require the Court to pass judgment

that
Plaintiffs are such unlikely candidates that who they are running against would not

make a
difference. This argument also ignores the tremendous effect that a third-party

candidate can
have on the presidential election. In 2000, many political commentators opined that

should
Green Party candidate Ralph Nader not have run for presidential office and received

less than
three percent of the popular vote, Al Gore would have won the election instead of

President
George W. Bush. Even when third-party candidates themselves may not have a

chance of
winning, which candidates they compete against can certainly have an effect on the

election
results.
Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson argue that it is irrelevant that those candidates which

had
the most to gain by removing Obama as a candidate, Secretary Clinton and Senator

McCain, are
not the candidates challenging President Obama. Plaintiffs encourage the Court to

reject
Defendants’ success-based concept of standing. They make a qualitatively different

argument
regarding why they have suffered injury as political candidates, an argument that does

not
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 15 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
require the Court to consider their likelihood of winning the election. Plaintiffs argue

that the
injury they suffered was the deprivation of the right to run for office on a fair playing

field
against only candidates who meet the constitutional requirements to serve as

President. Under
this theory, the injury is not that of being deprived the chance to win, but being

deprived the
chance to compete only against “legitimate” candidates. If the Court accepts this

concept of
injury, then all candidates would have standing to sue the President on the basis that

they were
all injured by having to compete against him in the national election.
Because the political candidate plaintiffs are the only category of plaintiffs who
potentially satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement, the Court will turn to whether the

political
candidates can satisfy the redressability requirement of the standing analysis and

whether the
political candidates can further clear the political question and separation of powers

hurdles of
justiciability.
B. Redressability, Political Question, and Separation of Powers
The third prong of Article III standing requires that the alleged injury be likely to be
“redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 (citations omitted). The
redressability prong requires the court to “examine whether ‘the court has the power to

right or
to prevent the claimed injury.’” Railway Labor Executives Ass’n v. Dole, 760 F.2d

1021, 1023
(9th Cir. 1985) (quoting Gonzales v. Gorusch, 688 F.2d 1263, 1267 (9th Cir. 1985)).

While
standing generally focuses upon the potential plaintiff and his or her relationship to the

alleged
harm, the redressability prong of standing turns the focus upon the type of redress

that the court
is able to offer to the plaintiff. Courts will refrain from finding standing in cases where,
regardless of a showing of injury-in-fact, the court would be unable to offer redress

that would
cure plaintiff’s harm. See Railway Labor Executives Ass’n, 760 F.2d at 1023-24

(plaintiffs
failed to satisfy redressability prong where court did not have the power to “fashion[]

an
enforcement manual for an executive branch agency that was presumably

commissioned by
Congress to devise its own enforcement strategy”).
Ultimately, Plaintiffs’ alleged injury is having to respect the authority of a president who
does not meet the constitutional requirements to hold office. Therefore, Plaintiffs’

injury would
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 16 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17
only be redressed by the removal of President Obama from office. Plaintiffs thereby

ask this
Court to intervene and overthrow a president who was elected by “We the People”–

over sixtynine
million of the people. President Obama was popularly elected. He received the

requisite
votes from the Electoral College, which were received and counted by Congress with

no
objections. President Obama took office at noon on January 20, 2009 pursuant to the

Twentieth
Amendment. He was sworn in on January 20, 2009, and re-sworn in on January 21,

2009,
pledging the oath set forth in Article II, Section 1, cl. 8 of the Constitution: “I do

solemnly swear
(or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and

will to
the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United

States.” In
order for Plaintiffs’ alleged injury to be fully addressed, Plaintiffs would have the Court
intervene, upheave the results of a national election, declare the President illegitimate,

shut down
the functioning of the government of the United States, and leave this country

defenseless.
Furthermore, if the Court accepts Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson’s conceptualization of
their injury as the harm of being unable to compete in an election with only “legitimate”
candidates, redressing the injury of competing in an unfair election would require that

the Court
order a new national presidential election. Instead of impeachment, which would allow
succession by the Vice President and continuation of the order of a functioning

government,
Plaintiffs seek to shut down the government through an injunction and install a

replacement
government through a new election. In other words, if the political candidates’ harm is

based on
their inability to compete against constitutionally qualified candidates, in order to

redress that
harm the Court would not only have to remove the President, it would have to order a

new
national election.
The analysis of redressability and political question is significantly different in the
context of a sitting president than it would be for a presidential candidate. Therefore, it

is a
crucial distinction that Plaintiffs’ counsel waited to bring this action until after President
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 17 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 Plaintiffs’ counsel Taitz admitted that the failure to bring a suit before this Court
previous to the President’s assumption of office was the fault of counsel due to in-

fighting
between plaintiffs and between her and counsel Kreep. As stated in the October 5

hearing on
this matter:
THE COURT: Just a moment. You didn’t answer my question.
Why didn’t you file this case?
MS. TAITZ: Because the plaintiffs wanted to wait for Mr. Kreep.
THE COURT: So that’s a conscious choice on the plaintiffs’ team,
then, that you acceded to at that time to put this case in the posture
and position of a duly sworn President.
MS. TAITZ: Well, again, Your Honor, not duly sworn President.
If one is sworn based on fraudulent information, then the word
“duly” wouldn’t. . .
Tr. of Oral Argument 52-53, Oct. 5, 2009.
18
Obama’s formal assumption into office.1 See Wilbur v. Locke, 423 F.3d 1101, 1107

(9th Cir.
2005) (quoting Kitty Hawk Aircargo, Inc. v. Chao, 418 F.3d 453, 460 (5th Cir. 2005))

(“‘As with
all questions of subject matter jurisdiction except mootness, standing is determined

as of the date
of the filing of the complaint . . .’”).
Because Plaintiffs did not file this action until the day President Obama took office

and
was sworn in, any action that this Court takes in this matter is not merely against

Senator Obama
as a political candidate but against President Obama, this country’s sitting president.

In this
case, the redressability prong of standing is intimately intertwined with and influenced

by
another justiciability concept–political question and the separation of powers. Any

action taken
by the Court would necessarily infringe upon, at the very least, the Executive branch

because it
would involve a declaration regarding the qualifications of the President. Because the
redressability analysis must consider what actions the Court may take against a sitting

President,
separation of powers concerns regarding the appropriate role of the judiciary sit at the

forefront
of the redressability analysis.
Plaintiffs have requested both an injunction and a declaratory judgment in the

Complaint.
Compl. ¶¶ 11-22. Plaintiffs would have the Court reverse the election of President

Obama by
the American people through a declaratory judgment or injunction that would result in

the
removal of the President from office. The power of this Court generally to issue an

injunction or
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 18 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2 The inclusion of the First Lady in this lawsuit, considering she holds no
constitutional office, is baffling.
19
declaratory judgment against the President is limited at best. The Supreme Court has

stated that
enjoining a President is an “extraordinary” action that should “raise[ ] judicial

eyebrows.”
Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 802, 112 S. Ct. 2767 (1992) (plurality

opinion). It has
also stated that “in general ‘this court has no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President

in the
performance of his official duties.’” Id. at 802-03 (quoting Mississippi v. Johnson, 71

U.S. 475,
501 (1866)).
In addition, Plaintiffs have requested that other officials, including Secretary of

Defense
Robert Gates, be enjoined. In their original complaint, Plaintiffs also included FBI

Director
Robert Mueller. While Plaintiffs removed Mueller in their First Amended Complaint

following
the Court’s suggestion that they narrow and focus their claims, they insisted upon the

continued
inclusion of the First Lady, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Vice

President as
Defendants.2 Plaintiffs’ cause of action is against the President and goes to the heart

of the
President’s ability to hold office. A remedy directed toward any subordinate officials

would not
redress Plaintiffs’ injury. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ injury could not be redressed through the
injunction of other subordinate executive officials which may be more properly within

the power
of this Court. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S. Ct.

863 (1952).
The case of Newdow v. Bush is instructive regarding the power of the Court to issue

an
injunction or declaratory judgment against the President. In Newdow, the court

considered
whether plaintiff had standing to seek a preliminary injunction against President Bush

restraining
him from inviting clergy to give a religious prayer at his inauguration. 355 F. Supp. 2d

265, 268
(D. D.C. 2005). The court observed that issuing an injunction against the President

“raises
serious separation of powers concerns” and further asserted that “[t]here is

longstanding legal
authority that the judiciary lacks the power to issue an injunction or declaratory

judgment against
the co-equal branches of the government–the President and the Congress.” Id. at

280. The court
rejected the argument that there should be an exception read into the President’s

immunity
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 19 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
“where he is claimed to have violated the Constitution.” Id. at 282. Further, the court

found that
the same considerations foreclosing the possibility of issuing an injunction against the

President
foreclosed the possibility of issuing a request for declaratory judgment. Id. at 281.
In this case, Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that President Obama is not a
constitutionally elected president. Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to enjoin the

President from
issuing a particular order; they request that President Obama be enjoined from issuing

any orders
whatsoever and be enjoined from holding the office of President. Plaintiffs make it

clear from
their briefing that they believe that any order issued by a president who does not

satisfy the
natural-born citizen clause is unconstitutional. Therefore, in order to cure Plaintiffs’

perceived
injury, the Court would need to wade deep into the waters of the President’s official

duties–in
fact, it would have to declare that the President could no longer perform any official

duties. The
separation of powers concerns implicated by this request are grave.
Beyond the general power of this Court to issue an injunction or declaratory judgment
against the President, the Court must consider its power to take any action removing

the
President from office. Defendants have argued that the Court cannot suitably redress

any injury
to Plaintiffs because the Court does not have the power to upseat the President. They

further
argue that because the Court lacks this power, any declaratory judgment issued by the

Court
finding that the President was not qualified to hold his office would be a nullity.
Removing the President would not only affect the Executive branch, it may also

infringe
upon the power of the Legislative branch granted by the Constitution in matters of

Presidential
impeachment and succession. Defendants argue that the Constitution grants

Congress the sole
power to remove a president through Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which address

impeachment,
and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, which addresses the removal of the president

should he or
she be unfit to serve.
The non-justiciability of an action on political question grounds is “primarily a function
of the separation of powers” and pertains to “the relationship between the judiciary

and the
coordinate branches of the Federal Government.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210,

82 S. Ct.
691 (1962). The key inquiry is whether the matter has “in any measure been

committed by the
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 20 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21
Constitution to another branch of government.” Id. at 211. The Supreme Court has set

forth
factors indicating the existence of a political question:
Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a
political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional
commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a
lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for
resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy
determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the
impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without
expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of
government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a
political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment
from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one
question.
Id. at 217.
Thus, the Court turns to the first factor set forth in Baker v. Carr–whether the Court

finds
a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate

political
department.” Id. The natural born citizen clause is couched in absolute terms of

qualifications
and does not designate which branch should evaluate whether the qualifications are

fulfilled.
Therefore, the Court necessarily turns to a structural analysis of the Constitution

regarding the
role of the respective branches of government in deciding the qualifications of a

sitting president
to hold office.
Three provisions of the Constitution speak to which branch of government has the

power
to evaluate the qualifications of a president: the Twelfth Amendment, the Twenty-Fifth
Amendment, and the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution. The Twelfth

Amendment
provides a role for Congress to make the ultimate determination of who shall be

president and
vice president through the counting of the electoral votes. The Twenty-Fifth

Amendment, which
addresses the succession to presidency and vice presidency in the case the

president is disabled,
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 21 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3 Plaintiffs presume that the words of Emmerich de Vattel, John Jay, and John
Armor Bingham alone empower this Court to define the natural born citizen clause.

The
Complaint conveniently chooses to ignore Congress’ long history of defining

citizenship,
whether naturalized or by birth. See Charles Gordon, “Who Can be President of the

United
States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968) (contrasting 150

years of active
Congressional legislation against judicial restraint).
22
including by death or resignation, directs that in the case where there is disagreement

as to
whether the President is able to discharge the powers and duties of his or her office,

“Congress
shall decide the issue.”
The Twentieth Amendment, known as the “Lame Duck Amendment,” addresses the

task
of ensuring that someone holds the office of president in the case of the death of a

president or
the failure of a president to be chosen or qualify by the beginning of his or her term.

The
Twentieth Amendment provides: “If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of

the
President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become

President. If
a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his

term, or if
the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act

as President
until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the

case wherein
neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who

shall then
act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such

person
shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
Even though these provisions of the Constitution tend to suggest that, at least in some
circumstances, it is within the province of Congress to decide whether the President

meets the
qualifications to serve,3 the Court cannot reach the issue of whether in all cases the

interpretation
of the natural born citizen clause would present a political question. Instead, because

redress of
Plaintiffs’ alleged harm would require removal of President Obama, the key analysis is

whether
the power to remove a sitting president from office is textually committed to another

branch.
The Constitution grants to Congress the sole power of impeachment of the President.

The
Constitution reads, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

When sitting
for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the

United States
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 22 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23
is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the
Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 3, cl. 6. In

Nixon v.
United States, when considering the issue of whether the Court could review the

manner in
which the Senate conducted impeachment proceedings, the Supreme Court focused

on the grant
of “sole” power to try impeachments to the Senate, noting that the definition of sole is
“‘functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference.’” 506 U.S. 224,

231,
113 S. Ct. 732 (1993). The Court ruled that the text of the impeachment clause

indicated a
purposeful decision by the Framers to commit impeachment to the Legislative branch.

Id. at
235-36. Furthermore, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment sets forth the line of succession

“in case of
the removal of the president from office” or in case of his or her death, resignation, or

inability
to serve. The Amendment specifies a role for Congress in this process, but no role

for the
judiciary. The combination of Article I and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment leads the

Court to
conclude that there is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue

of the
removal of a sitting president to a coordinate political department–the Legislative

branch.
In Nixon, the Court also discussed prudential considerations that counseled against
judicial review of Senate impeachment proceedings. 506 U.S. at 252 n.4. While Nixon

involved
the impeachment of a judge, the Court commented on the dangers of judicial review

of
impeachment of the President:
This lack of finality would manifest itself most dramatically if
the President were impeached. The legitimacy of any successor, and
hence its effectiveness, would be impaired severely, not merely
while the judicial process was running its course, but during any
retrial that a differently constituted Senate might conduct if its first
judgment of conviction were invalidated.
506 U.S. at 236. The potential upheaval to this country that would result from a branch

other
than Congress ruling on the removal of the President weighs heavily in this case as

well. The
founders of the Constitution created impeachment to allow an orderly process of

transition and
succession during which the country can continue to function. Plaintiffs’ request,

asking this
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 23 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24
Court to sweep away the votes of over sixty-nine million Americans with the stroke of a

pen and
order a new election during which the country would be in a state of turmoil, ignores

the
Constitution’s processes and separation of powers that were developed by the

founders.
Evaluation of the other Baker v. Carr factors confirms that refraining from taking
jurisdiction over this matter is appropriate. Specifically, the factors of (1) “the

impossibility of a
court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due

coordinate
branches of government;” (2) “an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a

political
decision already made;” and (3) “the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious
pronouncements by various departments on one question” all support the impropriety

of
assuming jurisdiction. 369 U.S. at 217.
At oral argument, Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson encouraged the Court to find that the
redressability prong has been satisfied on the basis that President Obama’s removal

from office
would not require impeachment, which they agree is reserved by the Constitution for

Congress.
Because President Obama never met the constitutional requirements to run for

President, they
argue, he was never a valid candidate and could not be validly elected. Because he

does not
validly hold the office of President, he would not be subject to the Constitution’s

requirements
regarding the removal of a president from office through impeachment. Finally, they

reasoned
that, because whatever alternative process would be required to remove the

President is not set
forth in the Constitution, it is not clearly reserved for another branch and is therefore

within the
province of this Court.
There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the

natural
born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate

who has not
already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama

took the
presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any

removal of
him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s

mechanisms for the
removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set

forth in the
Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress

by
convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for

the
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 24 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25
removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal

for any
reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.
This case highlights the complicated relationship between the redressability prong of
standing and the political question doctrine in cases where the plaintiff’s injuries can

only be
addressed through a court taking action against another branch of the government.

Because the
Court finds that it does not have the power nor the right to redress the political

candidates’ injury
by removing a sitting President from office, the Court does not have jurisdiction as to

the
political candidates’ claims on the basis that they fail to satisfy the redressability

requirement of
Article III standing.
Therefore, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction because Plaintiffs have failed to
establish standing on injury-in-fact and redressability grounds. Plaintiffs’ declaratory

relief,
injunction, and Section 1983 claims are DISMISSED.
C. Quo Warranto Claims
Plaintiffs encourage the Court to issue a quo warranto writ against President Obama
challenging the President’s right to hold his office. The Complaint recognizes that the

District of
Columbia would be the appropriate district in which to bring this writ, but alleges that

bringing
this request to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia would be

futile
because the United States Attorney is biased and Judge Robertson within that district

had already
rejected a similar case in which President Obama’s qualifications were challenged.

Compl. ¶¶
32 - 35.
The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because
President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified

in the
District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United

States
District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a

person who
within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a
franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or

military.”
D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 - 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of

the
United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that

person must
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 25 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
26
receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted,

according
to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.
At oral argument, Plaintiffs encouraged the Court to apply the District of Columbia’s

quo
warranto statute pursuant to California choice-of-law provisions because the District of
Columbia is the residence of Defendants. Plaintiffs’ contention is wholly misplaced

because,
while this Court can apply the law of other jurisdictions where appropriate, it is

precluded from
robbing the D.C. court of jurisdiction as to any quo warranto writ against President

Obama
because the D.C. Code grants exclusive jurisdiction to the District Court for the

District of
Columbia. Plaintiffs’ quo warranto demand is hereby DISMISSED for improper venue.
D. Discovery and Freedom of Information Act Claims
Plaintiffs argue that they have been ignored by several government agencies in their

quest
to receive Obama’s long-form Hawaiian birth certificate and other information such as

his
passport records. See Compl. ¶¶ 86 - 109. Plaintiffs have indicated that they plan to

seek
extensive discovery in this case, including the deposition and appearance in court of

President
Obama and the request through a letter rogatory to the government of Kenya for the

birth
certificate that they allege proves he was born in Kenya. See Mot. for Issuance of

Letters
Rogatory for Authentication of Kenyan Birth Certificate (Aug. 1, 2009); Special Mot.

For Leave
to Conduct Pre-R. 26(f) Discovery (Aug. 1, 2009) (“Plaintiffs . . . intend on taking the

following
depositions: a. Barack Hussein Obama; b. Cheryl Fukino; c. Speaker of the House of
Representatives, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi; d. Commissioner of Social Security;

e. All other
Defendants . . .”). Plaintiffs appear to assume that should the Court receive a

document from
Kenya, the Court would give credence to this document over the American birth

records of the
President and the case would be resolved. Even should the Court permit the issuance

of a letter
rogatory to Kenya, the Court would still engage in a comparative exercise in which the

records
of America, which has historically maintained some of the most credible

recordkeeping practices
in the world, would be contrasted with the credibility of the records obtained from

Kenya. Such
an analysis would seemingly favor the records of the United States.
As support for their right to these documents, Plaintiffs purport to state a claim under

the
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 26 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27
Freedom of Information Act. The Complaint states, “The Plaintiffs as a group may not

have
adhered closely or precisely to the letter of FOIA in all of their approaches to the

current
administration for information, but this court has assured them that the present case

will be
decided on its legal merits and factual substance, and not on procedural

irregularities.” Compl. ¶
59. In Plaintiffs’ briefing, they state, “Plaintiffs can and do allege exhaustion of FOIA
requirements as a practical and substantive matter.” Pl. P.B.’s Opp’n 8:27-28.
However, even ignoring the fact that Plaintiffs appear to admit that they have not
complied with FOIA requirements in their requests for information, Plaintiffs’ claim fails
because FOIA does not apply to Defendants. FOIA only applies to entities qualifying

as an
“agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2). The statute defines “agency” as, “any executive

department,
military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or

other
establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive

Office of the
President), or any independent regulatory agency.” Id. at § 551(1). The Executive

Office of the
President is an agency within the Executive branch and is a body separate from the

President
himself. All of the Defendants–President Obama, Michelle Obama, Secretary Clinton,

Vice
President Biden, and Secretary Gates–are individuals, not agencies. Therefore,

Plaintiffs fail to
state a claim against these individuals under FOIA and the claim is hereby

DISMISSED.
E. Claims Against the Remaining Defendants
Plaintiffs have also named Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, and Robert
Gates as defendants. Plaintiffs made overtures at pleading a civil Racketeer

Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. against all
Defendants. However, the pleading only states that while Plaintiffs had “accumulated

several
dossiers of evidence” suggesting a civil RICO conspiracy, they were unable to

actually set forth
a RICO pleading “[b]ecause of the complexity of RICO.” Compl. ¶¶ 123-25. Plaintiffs
originally filed this action on January 20, 2009, and the First Amended Complaint at

issue was
filed on July 15, 2009. Nearly six months was more than sufficient time for Plaintiffs to

at least
attempt to set forth civil RICO allegations. The failure to do so is inexcusable, and as

Plaintiffs
have failed to state any claim whatsoever against Defendants Michelle Obama,

Clinton, Biden,
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 27 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28
and Gates, all claims against them are DISMISSED.
F. Conduct of Plaintiffs’ Counsel
The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz
have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric

seeking
to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a

lawyer
seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no

desire to
chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts

of her cocounsel
Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious
issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a

chance to be
heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the

legal
arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric.
This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard

at all
by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple

hearings to
ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect

service. While
the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were

not
properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after

the
Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make

significant
accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply

with court
rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur

Nakazato on
the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’

Mot. For
Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse

Mag. J.
Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8,

2009).
Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she

did not want
to work with their new counsel. See id.
Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls.

It
was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to

attempt to
influence this Court's decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the

Court has
not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court's decision.
Case 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN Document 89 Filed 10/29/2009 Page 28 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential
witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court

is deeply
concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to

bring before
this Court.
While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to

be
heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to

influence this
Court.
IV. DISPOSITION
Plaintiffs have expressed frustration with the notion that this case could be dismissed

on
separation of powers, political question, or standing grounds, asserting that these are

mere
“technicalities” obstructing Plaintiffs from being able to resolve the case on the merits

of
President Obama’s birth and constitutional qualifications. As the Supreme Court has

stated, “It
is indeed a singular misconception of the nature and character of our constitutional

system of
government to suggest that the settled distinction . . . between judicial authority over

justiciable
controversies and legislative power as to purely political questions tends to destroy

the duty of
the judiciary in proper cases to enforce the Constitution.”

The Greenback Effect By WARREN E. BUFFETT

2009-08-19T06:22:00.001-04:00

August 19, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
The Greenback Effect
By WARREN E. BUFFETT

Omaha

IN nature, every action has consequences, a phenomenon called the butterfly effect. These consequences, moreover, are not necessarily proportional. For example, doubling the carbon dioxide we belch into the atmosphere may far more than double the subsequent problems for society. Realizing this, the world properly worries about greenhouse emissions.

The butterfly effect reaches into the financial world as well. Here, the United States is spewing a potentially damaging substance into our economy — greenback emissions.

To be sure, we’ve been doing this for a reason I resoundingly applaud. Last fall, our financial system stood on the brink of a collapse that threatened a depression. The crisis required our government to display wisdom, courage and decisiveness. Fortunately, the Federal Reserve and key economic officials in both the Bush and Obama administrations responded more than ably to the need.

They made mistakes, of course. How could it have been otherwise when supposedly indestructible pillars of our economic structure were tumbling all around them? A meltdown, though, was avoided, with a gusher of federal money playing an essential role in the rescue.

The United States economy is now out of the emergency room and appears to be on a slow path to recovery. But enormous dosages of monetary medicine continue to be administered and, before long, we will need to deal with their side effects. For now, most of those effects are invisible and could indeed remain latent for a long time. Still, their threat may be as ominous as that posed by the financial crisis itself.

To understand this threat, we need to look at where we stand historically. If we leave aside the war-impacted years of 1942 to 1946, the largest annual deficit the United States has incurred since 1920 was 6 percent of gross domestic product. This fiscal year, though, the deficit will rise to about 13 percent of G.D.P., more than twice the non-wartime record. In dollars, that equates to a staggering $1.8 trillion. Fiscally, we are in uncharted territory.

Because of this gigantic deficit, our country’s “net debt” (that is, the amount held publicly) is mushrooming. During this fiscal year, it will increase more than one percentage point per month, climbing to about 56 percent of G.D.P. from 41 percent. Admittedly, other countries, like Japan and Italy, have far higher ratios and no one can know the precise level of net debt to G.D.P. at which the United States will lose its reputation for financial integrity. But a few more years like this one and we will find out.

An increase in federal debt can be financed in three ways: borrowing from foreigners, borrowing from our own citizens or, through a roundabout process, printing money. Let’s look at the prospects for each individually — and in combination.

The current account deficit — dollars that we force-feed to the rest of the world and that must then be invested — will be $400 billion or so this year. Assume, in a relatively benign scenario, that all of this is directed by the recipients — China leads the list — to purchases of United States debt. Never mind that this all-Treasuries allocation is no sure thing: some countries may decide that purchasing American stocks, real estate or entire companies makes more sense than soaking up dollar-denominated bonds. Rumblings to that effect have recently increased.

Then take the second element of the scenario — borrowing from our own citizens. Assume that Americans save $500 billion, far above what they’ve saved recently but perhaps consistent with the changing national mood. Finally, assume that these citizens opt to put all their savings into United States Treasuries (partly through intermediaries like banks).

Even with these heroic assumptions, the Treasury will be obliged to find another $900 billion to finance the remainder of the $1.8 trillion of debt it is issuing. Washington’s printing presses will need to work overtime.

Slowing them down will require extraordinary political will. With government expenditures now running 185 percent of receipts, truly major changes in both taxes and outlays will be required. A revived economy can’t come close to bridging that sort of gap.

Legislators will correctly perceive that either raising taxes or cutting expenditures will threaten their re-election. To avoid this fate, they can opt for high rates of inflation, which never require a recorded vote and cannot be attributed to a specific action that any elected official takes. In fact, John Maynard Keynes long ago laid out a road map for political survival amid an economic disaster of just this sort: “By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.... The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

I want to emphasize that there is nothing evil or destructive in an increase in debt that is proportional to an increase in income or assets. As the resources of individuals, corporations and countries grow, each can handle more debt. The United States remains by far the most prosperous country on earth, and its debt-carrying capacity will grow in the future just as it has in the past.

But it was a wise man who said, “All I want to know is where I’m going to die so I’ll never go there.” We don’t want our country to evolve into the banana-republic economy described by Keynes.

Our immediate problem is to get our country back on its feet and flourishing — “whatever it takes” still makes sense. Once recovery is gained, however, Congress must end the rise in the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio and keep our growth in obligations in line with our growth in resources.

Unchecked carbon emissions will likely cause icebergs to melt. Unchecked greenback emissions will certainly cause the purchasing power of currency to melt. The dollar’s destiny lies with Congress.

Warren E. Buffett is the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, a diversified holding company.

Troy Anthony Davis Wins Federal Hearing

2009-08-18T00:59:00.004-04:00

Death Row Prisoner Wins Hearing
Supreme Court Orders Review of Evidence in Georgia Case

Troy Anthony Davis says evidence proves his innocence.
Troy Anthony Davis says evidence proves his innocence. (Savannah Morning News - AP)
Enlarge Photo
TOOLBOX
Resize
Print
E-mail
Yahoo! Buzz
ad_icon
COMMENT
19 Comments | View All »
POST A COMMENT
Your washingtonpost.com User ID, ma66, will be displayed with your comment.

Discussion Policy
Your browser's settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem.
Discussion Policy
CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging
» Links to this article
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 18, 2009

The Supreme Court on Monday took the rare step of ordering a federal judge to consider the innocence claims of condemned Georgia prisoner Troy Anthony Davis, who has mounted a global campaign to declare he was wrongfully convicted of murder and barred by federal law from presenting the evidence that would prove it.
This Story

*
Death Row Prisoner Wins Hearing
*
Full Coverage: Supreme Court

The court interrupted its summer recess to order a new hearing to determine "whether evidence that could not have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes" Davis's innocence.

Davis has come close to execution several times since he was convicted of the 1989 killing of off-duty Savannah police officer Mark Allen MacPhail. The case has spawned a national and international following, intense interest from Amnesty International and the NAACP, and support from Pope Benedict XVI, former president Jimmy Carter and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, among others.

Monday's court decision comes at a time when federal judges have complained that a law passed by Congress in 1996 to streamline the death penalty appeals process keeps them from getting to questions of innocence raised by condemned petitioners.

In Davis's case, liberal Judge Rosemary Barkett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit criticized the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's "thicket of procedural brambles," as well as her court's decision that the law barred Davis from presenting what he said is newfound evidence.

"AEDPA cannot possibly be applied when to do so would offend the Constitution and the fundamental concept of justice that an innocent man should not be executed," Barkett wrote in dissent.

Davis's lawyers filed a petition directly with the Supreme Court after lower federal courts said that, because he could point to no constitutional defects in the trial he received, he could not present new evidence that would show his innocence. Davis says that since his trial, seven of Georgia's nine key witnesses have recanted their testimony against him. He claims that the man who was the key witness against him was the actual shooter.

Justice Antonin Scalia objected to the court's decision to order a new hearing, an "extraordinary step" he said the court had not taken in nearly 50 years. Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, he called the action a "fool's errand" and a "confusing exercise that can serve no purpose except to delay the state's execution of its lawful criminal judgment."
ad_icon

At the heart of the issue is what federal courts are to do with claims of innocence by those convicted in state courts, when there were no constitutional violations at trial.

"This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent," Scalia wrote. "Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved."

But Justice John Paul Stevens, who countered Scalia's dissent in an opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, said the "substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing."

He suggested that it would be "arguably unconstitutional" for the federal law to not provide relief for a death row inmate who has established his innocence.

Newly installed Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not take part in the decision. The judgments of the other three justices -- Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. -- were not indicated in the court's order, although presumably at least two of the three agreed with the decision to order the new hearing.

Deborah Denno, a death penalty expert at Fordham Law School, said the decision was "certainly significant" and shows that the court is "paying attention to cases on death row" in which inmates are claiming federal law restricts their ability to present new evidence.

Kent Scheidegger, a capital punishment proponent at the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, said such claims "are quite rare," and that the court's "highly unusual action" posed no threat to the death penalty system.

Davis's lawyers believe they have established an impressive case for their client's innocence with the recantations and testimony from others that Davis was not the shooter. Scalia was not impressed, and he disputed the notion from Davis that no court has carefully considered his new claims.

"A state supreme court, a state board of pardons and paroles and a federal court of appeals have all considered the evidence Davis now presents and found it lacking," Scalia wrote.

But Stevens said that, under Scalia's argument, it would not matter how persuasive the evidence was. "Imagine a petitioner in Davis's situation who possesses new evidence conclusively and definitively proving, beyond any scintilla of doubt, that he is an innocent man," Stevens wrote. "The dissent's reasoning would allow such a petitioner to be put to death nonetheless. The court correctly refuses to endorse such reasoning."

Letter from an Israeli Jail By Cynthia McKinney

2009-07-06T03:19:00.001-04:00

Letter from an Israeli Jail
By Cynthia McKinney

This is Cynthia McKinney and I¹m speaking from an Israeli prison cellblock in Ramle. [I am one of] the Free Gaza 21, human rights activists currently imprisoned for trying to take medical supplies to Gaza, building supplies - and even crayons for children, I had a suitcase full of crayons for children. While we were on our way to Gaza the Israelis threatened to fire on our boat, but we did not turn around. The Israelis high-jacked and arrested us because we wanted to give crayons to the children in Gaza. We have been detained, and we want the people of the world to see how we have been treated just because we wanted to deliver humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza.

At the outbreak of Israel¹s Operation ŒCast Lead¹ [in December 2008], I boarded a Free Gaza boat with one day¹s notice and tried, as the US representative in a multi-national delegation, to deliver 3 tons of medical supplies to an already besieged and ravaged Gaza.

During Operation Cast Lead, U.S.-supplied F-16¹s rained hellfire on a trapped people. Ethnic cleansing became full scale outright genocide. U.S.-supplied white phosphorus, depleted uranium, robotic technology, DIME weapons, and cluster bombs20- new weapons creating injuries never treated before by Jordanian and Norwegian doctors. I was later told by doctors who were there in Gaza during Israel¹s onslaught that Gaza had become Israel¹s veritable weapons testing laboratory, people used to test and improve the kill ratio of their weapons.

The world saw Israel¹s despicable violence thanks to al-Jazeera Arabic and Press TV that broadcast in English. I saw those broadcasts live and around the clock, not from the USA but from Lebanon, where my first attempt to get into Gaza had ended because the Israeli military rammed the boat I was on in international water ... It¹s a miracle that I¹m even here to write about my second encounter with the Israeli military, again a humanitarian mission aborted by the Israeli military.

The Israeli authorities have tried to get us to confess that we committed a crime ... I am now known as Israeli prisoner number 88794. How can I be in prison for collecting crayons to kids?

Zionism has surely run out of its last legitimacy if this is what it does to people who believe so deeply in human rights for all that they put their own lives on the line for someone else¹s children. Israel is the fullest expression of Zionism, but if Israel fears for its security because Gaza¹s children have crayons then not only has Israel lost its last shred of legitimacy, but Israel must be declared a failed state.

I am facing deportation from the state that brought me here20at gunpoint after commandeering our boat. I was brought to Israel against my will. I am being held in this prison because I had a dream that Gaza¹s children could color & paint, that Gaza¹s wounded could be healed, and that Gaza¹s bombed-out houses could be rebuilt.

But I¹ve learned an interesting thing by being inside this prison. First of all, it¹s incredibly black: populated mostly by Ethiopians who also had a dream ... like my cellmates, one who is pregnant. They are all are in their twenties. They thought they were coming to the Holy Land. They had a dream that their lives would be better ... The once proud, never colonized Ethiopia [has been thrown into] the back pocket of the United States, and become a place of torture, rendition, and occupation. Ethiopians must free their country because superpower politics [have] become more important than human rights and self-determination.

My cellmates came to the Holy Land so they could be free from the exigencies of superpower politics. They committed no crime except to have a dream. They came to Israel because they thought that Israel held promise for them. Their journey to Israel through Sudan and Egypt was arduous. I can only imagine what it must have been like for them. And it wasn¹t cheap. Many of them represent their family¹s best collective efforts for self-fulfilment. They made their way to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. They got their yellow paper of identification. They got their cert ificate for police protection. They are refugees from tragedy, and they made it to Israel only after they arrived Israel told them ³there is no UN in Israel.²

The police here have license to pick them up & suck them into the black hole of a farce for a justice system. These beautiful, industrious and proud women represent the hopes of entire families. The idea of Israel tricked them and the rest of us. In a widely propagandized slick marketing campaign, Israel represented itself as a place of refuge and safety for the world¹s first Jews and Christian. I too believed that marketing and failed to look deeper.

The truth is that Israel lied to the world. Israel lied to the families of these young women. Israel lied to the women themselves who are now trapped in Ramle¹s detention facility. And what are we to do? One of my cellmates cried today. She has been here for 6 months. As an American, crying with them is not enough. The policy of the United States must be better, and while we watch President Obama give 12.8 trillion dollars to the financial elite of the United States it ought now be clear that hope, change, and Œyes we can¹ were powerfully presented images of dignity and self-fulfilment, individually and nationally, that besieged people everywhere truly believed in.

It was a slick marketing campaign as slickly put to the world and to the voters of America as was Israel¹s marketing to the world. It tricked all of us but, more tragically , these young women.

We must cast an informed vote about better candidates seeking to represent us. I have read and re-read Dr. Martin Luther King Junior¹s letter from a Birmingham jail. Never in my wildest dreams would I have ever imagined that I too would one day have to do so. It is clear that taxpayers in Europe and the U.S. have a lot to atone for, for what they¹ve done to others around the world.

What an irony! My son begins his law school program without me because I am in prison, in my own way trying to do my best, again, for other people¹s children. Forgive me, my son. I guess I¹m experiencing the harsh reality which is why people need dreams. [But] I¹m lucky. I will leave this place. Has Israel become the place where dreams die?

Ask the people of Palestine. Ask the stream of black and Asian men whom I see being processed at Ramle. Ask the women on my cellblock. [Ask yourself:] what are you willing to do?

Let¹s change the world together & reclaim what we all need as human beings: Dignity. I appeal to the United Nations to get these women of Ramle, who have done nothing wrong other than to believe in Israel as the guardian of the Holy Land, resettled in safe homes. I appeal to the United State¹s Department of State to include the plight of detained UNHCR-certified refugees in the Israel country report in its annual human rights report. I appeal once again to President Obama to go to Gaza: send your spec ial envoy, George Mitchell there, and to engage Hamas as the elected choice of the Palestinian people.

I dedicate this message to those who struggle to achieve a free Palestine, and to the women I¹ve met at Ramle. This is Cynthia McKinney, July 2nd 2009, also known as Ramle prisoner number 88794.

THE MINNESOTA HEALTH PLAN

2009-05-09T07:27:00.002-04:00

Date: Tuesday, May 19th, 2009
Time: 7:00-9:00 PM
Location: Burnsville Civic Center, Burnsville, MN (Get directions.)

Hosted by Sen. John Doll, with special guests: Sen. John Marty, Sen. Jim Carlson, Sen. Mary Olson, Rep. David Bly, Rep. Sandra Masin, the congressional and senate district chairs, and more!

Speakers:

Senator John Marty - The Minnesota Health Plan (SF118/HF135)

Dr. James Letts of PNHP-MN - Why doctors prefer the MN Health Plan

Nancy Breymeier of MetroIBA - How the MN Health Plan would help businesses

Senator Sharon Erickson Ropes - Why Canadians prefer their health care

Panel discussion: Kip Sullivan, Dr. James Letts, Sen. John Marty, Nancy Breymeier

For more information, contact Ellen Lafans at 651-688-7049.

Rep. Cantor

2009-02-11T19:07:00.002-05:00

2008-11-02T20:29:00.003-05:00

Karl Rove's Election Map

2008-10-31T09:56:00.001-04:00

The Chronicle endorses Barack Obama for president and of the United States

2008-10-19T09:17:00.003-04:00

The Chronicle endorses Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., for president of the United States.

Rarely in our country's history has the electorate gone to the polls to choose a new president in such challenging times with more at stake for the nation.

The economy is tottering under the strains of a global financial crisis unleashed by the unregulated excesses of U.S. lending institutions. American soldiers continue to fight and die in two separate conflicts that remain open-ended.

At home affordable health care is unavailable to millions of citizens while measures to achieve energy independence and combat global warming sit on the legislative back burner. Fear pervades so many households under the threat of unemployment and mortgage foreclosures.

One must go back to the Great Depression, and the reshaping of American domestic policy to vanquish it, to find a comparable era when the demands for change were so urgent.

The incoming administration must immediately focus and engage on so many fronts. The tasks at hand will require stamina, creativity and leadership abilities to replace partisan gridlock with a national consensus on what is best for the American people. The new leadership team must have the intellect and temperament to tackle complex issues with equally sophisticated solutions. The current go-it-alone mentality in the White House on foreign policy must give way to an effort to work in concert with our allies while engaging our enemies at the negotiating table as well as on the battlefield.

After carefully observing the Democratic and Republican nominees in drawn-out primary struggles as well as in the general campaign, including three debates, the Chronicle strongly believes that the ticket of Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden offers the best choice to lead the United States on a new course into the second decade of the 21st century.

Obama appears to possess the tools to confront our myriad and daunting problems. He's thoughtful and analytical. He has met his opponents' attacks with calm and reasoned responses. Viewers of the debates saw a poised, well-prepared plausible president with well-articulated positions on the bread-and-butter issues that poll after poll indicate are the true concerns of voters. While Arizona Sen. John McCain and his running mate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin have struck an increasingly personal and negative tone in their speeches, Obama has continued to talk about issues of substance.

It is true that Obama has served less than a term in the U.S. Senate and that his previous elective experience is confined to the Illinois Legislature. However, during that public service and his previous role as a community organizer on the streets of Chicago, he has developed an appreciation and understanding of the real-life concerns of middle- and low-income Americans.

On the Iraq war, Obama was an early voice of opposition to the initial invasion and his plan for a phased withdrawal of combat forces has been embraced by American and Iraqi policymakers. His partner on the ticket, Biden, is one of the leading foreign policy experts in Congress. They pledge to rebuild America's diminished standing in the world and restore our reputation as the leading defender of democracy and human rights.

Obama's health care plan mandates health insurance for all American children, an issue of vital importance to Harris County and Houston, which has the highest rate of uninsured youngsters in the nation. By contrast, the proposal by McCain to offer a tax credit to Americans to purchase insurance while taxing health benefits for the first time will further discourage small business owners from providing employee health insurance.

One weakness Obama has shown is a tendency to demonize the energy industry, which will be an indispensable ally in developing alternative fuel sources in the future. He would do well to rethink some of his positions and apply his consensus-building skills to an essential bulwark of the Texas economy. On another issue of vital importance to the Houston area, Obama supports the U.S. space program and has wisely backed off an earlier proposal to delay NASA's moon and Mars missions to save money.

McCain has an illustrious record of service to America, first as a pilot taken prisoner by the North Vietnamese, and then with a distinguished Senate career. To his credit, he has broken with his own party in the past to fight for campaign reform, oppose the sanctioning of torture and acknowledge the threat of human-induced global warming. However, in his bid for the presidency, he has aligned himself with a more conservative political base and disappointed moderates.

Perhaps the worst mistake McCain made in his campaign for the White House was the choice of the inexperienced and inflammatory Palin as his vice-presidential running mate. Had he selected a moderate, experienced Republican lawmaker such as Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison with a strong appeal to independents, the Chronicle's choice for an endorsement would have been far more difficult.

In comments to the Chronicle editorial board during his Texas primary fight against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama explained why he believed he would be the best choice for president.

"More than any other candidate, I could bridge some of the partisan, racial and religious divides in this country that prevent us from getting things done," said Obama. "I believe that I could attract independents and some disillusioned Republicans into a working majority to bring about change on critical issues."

Back in the spring, Obama's sentiments seemed more a hope than reality. Since then, we have watched him grow in the roles of candidate and leader, maintaining grace under fire without resorting to political expediency. He is by far the best choice to deliver the changes that Americans demand.

Obama on the Economic Meltdown

2008-09-22T01:40:00.002-04:00

Its Joe

2008-08-23T02:16:00.001-04:00

August 24, 2008
Obama Chooses Biden as Running Mate
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama has chosen Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware to be his running-mate, turning to a leading authority on foreign policy and a longtime Washington hand to fill out the Democratic ticket, people told of the decision said.

Mr. Obama’s selection ended a two-month search that was conducted almost entirely in secret. It reflected a critical strategic choice by Mr. Obama: To go with a running-mate who could reassure voters about gaps in his resume, rather than to pick someone who could deliver a state or reinforce Mr. Obama’s message of change.

Mr. Biden is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and is familiar with foreign leaders and diplomats around the world. Although he initially voted to authorize the war in Iraq — Mr. Obama opposed it from the start — Mr. Biden became a persistent critic of President Bush’s policies in Iraq.

The selection was disclosed as Mr. Obama moves into a critical part of his campaign, preparing for the party’s four-day convention in Denver starting on Monday. Mr. Obama’s aides viewed the introduction of his vice presidential choice– including an afternoon rally Saturday at the old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill., the same place where Mr. Obama announced his candidacy on a freezing winter morning almost two years ago, and a tour of swing states – as the beginning of a week-long stretch in which Mr. Obama hopes to dominate the stage and position himself for the fall campaign.

Word of Mr. Obama’s decision leaked out hours before his campaign was scheduled to inform supporters via text and e-mail messages, and hours after informing two other top contenders for the vice presidential nomination – Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana and Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia – that they had not been chosen.

As the selection process moved to an end, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who Mr. Obama had defeated in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, had slipped out of contention -- to the degree that Mr. Obama had ever seriously considered her.

Mr. Biden is Roman Catholic, giving him appeal to that important voting bloc, though he favors abortion rights. He was born in a working class family in Scranton, Pa., a swing state where he remains well-known. Mr. Biden is up for re-election to the Senate this year and he would presumably run simultaneously for both seats.

Mr. Biden is known for being both talkative and prone to making the kind of statements that get him in trouble. In 2007, when he was competing for Mr. Obama for the presidential nomination, he declared that Mr. Obama was “not yet ready” for the presidency, a line certain to show up in Republican attack ads.

Although Mr. Biden is not exactly a household name, he is probably the best known of all the Democrats who were in contention for the spot, given his political and personal history (not to mention his regular appearances on the Sunday morning television news shows.) He first ran for the Senate from Delaware when he was just 29 years old.

Mr. Biden has run twice for the presidency himself, once in 1988 and again in 2008, dropping out early in both cases. He was also the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee during two of the most contentious Supreme Court nomination battles of the past 50 years: the confirmation proceedings for Robert H. Bork, who was defeated, and Clarence Thomas, who was confirmed after an explosive hearing in which Anita Hill accused Mr. Thomas of sexual harassment. Mr. Biden led the opposition to both nominations, though he came under criticism from some feminists for not immediately disclosing what were at first Ms. Hill’s closed-door accusations against Mr. Thomas.

Mr. Obama’s choice of Mr. Biden suggested some of the weaknesses the Obama campaign is trying to address at a time when at a time when national polls suggest that his race with Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is tightening. Chief among Mr. Biden’s strengths is his familiarity with foreign policy and national security issues, highlighted just this past weekend with the invitation he received from the embattled president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, to visit Georgia in the midst of its tense faceoff with Russia. From the moment he dropped out of the presidential race, he had been mentioned as a potential Secretary of State should either Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton win the election.

He is also something of a fixture in Washington, and would bring to the campaign – and the White House – a familiarity with the way the city and Congress works that Mr. Obama can not match after his relatively short stint in Washington.

At 65 years old, he adds a few years and gray hair to a ticket that otherwise might seem a bit young (Mr. Obama is 47). He is, as Mr. Obama’s advisers were quick to argue, someone who appears by every measure prepared to take over as president, setting a standard that appears intended to at least somewhat hamstring Mr. McCain should he be tempted to go for a more adventurous choice for No. 2. He has a long history of making statements that get him in trouble. He was forced to apologize to Mr. Obama almost the moment he entered the race for president after he was quoted as describing Mr. Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” a remark that drew criticism for being racially insensitive. While campaigning in New Hampshire, Mr. Biden said that ”you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.”

Mr. Biden quit the presidential race this year after a barely making a mark; he came in fifth place in Iowa. He was forced to quit the 1988 presidential race in the face of accusations that he had plagiarized part of a speech from a Neil Kinnock, the British Labor Party leader. Shortly afterward, he was found to have suffered two aneurysms.

He is also, at least arguably, a Washington insider, having worked there for so long, though he still commutes home to Wilmington every night by train.

The choice by Mr. Obama in some ways mirrors the choice by Mr. Bush of Dick Cheney as his running mate in 2000; at 65, it appears unlikely that Mr. Biden would be in a position to run for president, should Mr. Obama win and serve two terms. Shorn of any remaining ambition to run for president on his own, he could find himself in a less complex political relationship with Mr. Obama than most vice president have with their presidents.

Mr. Biden was born in Scranton, , grew up in the suburbs of Wilmington, Del., and went to Syracuse Law School. He also was, as a young man, in the center of a gripping family drama: barely a month after he was elected to the Senate, his wife and their three children were in a car accident with a drunken driver resulted in the death of his wife and daughter. His two sons survived and Mr. Biden remarried five years later.

Carl Hulse and Jim Rutenberg contributed reporting.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

Old Man McCain Plays Race Card

2008-08-04T18:28:00.004-04:00

B H Obama Vistits Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial

2008-07-23T09:10:00.002-04:00

July 24, 2008
Obama Meets Israeli and Palestinian Leaders
By JEFF ZELENY

JERUSALEM — Senator Barack Obama opened a day of talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders on Wednesday, sharing breakfast with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak before traveling to the West Bank to meet Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Mr. Obama, who shuttled between morning meetings at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, also visited the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial. Wearing a white yarmulke, he rekindled a flame and paused for a few moments of quiet reflection as he laid a wreath on a tomb that contains ashes from Nazi extermination camps.

“At a time of great peril and promise, war and strife, we are blessed to have such a powerful reminder of man’s potential for great evil, but also our capacity to rise from tragedy and remake our world,” Mr. Obama said after visiting the memorial. “Let our children come here, and know this history, so they can add their voices to proclaim “never again”. And may we remember those who perished, not only as victims but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed like us, and who have become symbols of the human spirit.”

The brief ceremony at Yad Vashem was intended to convey symbolic images of Mr. Obama’s commitment to Israel as he listens to leaders on both sides of the Middle East peace process. He did not take questions from reporters on Wednesday morning, but was scheduled to make an afternoon visit to the southern Israeli town of Sderot, near Gaza, where he was expected to hold a press conference. Sderot has been hit by more than 2,000 rockets in the past four years, and is a symbolic destination for visiting politicians, including Senator John McCain, who toured it in March.

“The most important idea for me to reaffirm is the historic and special relationship between the United States and Israel,” Mr. Obama said as he arrived here on the latest leg of a weeklong trip to the Middle East and Europe. “One that cannot be broken. One that I have affirmed throughout my career and one that I will intend to not only continue but actually strengthen in an Obama administration.”

As Mr. Obama headed to his private meetings, including one later with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, his aides were sensitive to any perceptions that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee was getting ahead of himself. They stressed that he was here to listen, not legislate.

“The United States of America has one president at a time — that president is George W. Bush,” Susan Rice, a senior foreign policy adviser to the campaign, said Wednesday. “Senator Obama will not be engaged in any way, shape or form policy-making.”

Aides to Mr. Obama did not provide an immediate account of his meetings, but Mr. Barak’s office issued a statement saying that the two discussed “all the relevant issues” and the “future challenges facing Israel and the region.”

The list of challenges includes Israeli-Palestinian peace talks as well as Israel’s concern about Iran’s nuclear program.

Mr. Obama received a warm reception from Israeli President Shimon Peres, who said his fondest wish was for a "great president of the United States. That is the greatest promise for us and the rest of the world."

As he strolled with Mr. Peres just before their meeting, Mr. Obama said: “I’m here on this trip to reaffirm the special relationship between Israel and the United States, my abiding commitment to Israel’s security and my hope that I can serve as an effective partner whether as U.S. senator or as president in bringing about a more lasting peace in the region.”

“You are a person who has forgotten more than I will ever know on these issues and so I look forward to a robust discussion, having an opportunity to get your insights and your wisdom,” he told Mr. Peres.

Mr. Obama also met with the opposition leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, who told reporters that Israeli-Palestinian relations and Iran were the main points of his morning conversation. “The senator and I agreed that the primacy of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power is clear, and this should guide our mutual policies,” Mr. Netanyahu said in a statement.

He added that Mr. Obama told him “he would never seek in any way to compromise Israel’s security, and that this would be sacrosanct in his approach to political negotiations.”

Mr. Obama’s visit to Israel comes after three days in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait, where he met American military commanders and soldiers. On Tuesday, he visited Jordan. The international trip, which is unusual in the middle of a presidential campaign, was drawing considerable attention at home and abroad.

At the King David Hotel, some supporters brought Obama campaign signs bearing the slogan “Change you can believe in,” translated into Hebrew. In the lobby, an “Israel for Obama” sign was hanging from a chair.

As they talked casually, Mr. Netanyahu asked the visiting senator how he was feeling, to which Mr. Obama replied, “I could fall asleep standing up.”

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

Payback

2008-07-15T07:57:00.002-04:00

A Challenge From the Obama Generation

By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 15, 2008; A03

A 21-year incumbent and an icon of the civil rights movement, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), is racing around his Atlanta district like a first-time candidate.

He has appeared at six or seven churches every Sunday, posed for cameras as he mowed a prospective voter's lawn, and donned a brown United Parcel Service uniform to deliver packages to his working-class voters.

Today, Lewis faces his first primary challengers since 1992, a pair of candidates who are promoting the "change" mantra of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign and have organized their campaigns around a single, not-so-subtle message: Lewis's support for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) over Obama in the presidential primary.

Lewis is one of three House Democratic incumbents in Georgia who should be enjoying an easy run through today's primary but instead find themselves battling a wave of younger black politicians emboldened by Obama's success and intent on succeeding their elders in choice political posts.

The generational challenge in Georgia and several other states comes from black politicians who view Obama, 46, as a kindred spirit and are not steeped in the civil rights era.

"It took many members of the elder generation some time to catch up to the [Obama] mood. Some found themselves standing against the tide," said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), an early Obama backer who was elected to Congress in 2006 and faces no primary challenger this year. "I think the trend is irreversible."

In Georgia and elsewhere, some of the initial targets have been lawmakers who backed Clinton instead of the first black candidate to clinch a major party's presidential nomination. In Brooklyn, Rep. Edolphus Towns, 73, a Clinton supporter, faces opposition in a Sept. 9 Democratic primary from community activist Kevin Powell, 42, who once was a star on MTV's "Real World."

Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Mich.), 63, who did not endorse Obama until after he secured the nomination, faces two younger opponents in her Aug. 5 primary who also have made the indictment of Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, her son, an issue in the campaign.

Lewis, 68, endorsed Clinton over Obama last October. A longtime ally of former president Bill Clinton, Lewis gave Hillary Clinton credibility among black voters nationwide because of his prominent role as an adviser to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. during the civil rights era.

Three weeks after Obama won Georgia's Feb. 5 primary, Lewis switched his support to him. But Lewis still was challenged by 31-year-old minister Markel Hutchins and state Rep. Mable Thomas.

Thomas makes no secret of her allegiance to Obama. The top item on her Web site's home page is an image of Obama that links to a YouTube video of the speech he gave June 3 after clinching the nomination.

Hutchins, in a telephone interview, pointed to the recent controversial remarks about Obama by the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson as the reason for African American voters to support a new group of leaders.

"This is the very reason why there has to be a transition from the leaders that brought us across the bridges 40 and 50 years ago to a new era of leaders who will bring us across the bridges we face today," Hutchins said. "Leadership cannot be measured by one's proximity to the civil rights era."

Lewis, who was badly beaten by police while leading a protest march across a bridge in Selma, Ala., in 1965, acknowledged that his primary challenge was spawned by his own "Hillary-Obama moment." At the time he endorsed Clinton, Lewis issued a statement agreeing with her argument that her experience trumped Obama's inspirational call for change.

Having studied "all the candidates," Lewis said, he concluded that Clinton was "best prepared to lead this country at a time when we are in desperate need of strong leadership."

Now, Lewis is trying to steer voters away from that judgment and focusing on his vast experience both in Congress and as a civil rights leader. He prominently displays his own image of Obama on his Web site, with the candidate and Lewis arm in arm. He called Obama's nomination "a spiritual event" that was made possible by "those who stood up, those who sat-in, those who marched, who were beaten, who were killed" in civil rights protests.

In an interview last week on the Capitol steps, Lewis was particularly dismissive of Hutchins. "The young man, he just copies everything Obama does," Lewis said. "The civil rights movement was over by the time he was born."

But Lewis -- who has not faced a general-election challenge since 2000 -- is taking nothing for granted. He has raised $1 million so far, almost double the amount for any campaign this decade. He boasts endorsements from environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and powerful labor organizations such as the AFL-CIO.

"I'm going to be fine," he said. "I've been working very hard."

Nathan L. Gonzales, an analyst with the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report, said that Lewis is in a strong position to win today because of his legendary status among African Americans and the dynamics of the contest.

Knocking off an incumbent in a primary usually requires a one-on-one race, Gonzales said. With the anti-incumbent vote split between Hutchins and Thomas, he said, Lewis stands a good chance of winning today and cruising to a 12th term in Congress in the overwhelmingly Democratic district.

Still, Hutchins warned that older politicians such as Lewis will continue to face challenges in the next few elections. "I believe the most prominent voices will emerge in the next four years to replace those leaders of the past 40 years," he said.

Two other races will test the Obama factor among Peach State voters, and the reelection battle of Rep. John Barrow is the most unusual. Barrow, a white Democrat, backed Obama earlier this year when Obama was still locked in a tight race with Clinton, but the congressman now faces state Sen. Regina Thomas, who is black, in a primary that is likely to be dominated by African American voters, who make up 45 percent of the district's electorate.

Thomas, who endorsed Obama much later than Barrow did, hoped to draw the support of black voters. But Obama has rewarded Barrow by endorsing him in the primary and taping radio ads for him. Gonzales gives Barrow an edge heading into today's balloting because of the $1 million in campaign funds he had collected heading into the race's final weeks.

Like Lewis, Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.) also initially endorsed Clinton in the primary. But Scott, 62, avoided a more serious challenge, in part because he quickly switched his endorsement after Obama overwhelmingly won his district, according to lawmakers and analysts.

"You've got to represent the wishes of your constituency," Scott told the Associated Press in mid-February. He again faces Donzella James, a former state senator who lost to Scott by a 2 to 1 tally in the 2006 primary. Her campaign is highlighting Scott's support for President Bush's tax cuts and Iraq war funding. Iraq is the first issue highlighted on James's Web site, and she cites support for Obama's planned withdrawal four times in a four-paragraph statement.

Whatever the outcome of these primaries, Johnson, the freshman Georgia lawmaker, said the next generation of black politicians is beginning its march toward Congress and other leadership posts.

"I know that I will not be around here forever," he said, "and in another 10 years or so it will be some young turk who comes around and knocks me off."

Post a Comment

© 2008 The Washington Post Company

A ‘Nation of Whiners’ Phil Gramm

2008-07-11T09:21:00.000-04:00

July 11, 2008
McCain Adviser Refers to ‘Nation of Whiners’
By MICHAEL COOPER

BELLEVILLE, Mich. — Senator John McCain has spent the week trying to tell people that he feels their economic pain. So it was more than a little unhelpful when one of his top economic advisers was quoted Thursday as saying that the United States was only in a “mental recession” and that it had become a “nation of whiners.”

The adviser, former Senator Phil Gramm, Republican of Texas, sought to clarify his remarks Thursday by saying he had been referring only to some of the nation’s leaders.

But it was too late to keep from complicating things for Mr. McCain, who has been trying to strike a more empathetic tone after sometimes struggling to maintain a balance between displays of optimism about the nation’s future and demonstrating an understanding of Americans’ economic hardships.

Senator Barack Obama, noting that Mr. McCain had previously said an expansion of offshore oil drilling might have a “psychological” benefit for the country, seized on Mr. Gramm’s remarks, made in an interview with The Washington Times.

“You know, America already has one Dr. Phil,” Mr. Obama said at a campaign stop in Fairfax, Va. “When it comes to the economy, we don’t need another.”

Mr. McCain himself repudiated Mr. Gramm’s comments.

“The person here in Michigan that just lost his job isn’t suffering a mental recession,” he told reporters after a town-hall-style meeting at a factory in this city west of Detroit.

And when he was asked whether Mr. Gramm — McCain campaign co-chairman, UBS Investment Bank vice chairman and former economics professor — might serve as treasury secretary in a McCain administration, the candidate replied with a flash of his sometimes tart humor.

“I think Senator Gramm would be in serious consideration for ambassador to Belarus,” he said, “although I’m not sure the citizens of Minsk would welcome that.”

Mr. McCain has been spending the week in Rust Belt states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan pushing his economic proposals and trying to show a grasp of workers’ financial struggles.

During the gathering here Thursday, held at Bayloff Stamped Products, which provides metal components to car manufacturers, he tried to fend off the skepticism of some Michigan workers about his support for free trade and said more than half a dozen times that people were “hurting.”

“America is hurting today,” he said. “Michigan is hurting today. The automotive industry is hurting. And we’ve got big problems, and we’ve got big challenges.”

Questioned about manufacturers’ moving their plants elsewhere because of free trade, he replied, “I have to tell you — and I know that it’s not popular — I do believe in the overall benefits of free trade.”

In recent months Mr. McCain has recalibrated the way he talks about the economy, often noting that it does not matter whether the technical definition of a recession has been met, given that so many people feel as if they are in one. The tone is in contrast with the one he struck during the primaries, when he sometimes placed more emphasis on optimism.

His struggle to find a balance was on vivid display at a Republican debate in January, when he was asked whether the country was better off now than it was eight years ago.

“I think you could argue that Americans over all are better off,” he replied, “because we have had a pretty good, prosperous time with low unemployment and low inflation, and a lot of good things have happened, a lot of jobs have been created.” Then he added: “But let’s have some straight talk. Things are tough right now.”

At the factory gathering Thursday, Mr. McCain repeated a statement that was used against him to great effect in the Michigan primary, which he lost to Mitt Romney.

“I’ll look at you in the eye again and I’ll tell you that there are some jobs that won’t come back,” he said.

But, the optimism hardly out of reach, he added that the lost jobs would be replaced with new ones to create more environmentally friendly technologies and other innovations.

“I have to tell you that the innovation and the technology and the entrepreneurship of the world still lies in the United States of America,” he said. “Every technological advance we’ve made in the 21st century and throughout the 20th has come from the United States of America.”

John M. Broder contributed reporting from Fairfax, Va.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

"Wild Bill" Clinton endorses Obama

2008-06-25T08:37:00.000-04:00

Mr Clinton's relationship with Mr Obama has been "frosty"

Former US President Bill Clinton has announced for the first time his support of fellow Democrat Barack Obama's bid for the White House.

Mr Clinton's wife Hillary was Mr Obama's biggest rival for the party nomination, and he was often critical of Mr Obama on the campaign trail.

Mr Clinton's spokesman said he was committed to working for an Obama win.

Mr Obama has asked his fundraisers to help pay $10m (£5m) of Mrs Clinton's debts from her failed campaign.

The Illinois senator asked them to help settle the sum - almost half the total of the former first lady's debts - in a teleconference on Tuesday.

Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton, a New York senator, are to hold a joint rally on Friday, but Mr Clinton will be in Europe and will not attend.

"President Clinton is obviously committed to doing whatever he can and is asked to do to ensure Senator Obama is the next president of the United States," said spokesman Matt McKenna.

Not talking

The Obama campaign welcomed Mr Clinton's declaration of support, saying: "A unified Democratic Party is going to be a powerful force for change this year and we're confident President Clinton will play a big role in that."

BBC Washington correspondent James Coomarasamy says Mr Clinton remains a hugely popular draw for Democrats and could help Senator Obama, particularly in those working class areas where he has found it hardest to connect.

However, our correspondent adds, while the Obama campaign says it is confident Mr Clinton will play a role in unifying the Democratic party, relations between the two camps remain strained.

US media have described the mood between Mr Clinton and Mr Obama as tense since Mr Obama beat Mrs Clinton in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The Associated Press news agency reports that the two men have not spoken in the aftermath of the heated and drawn-out campaign.

Party unity

During the primary battle between Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton, Mr Clinton made headlines when he described Mr Obama's record of opposition to the Iraq war as a "fairy-tale", and when he accused Mr Obama of "playing the race card".

Observers say Mr Obama is making efforts to heal the divisions within the party and win over Democrats who supported Mrs Clinton in the primaries.

To this end, the Obama-Clinton rally on Friday will be held in the town of Unity, New Hampshire, where Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton each received 107 votes in the New Hampshire primary.

BBC@2008

COPA conference on RFK assassination. L.A. 6-8 2008

2008-06-02T21:05:00.000-04:00

There is more on this conference at http://www.jerrypippin.com

The "Monster"'s Campaign is Over !

2008-05-25T22:52:00.000-04:00

The most evil "Little Monster" is done.

M A going East .......................

John "Prettyboy" Edwards to Endorse Obama

2008-05-14T18:05:00.000-04:00

John Edwards is saying No to the racism of the "Monster" and the White Supremacist vote in West Virgina.

M A

Update 5:38 p.m.
By Peter Slevin and Anne E. Kornblut

Edwards is scheduled to appear with Obama at a rally here in Grand Rapids due to begin at approximately 6:15 p.m., the Obama campaign announced.

Edwards, a former senator and former vice presidential candidate from North Carolina, had long been courted by Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, but refused to choose.

But with Obama holding a nearly insurmountable lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, Edwards decided to get off the fence.

His endorsement comes at a moment when Obama is struggling to win among the white working class voters targeted by Edwards with his populist pitch.

Edwards's campaign manager David Bonior, a former Michigan congressman, endorsed Obama in recent days and appeared at a campaign event in Warren, Mich., on Wednesday.

The impact of Edwards's endorsement on the Democratic primary season voting will be limited, with only five contests remaining. But it is intended to send another signal to Clinton that, barring an extraordinary development, her race is all but over.

So how exactly did former Sen. John Edwards decide to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination?

In an interview last week, Edwards strongly hinted that he was leaning that way -- in part because of his embodiment of Edwards's signature issue of poverty.

Edwards praised both Clinton and Obama for caring about poverty. "I think they're both very strong on the issue ... and Sen. Clinton has been working on this for decades, and particularly focused on children," Edwards said. But poverty, he added, has been "central to Senator Obama's life."

In the same conversation last Friday, Edwards, who dropped out of the campaign earlier this year, said it was apparent that Obama was running away with the nomination. Asked why he had decided not to endorse either Clinton or Obama, Edwards replied: "I haven't -- but I might."

Call H R Clinton Wins Indiana

2008-05-06T19:51:00.000-04:00

We have called Indiana tonight for H R Clinton aka the "Monster"
The AP has called North Carolina,we have not.

M A

Obama rally with Stevie Wonder draws 21,000

2008-05-06T09:13:00.000-04:00

The Rev. Dr. Wright on 911

2008-04-25T08:45:00.000-04:00

Michael Moore Endorse B H Obama

2008-04-22T03:37:00.000-04:00

Monday, April 21st, 2008
My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore

Friends,

I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.

Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.

Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.

But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.

How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).

There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.

That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.

I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?

I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.

I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.

Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.

It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.

Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"

But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.

That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.

But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.

Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MichaelMoore.com
MMFlint@aol.com

Obama vs. Clinton: BARACKY!

2008-04-21T13:14:00.000-04:00

The Scranton Times Tribune Endorse Obama

2008-04-14T11:12:00.000-04:00

04/13/2008
Barack Obama, for leadership

All of the myriad issues facing the next president of the United States coalesce into a single question: Who can best lead?

For Pennsylvania Democrats, the best answer in the April 22 primary is Barack Obama.

In a nomination campaign that has defied convention, Mr. Obama has energized an entire generation of voters that, for the most part, otherwise had checked out of political participation. That, at least, portends a new approach to governance that can help to dissipate the political miasma that has engulfed Washington at least since the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is an extremely talented politician who already has secured a unique place in U.S. political history. She repeatedly has proved her political death notices to be premature. She also has demonstrated that she is a master of public policy. And — this is not and should not be taken lightly in an area that prides itself on family and a tradition of supporting its own — the Rodham family has deep Scranton roots.

But Mrs. Clinton also is a political lightning rod. There is little doubt that a second Clinton presidency would further the deep divisiveness that characterizes American politics — a divisiveness that dug itself deep during the Clinton presidency, and even deeper during the Bush-Cheney years.

The first task for the next president is to get past that. And it might not be possible if the presidential cycle goes Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.

In a sense, Mr. Obama’s clear lead in the national race itself is proof of a changing party and a changing electorate. A generation ago, it would have been inconceivable for two history-making candidates — either the first African-American or first woman to be a major-party presidential nominee — to be locked in a nomination battle this late in the game. Party leaders simply would not have allowed it, and Mr. Obama would have had to “wait his turn.”

Mr. Obama decided not to wait his turn, however, and neither have Democratic voters. Democratic registration and voter turnout have soared in most of the states where he has been in play, including in Pennsylvania.

Mrs. Clinton has dismissed much of what Mr. Obama has had to say as “just words.” But they are words that millions find inspirational. Therefore, they are words that can be translated into action.

On policy matters, there are more similarities than differences between the candidates. The real difference lies in their likely ability to build the consensus needed to realize their vision. The advantage, in that regard, clearly lies with Mr. Obama.

©The Times-Tribune 2008

Obama Offers Solutions "Monster" Plays Games with Workingclass in PA

2008-04-12T03:53:00.000-04:00

Obama Expands on 'Bitter' Pennsylvanians Comment

By Shailagh Murray
TERRE HAUTE, Ind. -- Sen. Barack Obama didn't back down from "Bittergate." At a town hall meeting here tonight, he repeated the offending word three times.

The tough times of small-town America have been a running theme throughout his campaign, and Obama seemed genuinely alarmed that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain had both seized on a comment he made Sunday to a group of San Francisco donors. Asked why he was lagging behind Clinton in Pennsylvania, the Illinois senator launched into a lengthy discourse on empty promises and political disenfranchisement. Although no reporters were present, his comments were taped and posted today on the Huffington Post, a liberal online media company.

"Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives," Obama told the group. "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Obama has pursued related themes in a variety of different public forums, including embedded in a speech on race relations that he delivered last month in Philadelphia. He often reminds crowds in his stump speech that he started out as a community organizer, helping Chicago residents to recover when a local steel plant closed. And his pledge to crack down on special interests is part of his pitch to bolster the little guy. "You don't have a lobbyist," he told the Terre Haute crowd.

Then Obama turned to the San Francisco imbroglio, quoting more or less directly and even expanding on his original remarks.

"That's what people understand about politics these days: the game is fixed. It's not working for ordinary Americans. When I go around and talk to people, there is frustration, and there is anger, and there is bitterness. And what's worse is when people are expressing their anger, and politicians try to say, what are you angry about?"

When a donor asked him why he was having trouble converting voters in Pennsylvania, Obama said he responded, "Well look, they're frustrated. And for good reason. Because for the last 25 years, they've seen jobs shipped overseas. They've seen their economies collapse. They have lost their jobs, they have lost their pensions, they have lost their health care. And for 25, 30 years, Democrats and Republicans have come before them and said, we're going to make your community better. We're going to make it right. And nothing ever happens.

"And of course they're bitter. Of course they're frustrated. You would be too -- in fact many of you are. Because the same thing has happened here in Indiana, the same thing has happened across the boarder in Decatur, the same thing has happened all across the country. Nobody is looking out for you. Nobody is thinking about you."

He even hit the same social hot-buttons that Clinton and McCain pointed to, as evidence of Obama's elitism. "And so people don't vote on economic issues, because they don't expect anybody's going to help them. People are voting on issues like guns, are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and the things they can count on. But they don't believe they can count on Washington."

And he returned fire on both his critics. "Here's what's rich. Sen. Clinton says, I don't think people are bitter in Pennsylvania. I think Barack's being condescending. John McCain says, he's obviously out of touch with people. Out of touch? John McCain, it took him three tries to figure out the home foreclosure crisis was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he's saying I'm out of touch? Sen. Clinton voted for a credit card sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt, after taking money from the financial services companies, and she says I'm out of touch?:

The crowd listened silently when Obama started his explanation, but now people were on their feet, stomping and clapping.

"No, I'm in touch. I know exactly what's going on. I know what's going on in Pennsylvania, I know what's going in Indiana, I know what's going in Illinois. People are fed up. They're angry and they're frustrated and they're bitter, and they want to see a change in Washington, and that's why I'm running for president of the United States of America."

The Clinton campaign jumped on Obama's explanation, blast e-mailing it out to reporters.

"Instead of apologizing for offending small town America, Senator Obama chose to repeat and embrace the comments he made earlier this week," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer. "It's unfortunate that Senator Obama didn't say he was sorry for what he said. Americans are tired of a President who looks down on them -- they want a President who will stand up for them for a change. The Americans who live in small towns are optimistic, hardworking and resilient. They deserve a president who will respect them."

King ,Kerner and Obama: An Unfinished Agenda

2008-04-03T04:56:00.000-04:00

King and Kerner: An Unfinished Agenda

By Edward W. Brooke
Thursday, April 3, 2008; A17

America has had much to reflect upon during the approach of the interrelated 40th anniversaries of the final report of the Kerner Commission, the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and the round of riots that followed in Washington, Baltimore, Chicago and well over 100 other cities across the nation. We have heard Sen. Barack Obama's insightful speech on race and the reactions it provoked. Today, unfortunately, Dr. King's dream remains deferred.

Former senator Fred R. Harris and I are the two surviving members of President Lyndon Johnson's National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (the formal name of the commission chaired by then-Illinois Gov. Otto Kerner). Our commission concluded that black frustration grew out of underrepresentation in the political system, the police, the media and all other aspects of American life. We urged new investments in jobs, schools and housing. We declared that poverty, inequality and segregation in the racial ghetto had created a destructive environment totally unknown to most white Americans. We avowed that white America had created and maintained the ghetto and that white society condoned it. These were strong words, but we believed that the truth needed telling.

I thought (and believe others did as well) that President Johnson would applaud our painstaking analysis and support our recommendations. But the president who had done so much for civil rights distanced himself from our findings. He did not invite us to the White House for the report's release, as was customary, nor did he embrace its recommendations.

In retrospect, I can see that our report was too strong for him to take. It suggested that all of his great achievements -- his civil rights legislation, his anti-poverty program, Head Start, housing legislation and all the rest of the Great Society -- had been only a beginning. We asked him, in an election year, to endorse the idea that white America bore much of the responsibility for black rioting and rebellion. However true that might have been, the message was politically too hot to handle.

Members of our commission could scarcely have envisioned the strides African Americans have made since the report's release or conceived of the growing numbers, progress and influence of Hispanic Americans.

With the ascendancy of an African American contender for the presidency, dispassionate observers might gasp at how far we have come in two generations. The achievements in business, entertainment, sports and politics that black and Hispanic Americans have made are notable, but not for their exception.

Yet, despite the visibility of accomplished African Americans and Hispanics and the progress in race relations that has been made in this country, for America's poor -- those who do not know what health care is because for them it doesn't exist, those for whom prison is a more likely prospect than college, those who have been abandoned to the worst of decaying, crime-ridden urban centers because of the flight of middle-class blacks, whites and Hispanics -- the future may be as bleak as it was for their counterparts in the 1960s.

The core conditions that the Kerner Commission identified as key contributors to civil unrest are as prevalent, if not as virulent, today as they were 40 years ago. The lack of affordable, safe housing and the absence of jobs or hope for the future have confined even more of our citizens to an eerily familiar world that not so long ago gave rise to cities in flames.

Until we root out and eradicate the conditions that cultivate generations in deprivation and despair, we are bound to harvest a bitter crop.

Fulfilling Dr. King's dream will require economic and health security, worker empowerment, job training and retraining, job creation, and high-quality education for the minority poor as well as neglected blue-collar workers and the anxious middle class.

The Eisenhower Foundation -- of which I was a trustee for many years -- recently released a strategy to this end. A new movement for a Fair Economic Deal based on a coalition of these citizens could become the basis for creating what the Kerner Commission called "new will."

If political will can be changed over the long run, perhaps we can begin to address even more difficult issues -- such as how to return to racial integration, how to take on corporate and lobbyist control of the political process, how to enact real campaign finance reform, and how to reverse media consolidation.

We have come far, but we still have so far to go. Let us not wait until another anniversary, whether a decade or even another year, to get there.

Edward W. Brooke, a Republican from Massachusetts, was the first African American elected to the U.S. Senate. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2004.

Post a Comment

© 2008 The Washington Post Company

Lee Hamilton Endorses B H Obama

2008-04-02T07:10:00.000-04:00

By TOM DAVIES

INDIANAPOLIS -- Former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton is backing Sen. Barack Obama in an endorsement that could boost the presidential hopeful's national security standing, The Associated Press has learned.

Hamilton, who during a three-decade House career rose to be chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees, also was vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission. He planned to announce his endorsement of Obama on Wednesday.

In an interview Hamilton said he viewed the Illinois senator as a champion of "the politics of consensus and not of partisan division."

"I think he is driven by the search for the common good," Hamilton said.

Hamilton is best known as the top Democrat on the panel that investigated the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He also was co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan commission that assessed U.S. policy in Iraq.

Although Hamilton is not a Democratic superdelegate, his backing comes on the heels of several high-profile endorsements for Obama, who leads Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in delegates for the party's nomination. Sens. Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota endorsed Obama in recent days.

Hamilton is the highest-profile Indiana Democrat to back Obama before the state's May 6 primary. Sen. Evan Bayh and the bulk of Indiana's Democratic Party leadership have campaigned actively for Clinton in a state where neither candidate is regarded as a natural front-runner.

Hamilton, once mentioned as a possible running mate for Bill Clinton, told the AP he believed Obama was the candidate most likely to unite the country.

"I begin by asking myself what kind of leadership the country needs at this juncture and I think, for me at least, the answer is that you want a candidate that will try to bring together a country that is very evenly divided, a country in which partisanship has been very sharp and to try to get a candidate who will create a new sense of national unity and will try to transcend the divisions within the country," he said.

Hamilton spent 34 years in Congress representing a southern Indiana district before retiring in 1999.

Hamilton now leads the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. In a speech there last year, written by a longtime aide to Hamilton, Obama warned Pakistan that he would use military force if necessary to root out terrorists.

Clinton in Financial Trouble

2008-04-01T03:59:00.000-04:00

BBC NEWS
Democrat Pelosi urges end to race

Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, has urged a swift end to the Democrats' contest to nominate a presidential candidate.

Mrs Pelosi, a senior Democrat, told ABC News it was important to get behind one candidate if the party expected to win the White House in November.

A number of supporters of Barack Obama have been calling for his rival Hillary Clinton to concede the race.

Mrs Pelosi did not say which candidate she preferred.

'Financial trouble'

Her comments come after those made by the Democrat's National Chairman, Howard Dean who said that he'd like to see the race concluded by early July.

New York Senator and former first lady Hillary Clinton has rejected calls by Obama supporters to abandon her campaign for the Democratic nomination.

She is trailing the Illinois senator in the number of delegates needed to obtain the nomination.

DEMOCRATIC DELEGATE RACE
BARACK OBAMA: 1,631
States won: 25

HILLARY CLINTON: 1,501
States won: 16

Delegates needed to secure nomination: 2,024.

Source: AP 1 April

But the latest opinion polls suggest that she is leading Mr Obama by more than 10 points in the next major primary in Pennsylvania on 22 April.

Mr Obama has distanced himself for calls for Mrs Clinton to concede the race, saying she should be able to compete as long as she is able and has supporters.

It is being reported, however, that her campaign is in financial trouble again with several million dollars of unpaid bills.

Mr Obama currently leads by 1,623 delegates to the party convention in August to Mrs Clinton's 1,499.

To secure the nomination, the winner must secure 2,024 delegates - which correspondents say neither candidate will be able to do on the basis of delegates won in the remaining primary elections alone.

If Mrs Clinton manages to win a larger share of the national popular vote, it is thought that she may secure the backing of the so-called super-delegates who could tip the balance.

Analysts say a bitter, drawn-out fight between the two contenders, going right up to the Democratic convention in August, could damage the eventual nominee's chances of beating their Republican rival, John McCain.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7323776.stm

Published: 2008/04/01 04:49:32 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

Obama Address Nation's Economic Needs at Cooper Union

2008-03-27T15:15:00.001-04:00

March 27, 2008
Transcript
Obama on ‘Renewing the American Economy’

Following is the transcript of Barack Obama's economic speech at Cooper Union in New York, as provided by CQ Transcriptions Inc.

Thank you so much for being here.

Let me begin by thanking Dr. Drucker and Cooper Union for hosting us here today. I have to say that the last time an Illinois politician made a speech here it was pretty good. So...

(LAUGHTER)

... the bar is high. And I -- I want everybody to know right at the outset here that this may not be living for generations to come, the way Lincoln's speech did. I want to thank all our elected supporters who are here. I want to -- there are a couple of special guests that I'm very appreciative for being in attendance: Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board...

(APPLAUSE)

We appreciate his presence. William Donaldson, the former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. We thank you. And finally I want to thank the mayor of this great city, mayor Bloomberg, for his extraordinary leadership. At a time...

(APPLAUSE)

At a time when Washington is divided in old ideological battles, he shows us what can be achieved when we bring people together to seek pragmatic solutions. Not only has he been a remarkable leader for New York, he's established himself as a major voice in our national debate on issues like renewing our economy, educating our children and seeking energy independence. So, Mr. Mayor, I share your determination to bring this country together, to finally make progress for the American people. And I have to tell you that the reason I bought breakfast is because I expect payback at something more expensive.

(LAUGHTER)

I -- the mayor -- I'm no dummy.

(LAUGHTER)

The mayor was a cheap date that morning...

(LAUGHTER)

... and I figured there's some good steakhouses here in New York.

(LAUGHTER)

In a city of landmarks, we meet at Cooper Union, just uptown from Federal Hall, where George Washington took the oath of office as the first president of the United States. With all history that's passed through the narrow canyons of Lower Manhattan, it's worth taking a moment to reflect on the role that the market has played in the development of the American story. The great task before our founders was putting into practice the ideal that government could simultaneously serve liberty and advance the common good. For Alexander Hamilton, the young secretary of the treasury, that task was bound to the vigor of the American economy. Hamilton had a strong belief in the power of the market, but he balanced that belief with a conviction that human enterprise, and I quote, "may be beneficially stimulated by prudent aids and encouragements on the part of the government." Government, he believed, had an important role to play in advancing our common prosperity. So he nationalized the state Revolutionary War debts, weaving together the economies of the states and creating an American system of credit and capital markets. And he encouraged manufacturing and infrastructure, so products could be moved to market. Hamilton met fierce opposition from Thomas Jefferson, who worried that this brand of capitalism would favor the interests of the few over the many. Jefferson preferred an agrarian economy, because he believed that it would give individual landowners freedom and that this freedom would nurture our democratic institutions. But despite their differences, there was one thing that Jefferson and Hamilton agreed on: that economic growth depended upon the talent and ingenuity of the American people; that in order to harness that talent, opportunity had to remain open to all; and that through education in particular, every American could climb the ladder of social and economic mobility and achieve the American dream. In the more than two centuries since then, we've struggled to balance the same forces that confronted Hamilton and Jefferson.: self-interest and community, markets and democracy, the concentration of wealth and power and the necessity of transparency and opportunity for each and every citizen. Throughout this saga, Americans have pursued their dreams within a free market that has been the engine of America's progress. It's a market that's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world, and opportunity for generations of Americans; a market that has provided great rewards to innovators and risk-takers who've made America a beacon for science and technology and discovery.

But the American experiment has worked in large part because we guided the market's invisible hand with a higher principle. A free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it. That's why we've put in place rules of the road: to make competition fair and open, and honest. We've done this not to stifle but rather to advance prosperity and liberty. As I said at Nasdaq last September, the core of our economic success is the fundamental truth that each American does better when all Americans do better; that the well-being of American business (OOTC:ARBU) , its capital markets and its American people are aligned. I think that all of us here today would acknowledge that we've lost some of that sense of shared prosperity. Now, this loss has not happened by accident. It's because of decisions made in board rooms, on trading floors and in Washington. Under Republican and Democratic administrations, we've failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practice. We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady, sustainable growth; a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street, but ends up hurting both. Nor is this trend new. The concentrations of economic power and the failures of our political system to protect the American economy and American consumers from its worst excesses have been a staple of our past: most famously in the 1920s, when such excesses ultimately plunged the country into the Great Depression. That is when government stepped in to create a series of regulatory structures, from FDIC to the Glass-Steagall Act, to serve as a corrective, to protect the American people and American business.

Ironically, it was in reaction to the high taxes and some of the outmoded structures of the New Deal that both individuals and institutions in the '80s and '90s began pushing for changes to this regulatory structure. But instead of sensible reform that rewarded success and freed the creative forces of the market, too often we've excused and even embraced an ethic of greed, corner cutting, insider dealing, things that have always threatened the long-term stability of our economic system. Too often we've lost that common stake in each other's prosperity. Now, let me be clear. The American economy does not stand still and neither should the rules that govern it. The evolution of industries often warrants regulatory reform to foster competition, lower prices or replace outdated oversight structures. Old institutions cannot adequately oversee new practices. Old rules may not fit the roads where our economy is leading. So there were good arguments for changing the rules of the road in the 1990s. Our economy was undergoing a fundamental shift, carried along by the swift currents of technological change and globalization. For the sake of our common prosperity, we needed to adapt to keep markets competitive and fair. Unfortunately, instead of establishing a 21st century regulatory framework, we simply dismantled the old one, aided by a legal but corrupt bargain in which campaign money all too often shaped policy and watered down oversight. In doing so we encouraged a winner take all, anything goes environment that helped foster devastating dislocations in our economy. Deregulation of the telecommunications sector, for example, fostered competition, but also contributed to massive over-investment.

Partial deregulation of the electricity sector enabled (inaudible). Companies like Enron and WorldCom took advantage of the new regulatory environment to push the envelope, pump up earnings, disguise losses and otherwise engage in accounting fraud to make their profits look better, a practice that led investors to question the balance sheets of all companies and severely damaged public trust in capital markets. This was not the invisible hand at work. Instead, it was the hand of industry lobbyists tilting the playing field in Washington as well as an accounting industry that had developed powerful conflicts of interest and a financial sector that had fueled over-investment. A decade later we have deregulated the financial sector and we face another crisis. A regulatory structure set up for banks in the 1930s needed to change, because the nature of business had changed. But by the time the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999, the $300 million lobbying effort that drove deregulation was more about facilitating mergers than creating an efficient regulatory framework. And since then we've overseen 21st century innovation, including the aggressive introduction of new and complex financial instruments like hedge funds and non-bank financial companies, with outdated 20th century regulatory tools. New conflicts of interest recalled the worst excesses of the past, like the outrageous news that we learned just yesterday of KPMG allowing a lender to report profits instead of losses so that both parties could make a quick buck. Not surprisingly, the regulatory environment failed to keep pace. When subprime mortgage lending took a reckless and unsustainable turn, a patchwork of regulators were unable or unwilling to protect the American people. Now, the policies of the Bush administration threw the economy further out of balance. Tax cuts without end for the wealthiest Americans. A trillion dollar war in Iraq that didn't need to be fought, paid for with deficit spending and borrowing from foreign creditors like China. A complete...

(APPLAUSE)

A complete disdain for pay-as-you-go budgeting, coupled with a generally scornful attitude toward oversight and enforcement, allowed far too many to put short-term gain ahead of long-term consequences. The American economy was bound to suffer a painful correction, and policy-makers found themselves with fewer resources to deal with the consequences. Today those consequences are clear. I see them in every corner of our great country as families face foreclosure and rising costs. I see them in towns across America, where a credit crisis threatens the ability of students to get loans and states can't finance infrastructure projects. I see them here in Manhattan, where one of our biggest investment banks had to be bailed out and the Fed opened its discount window to a host of new institutions with unprecedented implications that we have yet to appreciate. When all is said and done, losses will be in the many hundreds of billions. What was bad for Main Street turned out to be bad for Wall Street. Pain trickled up. And that...

(APPLAUSE)

... and that's why -- that's why the principle that I spoke about at NASDAQ last September is even more urgently true today. In our 21st century economy, there is no dividing line between Main Street and Wall Street.

The decisions made in New York's high rises have consequences for Americans across the country. And whether those Americans can make their house payments, whether they keep their jobs or spend confidentially without falling into debt, that has consequences for the entire market. The future cannot be shaped by the best-connected lobbyists with the best record of raising money for campaigns. This...

(APPLAUSE)

This thinking is wrong for the financial sector and it's wrong for our country. I do not believe the government should stand in the way of innovation or turn back the clock on an older era of regulation. But I do believe that government has a role to play in advancing our common prosperity, by providing stable macroeconomic and financial conditions for sustained growth, by demanding transparency and by ensuring fair competition in the marketplace. Our history should give us confidence that we don't have to choose between an oppressive government-run economy and a chaotic, unforgiving capitalism. It tells us we can emerge from great economic upheavals stronger, not weaker. But we can only do so if we restore confidence in our markets, only if we rebuild trust between investors and lenders, and only if we renew that common interest between Wall Street and Main street that is the key to our long-term success. Now, as most experts agree, our economy is in a recession. To renew our economy and to ensure that we are not doomed to repeat a cycle of bubble and bust again and again and again, we need to address not only the immediate crisis in the housing market, we also need to create a 21st-century regulatory framework and we need to pursue a bold opportunity agenda for the American people.

Most urgently, we have to confront the housing crisis. After months of inaction, the president spoke here in New York and warned against doing too much. His main proposal, extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, is completely divorced from reality, the reality that people are facing around the country.

(APPLAUSE)

John McCain recently announced his own plan. And, unfortunately, it amounts to little more than watching this crisis unfold.

(LAUGHTER)

While this is consistent with Senator McCain's determination to run for George Bush's third term...

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

... it won't help families that are suffering and it won't help lift our economy out of recession. Over 2 million households are at risk of foreclosure. Millions more have seen their home values plunge. Many Americans are walking away from their homes, which hurts property values for entire neighborhoods and aggravates the credit crisis. To stabilize the housing market and to help bring the foreclosure crisis to an end, I've sponsored Senator Chris Dodd's legislation creating a new FHA housing security program, which will provide meaningful incentives for lenders to buy or refinance existing mortgages. This will allow Americans facing foreclosure to keep their homes at rates that they can afford. Now, Senator McCain argues that government should do nothing to protect borrowers and lenders who've made bad decisions or taken on excessive risk.

And on this point I agree. But the Dodd-Frank package is not a bailout for lenders or investors who gambled recklessly; they will take their losses. It's not a windfall for borrowers, as they will have to share any capital gain. Instead, it offers a responsible and fair way to help bring an end to the foreclosure crisis. It asks both sides to sacrifice, while preventing a long-term collapse that could have enormous ramifications for the most responsible lenders and borrowers, as well as the American people as a whole. That's what Senator McCain ignores. For homeowners who are victims of fraud, I've also proposed a $10 billion foreclosure prevention fund that would help them sell a home that is beyond their means or modify their loan to avoid foreclosure or bankruptcy. It's also time to amend our bankruptcy laws so families aren't forced to stick to the terms of a home loan that was predatory or unfair.

(APPLAUSE)

To prevent fraud in the future, I've proposed tough new penalties on fraudulent lenders and a home-score system that will allow consumers to find out more about mortgage offers and whether they'll be able to make payments. To help low- and middle-income families, I proposed a 10 percent mortgage interest tax credit that will allow homeowners who don't itemize their taxes to access incentives for homeownership. And to expand homeownership, we must do more to help communities turn abandoned properties into affordable housing. The government can't do this alone, nor should it. As I said last September, lenders must get ahead of the curve rather than just react to the crisis. They should actively look at all borrowers, offer workouts and reduce the principal on mortgages in trouble. Not only can this prevent the larger losses associated with foreclosure and resale, but it can reduce the extent of government intervention and taxpayer exposure. But beyond dealing with the immediate housing crisis, it is time for the federal government to revamp the regulatory framework dealing with our financial markets.

(APPLAUSE)

Our capital markets have helped us build the strongest economy in the world. They are the source of competitive advantage for our country.

But they cannot succeed without the public's trust. The details of regulatory reform should be developed through sound analysis and public debate. And so I won't try to cross every "t" and dot every "i" in this speech. But there are several core principles for reform that I intend to pursue as president. First, if you can borrow from the government, you should be subject to government oversight and supervision.

(APPLAUSE)

Secretary Paulson admitted this in his remarks yesterday. The Federal Reserve should have basic supervisory authority over any institution to which it may make credit available as a lender of last resort. When the Fed steps in, it is providing lenders an insurance policy underwritten by the American taxpayer. In return, taxpayers have every right to expect that these institutions are not taking excessive risks. Now, the nature of regulation should depend on the degree and extent of the Fed's exposure. But, at the very least, these new regulations should include liquidity and capital requirements. Second, there needs to be general reform of the requirements to which all regulated financial institutions are subjected. Capital requirements should be strengthened, particularly for complex financial instruments like some of the mortgage securities that led to our current crisis. We must develop and rigorously manage liquidity risks. We must investigate ratings agencies and potential conflicts of interest with the people that they are rating. And transparency requirements must demand full disclosure by financial institutions to shareholders and counter parties. As we reform our regulatory system at home, we should work with international arrangements, like the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the International Accounting Standards Board, and the Financial Stability Forum, to address the same problems abroad.

The goal should be to ensure that financial institutions around the world are subject to similar rules of the road, both to make the system more stable and to keep our financial institutions competitive. Third, we need to streamline a framework of overlapping and competing regulatory agencies. Reshuffling bureaucracies should not be an end in itself. But the large, complex institutions that dominate the financial landscape don't fit into categories created decades ago. Different institutions compete in multiple markets. Our regulatory system should not pretend otherwise. A streamlined system will provide better oversight and be less costly for regulated institutions. Fourth, we need to regulate institutions for what they do, not what they are. Over the last few years, commercial banks and thrift institutions were subject to guidelines on subprime mortgages that did not apply to mortgage brokers and companies. Now, it makes no sense for the Fed to tighten mortgage guidelines for banks when two-thirds of subprime mortgages don't originate from banks. This regulatory framework...

(APPLAUSE)

This regulatory framework has failed to protect homeowners and it is now clear that it made no sense for our financial system. When it comes to protecting the American people, it should make no difference what kind of institution they are dealing with. Fifth, we must remain vigilant and crack down on trading activity that crosses the line to market manipulation. On recent days, reports have circulated that some traders may have intentionally spread rumors that Bear Stearns (NYSE:BSC) was in financial distress while making market bets against the country. The SEC should investigate and punish this kind of market manipulation and report its conclusions to Congress. Sixth, we need a process that identifies systemic risks to the financial system.

Too often we deal with threats to the financial system that weren't anticipated by regulators. That's why we should create a financial market oversight commission, which would meet regularly and provide advice to the president, Congress and regulators on the state of our financial markets and the risks that face them. These experts' views could help anticipate risks before they erupt into a crisis.

These six principles should guide the legal reforms needed to establish a 21st-century regulatory system, but the changes we need goes beyond the laws and regulation. We need a shift in the cultures of our financial institutions and our regulatory agencies. Financial institutions have to do a better job at managing risk. There is something wrong when board of directors or senior managers don't understand the implications of the risks assumed by their own institutions. It's time to realign incentives and the compensation packages so that both high-level executives and employees better serve the interests of shareholders. And it's time to confront the risks that come with excessive complexity. Even the best government regulation cannot fully substitute for internal risk management. For supervisory agencies, oversight has to keep pace with innovation. As the subprime crisis unfolded, tough questions about new and complex financial instruments were not asked. As a result, the public interest was not protected. We do American business and the American people no favors when we turn a blind eye to excessive leverage and dangerous risks. And finally, the American people must be able to trust that their government is looking out for all of us, not just those who donate to political campaigns. I...

(APPLAUSE)

I fought in the Senate for the most extensive ethics reforms since Watergate, and we got those passed.

(APPLAUSE)

I've refused contributions from federal lobbyists and PACs. I have laid out far-reaching plans that I intend to sign into law as president to bring transparency to government and to end the revolving door between industries and the federal agencies that oversee them.

Once...

(APPLAUSE)

Once we deal with the immediate crisis in housing and strengthen the regulatory system governing our financial markets, we have to make government responsive once again to all of the American people. And our final task, in fact, is to make sure that opportunity is available to all Americans. You know, the bedrock of our economic success is the American dream. It's a dream shared in big cities and small towns, across races, regions and religions, that, if you work hard, you can support a family; that if you get sick, there will be health care that you can afford; that you can retire...

(APPLAUSE)

... that you can retire with the dignity and security and respect that you've earned; and that your children can get a good education and young people can go to college, even if they don't come from a wealthy family. That's our common hope.

(APPLAUSE)

That's our common hope across this country. That's the essence of the American dream. But today, for far too many Americans, this dream is slipping away. Wall Street has been recently gripped by gloom over our economic situation. But for many Americans, the economy has effectively been in recession for the past seven years. We have just come through...

(APPLAUSE)

We have just come through the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that was not accompanied by a growth in incomes for typical families. Americans are working harder for less.

Costs are rising, and it's not clear that we'll leave a legacy of opportunity to our children and our grandchildren. And that's why throughout this campaign I've put forward a series of proposals that will foster economic growth from the bottom up and not just from the top down. And that's why the last time I spoke on the economy here in New York, I talked about the need to put the policies of George W. Bush behind us, policies that have essentially said...

(APPLAUSE)

... policies that have essentially said to the American people, "You are on your own."

We need policies that once again recognize that we are in this together. And we need the most powerful, the wealthiest among us -- those who are in attendance here today, we need you to get behind that agenda.

It's an agenda that starts with providing a stimulus that will reach the most vulnerable Americans, including immediate relief to areas hardest hit by the housing crisis and a significant extension of unemployment insurance for those who are out of work.

(APPLAUSE)

If we can extend a hand to banks on Wall Street when they get into trouble, we can extend a hand to Americans who are struggling, often through no fault of their own.

(APPLAUSE)

Beyond these short-term measure, as president, I will be committed to putting the American dream on a firmer footing. To reward work and make retirement secure, we'll provide an income tax (sic) of up to $1,000 for a working family and eliminate income taxes altogether for any retiree bringing in less than $50,000 per year.

(APPLAUSE)

To make health care affordable for all Americans, we'll cut costs and provide coverage to all who need it. To put Americans to work, we'll create millions of new green jobs and invest in rebuilding our nation's infrastructure.

(APPLAUSE)

To extend opportunity, we'll invest in our schools and our teachers and make college affordable for every American. And to ensure...

(APPLAUSE)

And to ensure that America stays on the cutting edge, we'll expand broadband access, expand funding for basic scientific research, and pass comprehensive immigration reform so that we continue to attract the best and the brightest to our shores.

(APPLAUSE)

I know that making these changes won't be easy. I will not pretend that this will come without costs, although I have presented ways we can achieve these changes in a fiscally responsible way. I believe in PAYGO. If I start a new program I will pay for it. If I intend to cut taxes for the middle class, then we're going to close some of the tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy that are not working for shared prosperity.

(APPLAUSE)

So we're going to have fiscal discipline. I know that we'll have to overcome our doubts and divisions and the determined opposition of powerful special interests before we can truly advance opportunity and prosperity for all Americans. But I would not be running for president if I did not think that this was a defining moment in our history.

If we fail to overcome our divisions and continue to let special interests set the agenda, then America will fall behind, short-term gains will continue to yield long-term costs, opportunity will slip away on Main Street, and prosperity will suffer here on Wall Street.

But if we unite this country around a common purpose, if we act on the responsibilities that we have to each other and to our country, then we can launch a new era of opportunity and prosperity.

I know we can do this because Americans have done this before. Time and again we've recognized that common stake that we have in each other's success. It's how people as different as Hamilton and Jefferson came together to launch the world's greatest experiment in democracy. That's why our economy hasn't just been the world's greatest wealth creator, it's bound America together, it's created jobs and it's made the dream of opportunity a reality for generations.

Now it falls to us. We have as our inheritance the greatest economy the world has ever known. We have the responsibility to continue the work that began on that spring day over two centuries ago right here in Manhattan, to renew our common purpose for a new century and to write the next chapter in the story of America's success.

We can do this, and we can begin this work today.

Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

END

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

2008-03-22T01:11:00.000-04:00

Hillary's Balkan Adventures, Part II

Greeting ceremony, Tuzla military airport, Bosnia, March 25, 1996.

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."
--Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, March 17, 2008.

Hillary Clinton has been regaling supporters on the campaign trail with hair-raising tales of a trip she made to Bosnia in March 1996. In her retelling, she was sent to places that her husband, President Clinton, could not go because they were "too dangerous." When her account was challenged by one of her traveling companions, the comedian Sinbad, she upped the ante and injected even more drama into the story. In a speech earlier this week, she talked about "landing under sniper fire" and running for safety with "our heads down."

There are numerous problems with Clinton's version of events.
The Facts

(Updated below)

As a reporter who visited Bosnia soon after the December 1995 Dayton Peace agreement, I can attest that the physical risks were minimal during this period, particularly at a heavily fortified U.S. Air Force base, such as Tuzla. Contrary to the claims of Hillary Clinton and former Army secretary Togo West, Bosnia was not "too dangerous" a place for President Clinton to visit in early 1996. In fact, the first Clinton to visit the Tuzla Air Force base was not Hillary, but Bill, on January 13, 1996.

Had Hillary Clinton's plane come "under sniper fire" in March 1996, we would certainly have heard about it long before now. Numerous reporters, including the Washington Post's John Pomfret, covered her trip. A review of nearly 100 news accounts of her visit shows that not a single newspaper or television station reported any security threat to the First Lady. "As a former AP wire service hack, I can safely say that it would have been in my lead had anything like that happened," said Pomfret.

According to Pomfret, the Tuzla airport was "one of the safest places in Bosnia" in March 1996, and "firmly under the control" of the 1st Armored Division.

Far from running to an airport building with their heads down, Clinton and her party were greeted on the tarmac by smiling U.S. and Bosnian officials. An eight-year-old Moslem girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a poem in English. An Associated Press photograph of the greeting ceremony, above, shows a smiling Clinton bending down to receive a kiss.

"There is peace now," Emina told Clinton, according to Pomfret's report in the Washington Post the following day, "because Mr. Clinton signed it. All this peace. I love it."

The First Lady's schedule, released on Wednesday and available here, confirms that she arrived in Tuzla at 8.45 a.m. and was greeted by various dignitaries, including Emina Bicakcic, (whose name has mysteriously been redacted from the document.)

You can see CBS News footage of the arrival ceremony here. The footage shows Clinton walking calmly out of the back of the C-17 military transport plane that brought her from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany.

Among the U.S. officials on hand to greet Clinton at the airport was Maj. Gen. William Nash, the commander of U.S. troops in Bosnia. Nash told me that he was unaware of any security threat to Clinton during her eight-hour stay in Tuzla. He said, however, that Clinton had a "busy schedule" and may have got the impression that she was being hurried on her way.

According to Sinbad, who provided entertainment on the trip along with the singer Sheryl Crow, the "scariest" part was deciding where to eat. As he told Mary Ann Akers of The Post, "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'" Sinbad questioned the premise behind the Clinton version of events. "What kind of president would say 'Hey man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife. Oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you."

Replying to Sinbad earlier this week, Clinton dismissed him as "a comedian." Her campaign referred me to Togo West, who was also on the trip and is a staunch Hillary supporter. West could not remember "sniper fire" himself, but said there was no reason to doubt the First Lady's version of events. "Everybody's perceptions are different," he told me.

Clinton made no mention of "sniper fire" in her autobiography "Living History," published in 2003, although she did say there were "reports of snipers" in the hills around the airport.

UPDATE Friday 6:45 p.m.

Lissa Muscatine, who served as Hilary Clinton's chief speechwriter in 1996 and accompanied her on the Bosnia trip, feels that I have failed to provide a full picture of what took place. She gave me her "vivid recollections" of the arrival in Tuzla, which I quote below:

I was on the plane with then First Lady Hillary Clinton for the trip from Germany into Bosnia in 1996. We were put on a C17-- a plane capable of steep ascents and descents -- precisely because we were flying into what was considered a combat zone. We were issued flak jackets for the final leg because of possible sniper fire near Tuzla. As an additional precaution, the First Lady and Chelsea were moved to the armored cockpit for the descent into Tuzla. We were told that a welcoming ceremony on the tarmac might be canceled because of sniper fire in the hills surrounding the air strip. From Tuzla, Hillary flew to two outposts in Bosnia with gunships escorting her helicopter.

Anybody else with first-hand memories of Clinton's Tuzla trip, please send them along.

Photograph of Bill Clinton and Rev. Wright Surfaces

2008-03-20T22:46:00.000-04:00

By Kate Phillips
The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. and President Bill Clinton at a prayer breakfast at the White House in September 1998.

During one of the most difficult periods in the presidency of Bill Clinton, he addressed a group of clerics at an annual prayer breakfast in September 1998 just as the Starr report outlining his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky was about to be published.

Among those in attendance, was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., who is seen shaking hands with Mr. Clinton in a photograph provided today by the Obama campaign. Mr. Wright’s relationship with Senator Barack Obama, as his longtime pastor, has been the subject of considerable controversy in recent days because of incendiary excerpts of sermons Mr. Wright gave at their church, Trinity United Church of Christ, in Chicago.

In providing the photograph to The New York Times, the Obama campaign appeared to be trying to divert some attention to the Clintons after a week in which Mr. Obama’s relationship with Mr. Wright has left him facing one of the biggest challenges of his campaign. There is nothing in the picture or the note that addresses whether Mr. Clinton had met Mr. Wright prior to the White House meeting or whether he or Mrs. Clinton knew anything about Mr. Wright’s views.
The invitation to the breakfast.
The invitation’s envelope.

Asked for a response tonight through email, Howard Wolfson, a top aide to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, wrote, “Urgent indeed — a picture — oooooooo!”

Senator Clinton’s spokesman, Phil Singer, sent along this reply to a request for comment:

In the course of his two terms in office, Bill Clinton met with, corresponded with and took pictures with literally tens of thousands of people.

Mr. Wright was invited to the 1998 prayer breakfast, and in addition, he received a thank-you note from former President Clinton for his expressions of support about six weeks later.

According to an account by James Bennet, former White House correspondent who has since left The Times:

With tears in his eyes, President Clinton told a roomful of clerics this morning that he had sinned, speaking just hours before the world was presented a painstaking account by prosecutors of when, where and how.

Addressing an annual prayer breakfast at the White House, Mr. Clinton drew on the New Testament, the Yom Kippur liturgy and Ernest Hemingway as he made his most abject confession yet of personal failure, while declaring that he would defend and redeem his Presidency.

‘’I don’t think there is a fancy way to say that I have sinned,'’ he admitted softly, saying that after resisting expressions of contrition he had reached ‘’the rock-bottom truth of where I am.'’
For the first time, Mr. Clinton also asked for forgiveness from Monica S. Lewinsky, on the day that the details of their intimate relationship — details that he had denied and struggled to suppress — poured out through the Internet, whose wonders as a tool of communication he has so often extolled.

Mr. Wright is not mentioned in the article. Also visible in the photograph is Vice President Al Gore.

And according to the newly released schedules of Mrs. Clinton by the National Archives of her years as first lady, she was in attendance, too.

Her schedule reads:

“Religion Leaders Breakfast (w/POTUS)” in the East Room from 9-10:30 a.m.

Format:
- The President and First Lady are announced into the East Room and proceed to their tables.
- The Vice President makes remarks and introduces The President.
- The President makes remarks and introduces Dr. Reverend Gerald Mann.
- Dr. Reverend Gerald Mann gives blessing.
- Breakfast is served.
- Following breakfast, The President opens discussion.
- Upon conclusion of the discussion, The President introduces Dr. Reverend James Forbes.
- Dr. Reverend James Forbes gives benediction.
- The President, First Lady, and Vice President depart.
PARTICIPANTS: Approx. 130 guests to attend.

A thank-you note from Mr. Clinton to Mr. Wright. (Click to enlarge)

The wording of Mr. Clinton’s thank-you note to Mr. Wright, dated Oct. 28, 1998:

Dear Pastor Wright:

Thank you so much for your kind message.
I am touched by your prayers and by the many expressions of encouragement and support I have received from friends across our country.

You have my best wishes.

Sincerely,
Bill Clinton

Statement of B H Obama on Race and Racism in America

2008-03-18T16:53:00.000-04:00

Sen. Barack Obama Addresses Race at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia

CQ Transcripts Wire
Tuesday, March 18, 2008; 10:46 AM

(As Delivered)

OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank.

Let me begin by thanking Harris Wofford for his contributions to this country in so many different ways. He exemplifies what we mean by the word "citizen." And so we are very grateful to him for all the work he has done, and I'm thankful for the gracious and thoughtful introduction.

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy.

Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across the ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least 20 more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

OBAMA: It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States.

What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part -- through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience, and always at great risk -- to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

OBAMA: This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this presidential campaign -- to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America.

I chose to run for president at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together, unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction: toward a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

And this belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own story. I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas.

I've gone to some of the best schools in America and I've lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slave owners, an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters.

I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins of every race and every hue scattered across three continents. And for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on earth is my story even possible.

OBAMA: It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional of candidates. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts -- that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in this campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every single exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it's only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wild- and wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap.

On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation and that rightly offend white and black alike.

OBAMA: I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy, and in some cases, pain.

For some, nagging questions remain: Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in the church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely, just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagree.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country, a view that sees white racism as endemic and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems -- two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change, problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

OBAMA: Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough.

Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television sets and YouTube, if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor.

He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine, and who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who over 30 years has led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth -- by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, "Dreams From My Father," I described the experience of my first service at Trinity, and it goes as follows: "People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters.

"And in that single note -- hope -- I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones."

OBAMA: "Those stories of survival and freedom and hope became our story, my story. The blood that spilled was our blood; the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world.

"Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black. In chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a meaning to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about -- memories that all people might study and cherish and with which we could start to rebuild."

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety -- the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger.

Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing and clapping and screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear.

The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and, yes, the bitterness and biases that make up the black experience in America.

OBAMA: And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding and baptized my children.

Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect.

He contains within him the contradictions -- the good and the bad -- of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother, a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are part of America, this country that I love.

Now, some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not.

OBAMA: And I suppose the politically safe thing to do would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro in the aftermath of her recent statements as harboring some deep-seated bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America: to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through, a part of our union that we have not yet made perfect.

And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care or education or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding...

(APPLAUSE)

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past."

We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country.

OBAMA: But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist between the African-American community and the larger American community today can be traced directly to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools. We still haven't fixed them, 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education.

(APPLAUSE)

And the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination, where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire department meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations.

That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between blacks and whites and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persist in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family contributed to the erosion of black families, a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened.

OBAMA: And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods -- parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up, building code enforcement -- all help create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continues to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African- Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late '50s and early '60s, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted.

What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it -- those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations -- those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future.

Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their world view in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years.

That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co- workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or the beauty shop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians to gin up votes along racial lines or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews.

OBAMA: That anger is not always productive. Indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems. It keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity within the African-American community in our condition, it prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change.

But the anger is real, it is powerful, and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race.

Their experience is the immigrant experience. As far as they're concerned, no one handed them anything, they built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pensions dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and they feel their dreams slipping away. And in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense.

So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town, when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed, when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudice, resentment builds over time.

OBAMA: Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation.

Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends.

Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

(APPLAUSE)

And just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze: a corporate culture rife with inside dealing and questionable accounting practices and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many.

OBAMA: And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns, this, too, widens the racial divide and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. And contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle or with a single candidate, particularly...

(APPLAUSE)

... particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

(LAUGHTER)

But I have asserted a firm conviction, a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people, that, working together, we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds and that, in fact, we have no choice -- we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life.

But it also means binding our particular grievances, for better health care and better schools and better jobs, to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who's been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.

OBAMA: And it means also taking full responsibility for own lives -- by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe...

(APPLAUSE)

They must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American -- and, yes, conservative -- notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress had been made; as if this country -- a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black...

(APPLAUSE)

... Latino, Asian, rich, poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past.

(APPLAUSE)

What we know -- what we have seen -- is that America can change.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope -- the audacity to hope -- for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

Now, in the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past -- that these things are real and must be addressed.

Not just with words, but with deeds -- by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations.

It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams, that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more and nothing less than what all the world's great religions demand: that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division and conflict and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle, as we did in the OJ trial; or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina; or as fodder for the nightly news.

We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words.

We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction, and then another one, and then another one. And nothing will change.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: That is one option.

Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time."

This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native-American children.

(APPLAUSE)

This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem.

(APPLAUSE)

The children of America are not those kids; they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st-century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the emergency room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care, who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life.

This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

OBAMA: This time...

(APPLAUSE)

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that should've never been authorized and should've never been waged.

(APPLAUSE)

And we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits that they have earned.

(APPLAUSE)

I would not be running for president if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected.

And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation -- the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

(APPLAUSE)

There's one story in particular that I'd like to leave you with today, a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, 23-year-old woman, a white woman named Ashley Baia, who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina.

OBAMA: She'd been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was 9 years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat. That's the mind of a 9 year old.

She did this for a year until her mom got better. And so Ashley told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she had joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now, Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign.

OBAMA: They all have different stories and different reasons. Many bring up a specific issue.

And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there.

And he doesn't bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama.

He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

(APPLAUSE)

"I'm here because of Ashley."

Now, by itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children. But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger.

And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the 221 years since a band of patriots signed that document right here in Philadelphia, that is where perfection begins.

Thank you very much, everyone. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

END

.ETX

Mar 18, 2008 11:36 ET .EOF

Source: CQ Transcriptions

Â© 2008, Congressional Quarterly Inc., All Rights Reserved

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

The "Monster" Lies Once More

2008-03-18T16:31:00.000-04:00

March 18, 2008, 3:54 pm
Clinton on Obama’s Speech: I Haven’t Heard It

By Patrick Healy

PHILADELPHIA -– Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared at Philadelphia’s City Hall this afternoon, a few hours after Senator Barack Obama delivered a major speech on race not far from here. But despite the speech’s high profile and intense media coverage of it, Mrs. Clinton said at a news conference she had not heard it yet or read the text.

Many reporters muttered in disbelief during and after her remarks, surprised that a candidate as diligent as Mrs. Clinton -– who always talked about being well-prepared and doing her homework -– would not have read the speech yet. The fact that she was not prepared to comment on it, however, will keep the race issue alive for at least another news cycle, since reporters will keep seeking her reaction.

In her opening remarks, Mrs. Clinton said she was “very glad” Mr. Obama had made his speech, given that she said that race had been a “complicated” issue in America that had been marked by “pitfalls” and “detours.” Asked why she was glad, she said that issues of race and gender are “important” and twice called them “difficult issues.”

Asked if she thought Mr. Obama had done enough to denounce racially divisive remarks made by his pastor, the Rev, Jeremiah Wright, Mrs. Clinton replied, “I think that question should be directed at him” -– referring to Mr. Obama.

She was also asked if she could do anything more to tamp down the issue of race in the campaign, since some Obama supporters have blamed her campaign for stirring it up. She said she and Mr. Obama have called truces on numerous occasions, and added that “we have admonished our staffs and supporters” to avoid incendiary language.

In response to another question, Mrs. Clinton said she was not sure if she would deliver a speech that was similar to Mr. Obama’s.

“I don’t know, I haven’t read it, I have to think about it,” she said.

The bulk of the news conference dealt with Mrs. Clinton’s familiar positions on the Iraq war and the economy, such as withdrawing American troops from Iraq and dealing with the home foreclosure crisis. She also appeared here with former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, who have been locked in legal and political battles with Vice President Dick Cheney and his former top aide, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, over Mr. Wilson’s criticism of prewar Iraq weaponry intelligence and the unmasking of Mrs. Wilson as a covert C.I.A. officer.

Mrs. Clinton also noted that about 11,000 page of her daily schedule as First Lady were set to be released on Wednesday –- evidence, she said, that she was a transparent and accessible candidate, an image the Obama campaign has challenged.

“I think I’m the most transparent person in public life,” she said. She added that 60 books have been written about her, “much of it untrue but nevertheless out there.”

“This will be an exciting day for all of you,” she said to reporters about the release of the documents, with just a touch of sarcasm in her voice. “There will be a lot more that can fill many archives and warehouses across the world.”

Racist Forced Out of Clinton Campaign

2008-03-12T19:27:00.000-04:00

Ferraro was forced to quit the Clinton Gang today,is the the "Little Monster" next.

M A

By Anne E. Kornblut
Geraldine Ferraro has relinquished her position on the Clinton campaign after causing a firestorm with her remarks that Sen. Barack Obama is only where he is politically because he is a black man.

A senior Clinton adviser said no one on the campaign forced Ferraro to quit the finance committee. "Nobody told her to step down," the adviser said, adding that it might have been counterproductive to try to tell her what to do, given how off-the-reservation Ferraro had been in recent days.

After making her remarks in an interview with the local paper in Torrance, Calif., Ferraro further defended them on television, saying she had been celebrating the outpouring of support Obama received from black voters. Even though Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has distanced herself from the remarks, Ferraro did not back away from them. She wrote a letter to Clinton announcing her decision to move on.

"I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign," Ferraro wrote. "The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won't let that happen." She signed the note, "Gerry."

Ferraro was the vice presidential nominee on the Democratic ticket in 1984. In what has become only the latest controversy involving provocative remarks by Democratic surrogates, Ferraro said "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. And the country is caught up in the concept."

In a subsequent interview, Ferraro said she would not be discriminated against because she is white. "Every time the campaign is upset about something, they call it racist," she said. Obama officials responded forcefully. Obama himself said that if any member of his campaign were to suggest that Clinton only made it this far in the presidential campaign because she is a woman, the Clinton campaign would be -- rightfully -- outraged.

Posted at 6:05 PM ET on Mar 12, 2008

Major Clinton Backer Resigns

2008-03-12T11:53:00.000-04:00

By DANNY HAKIM and ANAHAD O’CONNOR

Gov. Eliot Spitzer, reeling from revelations that he had been a client of a prostitution ring, announced his resignation today at his headquarters in Manhattan.

Mr. Spitzer’s resignation is to be effective Monday, and Lt. Gov. David A. Paterson is to be sworn in to replace him.

In the two days since news of Mr. Spitzer’s involvement in the prostitution ring surfaced, he has been engaged in an intense legal and family debate about whether to resign or, as aides said his wife was urging, to stay on.

Mr. Spitzer, who had been holed up at his apartment at Fifth Avenue and 79th Street in Manhattan since issuing an apology on Tuesday, emerged at about 11:15 a.m. Wednesday with his wife by his side and got into a black S.U.V., which headed for his headquarters on Third Avenue as news helicopters followed above.

On Tuesday, as Mr. Spitzer, a first-term Democrat, contemplated his next move, the New York political world remained in a suspended state, with cries — even from fellow Democrats — growing louder for him to step down.

In one of the last and desperate rounds of the end game, a top Spitzer administration official reached out to Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver’s staff on Tuesday to see if the governor could avoid an impeachment vote. But the prospects were grim.

Republicans have pledged to try to have Mr. Spitzer impeached and only 34 of the more than 100 Democrats in the Assembly would be needed for the matter to be referred to the Senate for an impeachment trial. It was clear during the discussions that 34 or more Democrats were almost certain to vote against the governor.

That outcome would have been a dire for the governor, because his top political rival, Senate majority leader Joseph L. Bruno, leads the Senate, where a trial would have been held.

“An impeachment proceeding would force Democrats to either abandon him or defend him,” said one leading Democrat. “They would abandon him.”

Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker, said Tuesday that Mr. Spitzer should do “what’s best for his family,” but stopped short of calling on the governor to step down. “It is now up to the governor to make a determination that’s best for his family. I pray for his children.” When asked what Mr. Silver thought was best for the Spitzer family, he did not respond.

Mr. Silver offered a few details of his conversation with Mr. Spitzer on Tuesday afternoon before the governor briefly spoke to the public. “I said to him then and I say it now, he’s got to take care of his family first and be concerned about them. I told him that we will carry on in the legislative process that moves the budget forward. We intend to pass our budget tomorrow. I hope the Senate will do the same.”

Mr. Paterson said on Tuesday that he had not heard from Mr. Spitzer since about noon on Monday, and did not know whether he would soon be sworn in as the state’s 55th governor.

“The governor called me yesterday,” said Mr. Paterson, who was driven to the Capitol on Tuesday and pondered going inside before deciding to avoid the swarm of journalists. “He said he didn’t resign for a number of reasons, and he didn’t go into the reasons, and that’s the last I’ve heard from him.”

Asked whether preparations for a transition were under way, the lieutenant governor said: “No one has talked to me about his resignation, and no one has talked to me about a transition.”

At a televised news conference on Wednesday morning, Mr. Bruno, the Senate majority leader who would become the lieutenant governor if Mr. Paterson replaces Mr. Spitzer, told reporters that he had not spoken with Mr. Spitzer or any of his top aides about the impending resignation.

“No one has contacted me officially,” he said. “We are following the reports as you are. But in the meantime, I am staying with our plan to pass a budget, talk to the speaker, and we’re going to go public in a real way on Monday.”

Mr. Bruno, a Republican who clashed frequently with Mr. Spitzer, said he was praying for the governor and his family and urged all New Yorkers to do so as well.

On Tuesday, Mr. Spitzer cut himself off from all but the most senior members of his staff. His lawyer, Michele Hirschman, was reaching out to federal prosecutors to try to strike a deal in hopes of avoiding charges.

Close aides to the governor suggested on Tuesday that the mood in the Spitzer home was tense, with the governor’s wife, Silda Wall Spitzer, recommending that he not step down, but they cautioned that the situation could change at any time.

The revelation of Mr. Spitzer’s involvement with the high-end prostitution ring gripped the nation, and more than 70 reporters and photographers clustered outside the governor’s Upper East Side high-rise on Tuesday, separated from the building by a metal barricade erected by the police.

Three helicopters whirred overhead as tourists atop passing double-decker buses snapped pictures of the scene.

Mr. Spitzer’s patronage of the prostitution agency, Emperor’s Club V.I.P., came to light after prosecutors charged four people with operating the service. They said the governor was intercepted on a federal wiretap arranging payments and an encounter with a prostitute in a Washington hotel room last month. The affidavit referred to a Client 9 and did not identify Mr. Spitzer by name, but law enforcement officials said that Client 9 was the governor.

Investigators reviewing the scope of Mr. Spitzer’s involvement with prostitutes said on Tuesday that just in the past year he had had more than a half-dozen meetings with them and had paid tens of thousands of dollars to the ring, one law enforcement official said.

A person with knowledge of the service’s operations said that Mr. Spitzer had begun meeting with the prostitutes of the Emperor’s Club about eight months ago and had had encounters in Dallas as well as Washington. A law enforcement official said Mr. Spitzer also had an encounter with a prostitute in Florida. On some trips of several days’ duration, Mr. Spitzer scheduled more than one visit with a prostitute, this person said.

In his Washington visit with the prostitute, Mr. Spitzer is said to have used an alias to book one of his rooms at the Mayflower Hotel, the name of a close friend, the financier George Fox.

Mr. Fox released a statement yesterday that said he was surprised and disappointed by Mr. Spitzer’s misuse of his name. “There is absolutely no connection between Mr. Fox and the governor’s alleged activity beyond the unauthorized use of his name,” the statement said.

Authorities were seeking the testimony of the woman known as Kristen, who worked for the Emperor’s Club service and is identified in the criminal complaint as having met with the governor last month in Washington, people briefed on the case said.

The woman is said in the complaint to have typically charged $1,000 an hour.

After her encounter with Client 9, the prostitute told the booker for the agency that it had gone well, and the booker told her that he, in an apparent reference to Client 9, sometimes asked the women “to do things that, like, you might not think were safe.”

Two of the defendants from the escort service were still being held in federal custody on Tuesday. Two other employees, who have been released, declined to discuss their work for what has become a highly publicized business.

“We are too early in this complex investigation for me to make any comment,” said Marc Agnifilo, the lawyer representing one of the bookers, Temeka Lewis.

Mr. Spitzer, who has three daughters, offered a general apology to his family and the people of New York on Monday, but did not address the specific allegations. He said he needed to repair his relationship with his family and decide what was best for the state, but he declined to take questions and his appearance lasted just over a minute.

“I have acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family and violates my, or any, sense of right and wrong,” the governor said. “I apologize first and most importantly to my family. I apologize to the public to whom I promised better.

“I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself. I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family.”

Despite his expression of contrition, the drumbeat of calls for his resignation became louder, as some Democrats joined in.

Asked if Mr. Spitzer should resign, Darrel J. Aubertine, a newly elected Democratic senator from upstate New York, who got a big boost from the governor’s political operation in his recent campaign, responded: “If the facts remain the way they are, yes.”

He added, “I’m just disappointed, terribly disappointed.”

Representative Kirsten Gillibrand, a freshman Democrat in a swing district north of New York City, expressed sympathy for the governor’s family, but said his staying in office would be untenable.

“If these serious allegations are true, the governor will have no choice but to resign,” she said.

In Albany, the business of government gave way to fevered whispers and speculation about what happens next. And no one seemed to know.

“It’s sort of a theater of the absurd,” said Senator Liz Krueger, a Manhattan Democrat. “Everybody is still a bit shellshocked.”

As the governor pondered his decision, Assemblyman James N. Tedisco, a Republican and the Assembly minority leader, said he would begin moving to have Mr. Spitzer impeached if the governor did not step down within 48 hours.

Reporting was contributed by Ian Urbina, Jo Becker, Cara Buckley, Russ Buettner, Nicholas Confessore, Lisa W. Foderaro, Kate Hammer, C. J. Hughes, Andrew Jacobs, Serge F. Kovaleski, Trymaine Lee, Jennifer Mascia, Mike McIntire, Jeremy W. Peters, Michael Powell and William K. Rashbaum.

H
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

Clinton Supporters try to Steal Mississippi

2008-03-11T18:17:00.000-04:00

Callers to 1-866-MYVOTE1 have reported an insufficient number of Democratic machines at polling locations and broken machines, according to a news release from the hotline.

The hotline, promoted by the Tom Joyner Morning Show and sponsored by a coalition of civil rights organizations, has received more than 1,200 calls from Mississippi.

Of the Madison County complaints, voters had problems at precincts located at Fellowship Bible Church on U.S. 51 in Canton, First Presbyterian Church in Madison and Frankin Baptist Church in Flora.

District 5 Elections Commissioner Leroy Lacy said he had not heard of any voter complications.

Circuit Clerk Lee Westbrook and Elections Commission Chairwoman Kakey Chaney could not be reached immediately for comment.

To comment on this story, call Elizabeth Crisp at (601) 961-7303.

Bonney Lake girl in Clinton ad actually supports Obama

2008-03-10T08:08:00.000-04:00

BONNEY LAKE -- Casey Knowles didn't much like a recent campaign commercial for Hillary Clinton -- even though she's in it.
Knowles
KOMO-TV/4
Knowles

After all, the Bonney Lake 17-yearold is a big Barack Obama supporter.

"What I don't like about the ad is its fear-mongering," Knowles told "Good Morning America Weekend Edition" on Sunday. "I think it's a cheap hit to take. I really prefer Obama's message of looking forward to a bright future." (Watch the interview.)

The well-known Clinton ad aired in Texas before last week's vote and implied a lack of experience on Obama's part. It showed an exterior of a Colonial-style home and stock footage of then-8-year-old Knowles sleeping in bed. A narrator describes a phone ringing in the White House: "It's 3 a.m. and your children are safely asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?"

Clinton won the Texas primary 51 percent-47 percent.

Knowles said she didn't see the ad until Jon Stewart lampooned it Thursday on "The Daily Show." Her brother noticed it was her, and the family replayed the commercial on their digital recorder to be sure.

"They were parodying this ad, kind of poking fun at it," Knowles said. "My brother was like, 'Is that Casey?' And we just erupted. Sure enough, it's me."

The file footage was originally shot for a railroad company advertisement. The Clinton campaign bought it from Getty Images.

Knowles, a senior at Bonney Lake High School who turns 18 next month, has been campaigning for Obama. She attended his rally at Seattle's KeyArena on Feb. 8. Her mother, Pam, told The News Tribune of Tacoma that Casey cried and trembled after shaking the candidate's hand.

The next day, she was a Democratic precinct captain for the state's caucuses. If she plays her cards right, she could go to the national convention.

Not to mention that she could be in another ad. After her identity became known, Obama's campaign contacted her.

"I mentioned that we should make a counter ad, me and Obama, against Hillary," she said. "They thought that was really funny. They actually might take me up on it."

© 1998-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Obama Wins Wyoming

2008-03-08T18:25:00.000-05:00

Barack Obama has won the Wyoming Democratic caucuses over the "Monster".

A Double Standard on 'Reject and Denounce'

2008-03-01T11:36:00.000-05:00

The Hillary has run the most racist campaign in the history of modern day democratic party politics.

M A

A Double Standard on 'Reject and Denounce'

By Colbert I. King
Saturday, March 1, 2008; A15

With the crucial Ohio and Texas Democratic primaries only three days away, this might not be the best time for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama to slip away to ponder what he has gotten himself into. The temptation, though, would be understandable.

Coping with Hillary Clinton's special code of conduct is surely an unbelievable burden. Simply put, Clinton sets a standard for political opponents that she wouldn't think of applying to herself.

Consider her practice of holding a candidate accountable for a supporter's remarks.

In the Ohio debate this week, Clinton wouldn't quit until Obama said that he would "reject and denounce" the endorsement of his candidacy by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. That Obama had not solicited the endorsement and has consistently deplored Farrakhan's anti-Semitism did not matter to Clinton.

Then there's the current Newsweek story "Good for the Jews? Hillary Clinton's surrogates are questioning Obama's commitment to U.S.-Israel relations."

In a January conference call with American Jewish organization leaders, the magazine reports, Clinton senior adviser Ann Lewis attempted to denigrate Obama's pro-Israel credentials by pointing out that Zbigniew Brzezinski is Obama's "chief foreign-policy adviser." Brzezinski, Newsweek noted, "has a reputation that is close to toxic in the American Jewish community."

It mattered not to Clinton's clan that Brzezinski is not a key Obama adviser, that Obama has said he has had lunch with Brzezinski only once or that they have exchanged e-mails perhaps three times. Linking Obama to someone who is anathema to the Jewish community was the point to be scored -- even if it meant committing a foul.

The Clinton folks apparently had the same thing in mind when, Newsweek also reports, they sent around e-mails raising questions about Obama's relationship with his pastor, Jeremiah Wright of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Why? The church's Trumpet Newsmagazine had once honored Farrakhan as someone who "truly epitomized greatness."

So what if Obama has said that he doesn't agree with everything his pastor says -- or that Obama has said giving Farrakhan an award "was a mistake and showed a lack of sensitivity to the Jewish community"?

Neither did it matter to the Clinton attack machine that Obama has said his church has never issued an anti-Semitic statement or that he had never heard anything that would suggest anti-Semitism on the part of his pastor or that if he had heard hints of anti-Semitism he would have left the church where he and his wife, Michelle, were married and their two daughters were baptized.

The Clinton campaign has done all this to paint Barack Obama as bad for Jews and Israel.

Sadly, they aren't the only ones perpetuating falsehoods about Obama. The Internet is full of lies about the candidate, such as the accusation that Obama does not swear allegiance to America, that he took the oath of office with his hand on the Koran and that he is a Muslim. All untrue.

But this is not about Internet crazies or campaign smears.

The issue here is Hillary Clinton's standard of conduct when it comes to comments by a candidate's supporter.

As the Politico's Roger Simon reported this week, fresh from her clash with Obama in Ohio, Clinton went to Texas, where one of her ardent Latina supporters told a Dallas TV station that blacks haven't done anything to help Latinos. "They used our numbers to fulfill their goals and objectives," Adelfa Callejo said.

Then came Callejo's kicker: "Obama has the problem that he happens to be black."

A Dallas reporter asked Clinton about her backer's remarks. Clinton danced: "I want us judged on our merits. . . . I want people though to look beyond, look beyond race and gender, look at our records."

The reporter followed up: Is this something you reject and denounce?

Clinton: "People have every reason to express their opinions. I just don't agree with that. I think that we should be looking at the individuals who are running."

Question: Do you still want her support, though?

Clinton laughed and said: "This is a free country. A lot of folks have said really unpleasant things about me over the course of this campaign. You can't take any of that as anything other than an individual opinion."

Question: "But you criticized Obama for not rejecting the support of Farrakhan."

Clinton: "I don't see any comparison at all . . . and I don't know the facts of what you're telling me over the TV."

Her campaign called the station back later that night, after word of the broadcast had spread and no doubt after it had studied the interview. Officials announced that their candidate rejected and denounced Callejo's remarks.

Message to Obama: Do as I say, not as I do.

kingc@washpost.com

Dr.Sharpton at the Black Summit in New Orleans

2008-02-28T21:12:00.000-05:00

The National Leader Dr. Al Sharpton addresses the Racism in the Clinton Campaign.

M A

2008-02-27T21:45:00.000-05:00

Obama's church ties come back to Cleveland's UCC
Posted by David Briggs February 27, 2008 21:00PM

Barack Obama is turning Cleveland into the center of the religious struggle for the hearts and minds of voters in the 2008 presidential race.

From visits to evangelical megachurches in South Carolina to special appeals to black churches in Ohio, the most prominent member of the Cleveland-based United Church of Christ has been up front about his faith in ways few Democrats have been in recent years.

In a close election, the denomination with headquarters on Prospect Avenue downtown may put Obama into the White House by giving him the religious credibility to sway moderate faith-based voters to the Democratic ticket.

Or, analysts say, Obama's association with the liberal United Church of Christ may turn into a point of attack for Republicans seeking to portray him as an out-of-touch, left-wing radical.

Already, e-mail campaigns that have spread into the blogosphere and talk radio have sought to discredit him on religious grounds. One widely circulated message falsely said Obama is a Muslim. Other messages have sought to undermine his appeal as someone who unites Americans by accusing his home church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and its fiery pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., of being racist.

Obama must talk about faith without either alienating the substantial secular base in the Democratic Party or being marginalized as representing "a very far-left church within a very far-left denomination," says Laura Olson, a Clemson University political scientist.

What gives Obama credibility is his 20-year history of active participation, both in mission work and church attendance, in the UCC, a denomination that traces its history to the Pilgrims and Puritans.

"For a lot of people, the most important thing about a politician and religion is whether the politician has some," said John Green, director of the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron.

And Obama, from his early victory in Iowa through his 10 straight primary victories, has shown he can reach diverse religious voters.

Some black churchgoers in Greater Cleveland heard two messages Sunday: One from their pastor and one from Obama asking for their support in the March 4 primary.

In a letter read during services, the Democratic presidential candidate said his Christian faith is important to him and leads him to believe "ordinary people, with the grace of an awesome God, can do extraordinary things."

The appeal to black churches was a strategy the campaign started in South Carolina. Officials from the campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama's rival for the Democratic nomination, declined to comment on the letter.

Also in South Carolina, Obama assured members of the Redemption World Outreach Center, a largely white evangelical megachurch in Greenville, "I don't think there's anything wrong with expressing faith in the public square, and I think there's nothing wrong with public servants expressing religiously rooted values."

Last June, in a talk at the General Synod in Hartford, Conn., celebrating the 50th anniversary of the UCC, Obama urged church members to continue to be "troublemakers" for progressive causes such as civil rights.

"Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," he said.

For the first time in a long time, Olson said, Democrats have a candidate who can speak in a prophetic voice "that resonates in broad ways with people of faith."

What may be more problematic for Obama is his association with the UCC, which has been out front on issues such as supporting same-sex marriages and ordination of gays.

That makes Obama attractive to religious liberals and less threatening to secular Democrats, analysts said.

But as the campaign heats up, and more people become aware of his ties to the denomination, religious conservatives and some moderates may be turned off, observers said.

The Rev. Richard Neuhaus, president of the Institute on Religion and Public Life in New York, said being associated with the liberal policies of the UCC "would certainly be a burden, an obstacle, no doubt about it."

Already, Obama has faced what the UCC's president, the Rev. John Thomas, called a politically motivated "smear campaign" accusing his Chicago church, the denomination's largest with an estimated 8,000 members, of being racist because its motto is "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian."

The Rev. C. Jay Matthews, the influential pastor of Mt. Sinai Baptist Church in Cleveland, said Wright's affirmation of African-American culture and African-American traditions "is not only healthy but much needed."

Still, observers expect the religious heat -- on Obama and the UCC -- to increase if Obama moves closer to the Democratic nomination.

Even small inroads into traditional Republican bases of support can turn the election, analysts said.

"You win elections on the margins," said Corwin Smidt, executive director of the Paul Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich.

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: dbriggs@plaind.com, 216-999-4812

John Lewis is Supporting Obama

2008-02-27T16:39:00.000-05:00

By BOB KEMPER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/27/08

WASHINGTON — Hoping to put an end to a month of confusion and dismay, Rep. John Lewis on Wednesday said he's switching his support from Sen. Hillary Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Lewis cited the overwhelming preference for Obama in his district as a reason for his change of heart, but he also talked about Obama's campaign as transformational for the nation.

"Something's happening in America, something some of us did not see coming," Lewis said. "Barack Obama has tapped into something that is extraordinary.

Lewis, an Atlanta Democrat and an elder of the civil rights movement, at first sparked outrage from Georgia's African American community by backing Clinton, a friend, over Obama, the nation's first viable

African American candidate.

Then confusion struck about a week ago when Lewis told the New York Times that, as a super delegate to the Democratic National Convention, he would feel compelled to vote for Obama as the nominee because his district – and the state's African American population overall – so overwhelmingly for Obama in the state primary.

Lewis's office later charged that the story was inaccurate but did not clarify who Lewis was actually backing.

In an interview in his congressional office, Lewis said the decision to switch his support was a difficult one, a choice between a longtime friend and a little-known black man.

"I did it because I felt I had to support Mrs. Clinton because of our friendship," Lewis said. "But also I thought she was ready to lead. Lewis had placed a called to Clinton's office Wednesday morning but hadn't heard back from her. He also had a Please-Return-The-Call message of his own from Obama. By midday, he still hadn't returned it.

"It's been a long, hard and difficult struggle to come to where I am now," Lewis said.

Dodd Endorses Obama for President

2008-02-26T13:07:00.000-05:00

February 26, 2008

By JOHN SULLIVAN

Senator Christopher Dodd, a leading Democrat and an early candidate for the party’s presidential nomination, announced Tuesday that he is endorsing Senator Barack Obama.

Both Mr. Obama and his rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, had sought Mr. Dodd’s support after Mr. Dodd dropped out of the race following the Iowa caucuses last month.

The endorsement comes as polls show Mr. Obama’s campaign is gaining strength. According to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, Mr. Obama has moved ahead of Mrs. Clinton nationally, with 54 percent of Democratic voters supporting him compared with 38 percent for Mrs. Clinton.

“He is ready to be president and I am ready to support him in this campaign,” Mr. Dodd said at a news conference in Cleveland, The Associated Press reported.

Mr. Dodd, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee who was first elected to the Senate in 1980, is also a Democratic superdelegate.

The endorsement also comes just before Tuesday night’s Democratic debate, the last before a spate of critical primary contests, including Texas and Ohio. The debate, at 9 p.m. at Cleveland State University, comes after days of both campaigns increasing their attacks.

Mrs. Clinton has launched a concerted effort to question Mr. Obama’s credentials and his experience. In a speech on Monday, Mrs. Clinton compared Mr. Obama’s foreign policy experience to that of President Bush, saying “we’ve seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security.”

Mr. Obama has countered with criticism of Senator Clinton’s record, including her support for the war in Iraq.

The topic that has drawn the most attention is a photograph posted on The Drudge Report showing Mr. Obama in ceremonial African clothing. Matt Drudge said that the photo was sent by someone in the Clinton campaign, prompting blistering criticism from Mr. Obama’s camp. David Plouffe, his campaign manager, called the photo “the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party.”

It has not been independently verified who sent the photo. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign responded by charging that Mr. Obama’s campaign “should be ashamed” to suggest the photograph was offensive.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

The Power of Drudge (Revisited)

2008-02-25T17:16:00.000-05:00

The clowns at Campaign Clinton are playing with fire.

M A

The Power of Drudge (Revisited)

The power of Matt Drudge was affirmed yet again this morning as a photo of Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) dressed in African tribal garb was featured on his Web site, setting off a furious back and forth between the Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton campaigns.

"Clinton Staffers Circulate 'Dressed' Obama" screamed the Drudge headline that accompanied a story that cited an e-mail from a Clinton staffer that read: "Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?"

Given the reach of Drudge -- and his unique ability to drive news coverage, particularly on television -- it wasn't surprising that Obama's campaign quickly released a statement condemning the tactics behind the photo.

"On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. "This is part of a disturbing pattern that led her county chairs to resign in Iowa, her campaign chairman to resign in New Hampshire, and it's exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world."

The Clinton campaign -- rebutting the notion that she may be preparing to leave the campaign quietly -- pushed back hard. "Enough," said Clinton manager Maggie Williams in a statement released by the campaign, adding:

"If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely. This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry. We will not be distracted."

It's worth noting, however, that nowhere in her statement does Williams deny that the photo -- as Drudge has suggested but does not prove -- was being circulated by members of the Clinton campaign. Rather, Williams insisted that the photo is not meant to be offensive or divisive. That said, the Clinton campaign argues that Williams's statement should not be read in any way, shape or form as a tacit admission that they are behind leaking the photo to Drudge.

The Clinton campaign has spent weeks decrying the allegedly adulatory press coverage that Obama receives and trying to cast it as a double standard. This photo and e-mail could be seen as an extension of that argument, as the original alleged Clinton staffer's e-mail notes that if Clinton had appeared in similar garb it would have received wall-to-wall negative coverage in the news media.

Whether it was meant to be a political tactic or not by whoever sent it, the photo is certainly being played in that context. Any political junkie worth his or her name knows that as soon as the photo appeared on Drudge it would almost certainly become the daily talker on every cable news station in the country -- ensuring that hundreds of thousands of people would see the Obama image just eight days before the critical Ohio and Texas primaries.

Is it an attractive side of politics? Absolutely not. Could it work? In the decade The Fix has spent watching politics up close, it's hard to remember a time when an attack that walked the fine line between acceptable and not didn't work in some fashion.

The next 24 hours will be crucial in determining the story's staying power. It could well dissipate into the ether as tomorrow's debate in Cleveland between Obama and Clinton takes over the coverage. Or it could blow up as a major issue in that debate. Time will tell, but what we do know is that -- yet again -- Matt Drudge has affirmed his place as a major factor in presidential politics.

Posted by Chris Cillizza | Permalink | Comments (57)

Yes, We Can! - Si, Se Puede!

2008-02-23T03:20:00.000-05:00

Clinton gets Boos in last Nights Debate

2008-02-22T10:09:00.000-05:00

Clinton: Obama 'change you can Xerox'

By DAVID ESPO
Tom Pennington, Fort Worth Star-Telegram(Photo)

AUSTIN, Texas -- Hillary Rodham Clinton accused presidential rival Barack Obama of political plagiarism Thursday night, but drew boos from a Democratic debate audience when she ridiculed him as the candidate of "change you can Xerox."

Obama dismissed the charge out of hand, then turned the jeers to applause when he countered, "What we shouldn't be spending time doing is tearing each other down. We should be spending time lifting the country up."

The exchange marked an unusually pointed moment in an otherwise civil encounter in the days before March 4 primaries in Texas and Ohio - contests that even some of Clinton's supporters say she must win to sustain her campaign for the White House.

The former first lady has lost 11 straight primaries and caucuses, and trails her rival in convention delegates. Obama has won a pair of big union endorsements in the past two days.

In a university auditorium in the heart of Texas, the two rivals agreed that high-tech surveillance measures are preferable to construction of a fence to curtail illegal immigration.

They disagreed on the proper response to a change in government in Cuba in the wake of Fidel Castro's resignation. Clinton said she would refuse to sit down with incoming President Raul Castro until he implements political and economic reforms. Obama said he would meet "without preconditions," but added the U.S. agenda for such a session would include human rights in the Communist island nation.

They also sparred frequently about health care, a core issue of the campaign.

Clinton said repeatedly that Obama's plan would leave 15 million Americans uncovered.

But he, in turn, accused the former first lady of mishandling the issue by working in secrecy when her husband was in the White House.

"I'm going to do things differently," he said. "We can have great plans, but if we don't change how the politics is working in Washington, then neither of our plans are going to happen."

Clinton was combative and complimentary by turns, and reflected on her well-known personal struggles in the debate's final moments.

"Everyone here knows I've lived through some crises and some challenging moments in my life," she said - a thinly veiled but clear reference to her husband's affair with Monica Lewinsky and subsequent impeachment. But she added that nothing she had been through matched the everyday struggles of voters.

Then, offering unprompted praise to her rival, the one-time front-runner said, "No matter what happens in this contest, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama."

Both candidates were plainly popular with the debate audience. During one break someone in the crowd shouted "Si se puede," Spanish for Obama's trademark phrase, "Yes we can."

Clinton largely sidestepped a question about so-called superdelegates, members of Congress, governors and party leaders who were not picked in primaries and caucuses. She said the issue would sort itself out, and "we'll have a unified Democratic party" for the fall campaign.

But Obama, who has won more primaries and caucuses said the contests must "count for something ... that the will of the voters ... is what ultimately will determine who our next nominee is going to be."

Clinton went into the debate needing a change in the course of the campaign, and waited patiently for an opening to try to diminish her rival, seated inches away on the stage. "I think you can tell from the first 45 minutes Senator Obama and I have a lot in common," she said.

Barely pausing for breath, she went on to say there were differences.

First, she said she had seen a supporter of Obama interviewed on television recently, and unable to name a single accomplishment the Illinois senator had on his record.

"Words are important and words matter but actions speak louder than words," she said.

Obama agreed with that, then noted that Clinton lately had been urging voters to turn against him by saying, "let's get real."

"And the implication is that the people who've been voting for me or are involved in my campaign are somehow delusional," Obama said.

Clinton also raised Obama's use in his campaign speeches of words first uttered by his friend, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

"If your candidacy is going to be about words then they should be your own words," she said. "...Lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox."

The debate audience booed.

Obama said the entire controversy was evidence of a "silly season" that the public finds dispiriting. Besides, he said of his speeches at one point, "I've got to admit, some of them are pretty good."

The two rivals sat next to one another in swivel chairs in a University of Texas auditorium for the 90-minute debate, one in a dwindling number of opportunities for the former first lady to chart a new course in the presidential race.

She has lost 11 straight primaries and caucuses to Obama - including an overseas competition for support among Americans living aboard - and has fallen behind in the chase for the number of delegates needed to become the presidential nominee.

Obama's strong showing has made him the man to beat in a historic struggle between a black man and a white woman, and even former President Bill Clinton has said his wife must win both Ohio and Texas early next month to preserve her candidacy. New polls show Texas a dead heat, and give Clinton a lead in Ohio, but far smaller than the one she held in recent weeks.

Rhode Island and Vermont also vote on March 4, but offer far fewer delegates and have drawn less attention.

The encounter was the 19th in an episodic series of debates and forums, a run that has ranged from highly civilized to hotly confrontational.

The last time the two met, in Los Angeles, they sat side by side and disagreed politely. But in an earlier encounter last month, in Myrtle Beach, S.C., each accused the other of repeatedly and deliberately distorting the truth for political gain in a highly personal, finger-wagging showdown.

In The Associated Press' delegate count Thursday, Obama had 1,358.5 to 1,264 for Clinton. It takes 2,025 delegates to claim the nomination at this summer's convention.

In a further sign of his growing strength, Obama won the endorsement during the day of the Change to Win labor federation, which claims 6 million members. The Teamsters union announced its support for Obama on Wednesday.

The debate was sponsored by CNN, Univision and the Texas Democratic Party.

Obama wins Hawaii in a landslide

2008-02-20T08:34:00.000-05:00

Advertiser Staff

Hawaii news photo - The Honolulu Advertiser

U.S. Sen. Dan Inouye and his fiancee Irene Hirano were among the hundreds of voters in line at Jefferson Elementary School in Waikiki.

GREGORY YAMAMOTO | The Honolulu Advertiser
spacer spacer

Hawaii news photo - The Honolulu Advertiser

Richard Post points out directions as people at Jefferson Elementary School register to become Democrats.

GREGORY YAMAMOTO | The Honolulu Advertiser
spacer spacer

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, who was born and raised in Hawai'i, won the state's Democratic presidential caucus in a landslide yesterday. Obama had 28,347 votes, or 76 percent, to U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton's 8,835 votes, or 24 percent, with 100 percent of the precincts reporting.

Those are the vote tallies contained in what the party is calling "the preliminary final" results. A recount is scheduled for March 1 before the final results are released.

Hawai'i Democrats turned out in record numbers at the party's caucuses to help settle the nomination fight between Obama and Clinton of New York.

Obama ran television and radio advertisements in the Islands and talked about his local roots to help distinguish himself from Clinton, who sent her daughter, Chelsea Clinton, to campaign for her in the state.

The caucuses drew a surge of new Democrats, including many who registered to vote and joined the party just last night.

The party had printed 17,000 ballots and volunteers at many caucus sites ran out of ballots and blue party membership cards and had to improvise with notebook paper.

The caucuses have typically drawn fewer than 5,000 people in the past but got more than times that figure last night.

"I trust that the people of Hawai'i understand that this is a very unique year," said Florence Kong Kee, the party's political director.

Brian Schatz, a local Obama volunteer and former state representative for Makiki, said it appeared that last night's turnout may have exceeded the local Obama campaign's estimate of 15,000 to 18,000 people.

"It's a gift this election season to have such excellent choices on the Democratic side," said Schatz, a likely candidate for state party chairman in May. "We think the more people who come in to caucus is better for the Obama campaign."

State House Majority Leader Kirk Caldwell, D-24th (Manoa), a Clinton volunteer, described the turnout as "unbelievable."

"Unbelievable, in terms of turnout, in terms of energy — I think it's historic," he said. "I think people thought they were part of something special tonight."

'I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS'

Annelle Amaral, the party's O'ahu County chair, said party leaders thought there would be substantially higher turnout this time compared to past years but there was no way to know exactly how many people would show up.

"How could we be ready?" Amaral said. "How could anyone have anticipated this kind of attendance. It's phenomenal. I've never seen this."

Obama won the Wisconsin primary yesterday, his ninth in a row since Super Tuesday, and had hoped to take the Islands to give him momentum going into Ohio and Texas on March 4. The Clinton campaign has targeted Ohio and Texas as essential for her to rebound and capture the nomination.

Obama, who was born here and graduated from Punahou School, appeared to be attracting many of the new Democrats last night, while Clinton was stronger with traditional Democrats.

Hawai'i's caucuses — in which 20 of the state's 29 delegates to the Democratic National Convention in August were at stake — took on greater national importance after Obama and Clinton remained close after Super Tuesday.

At Kapolei Middle School, Carolyn Golojuch, chairwoman of the District 40 caucus site, said she was prepared for a larger-than-normal crowd.

Many of the potential voters did not even know if they were registered Democrats, Golojuch said.

"I'm not sweating this," she said. "They say this will be 10 times bigger than anything we've ever had before. But you know what? Last time we only had 20 people."

Shortly after 6 p.m. — an hour before the caucus began — at least 80 people were already lined up and the crowd swelled as the 7 p.m. vote approached.

Isabel Freund, of Makakilo, participated in her first caucus last night and was prepared to cast her vote for Clinton at Kapolei. "We have two very good candidates and I'm just very interested in participating," Freund said. "We definitely need a change."

At Kawananakoa Middle School, many of the voters in line held signs or wore pins supporting Obama.

PLENTY OF NEW VOTERS

Kellie Peterson, 28, a first-time caucus goer, said its important for Hawai'i to show support for a native son.

"We need to overwhelmingly win it for Obama," she said.

At Kawananakoa, site coordinator Patrick Stanley said he was "cutting as many corners" as he could to speed up the process.

"We have a lot of new voters," he said.

Deloris Guttman, of Downtown, was trying the caucus for the first time. "I think Hawai'i is going to count this year," she said. "Before, we didn't matter."

Voters were also selecting delegates to the state convention in May.

Presidential candidates who receive at least 15 percent of the vote in the preference poll will be eligible for a share of 20 of the state's 29 delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Last night's caucuses will determine how those 20 delegates will be awarded.

AIG Hawaii

Up Arrow Top

Obama wins Wisconsin for ninth straight primary victory

2008-02-19T21:40:00.000-05:00

Obama wins Wisconsin for ninth straight primary victory
By CRAIG GILBERT
cgilbert@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Feb. 19, 2008

Drawing support from a wide swath of voters in an ultra-competitive Midwestern battleground, Barack Obama defeated Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Wisconsin Primary Tuesday, giving him nine straight victories and a strong upper hand in their fierce struggle for the Democratic nomination.

The Associated Press called the state for Obama just before 8:30 p.m. Milwaukee time.

Expected to win a majority of the state's 74 pledged delegates, Obama also demonstrated the kind of broad appeal that will be critical in the big showdown states ahead, especially Ohio on March 4.

That coalition included groups that have backed him in past contests: young voters, independents and the college-educated.

But in a brief, sharp-edged campaign here, Obama also made inroads among women and blue-collar voters, who have more typically backed Clinton.

He won half of all voters without a college degree - about 60% of the Democratic electorate. He won half of those with family incomes under $50,000. He dominated among white men -- 59% to 38%. And he battled Clinton to a draw among women.

All of these groups were components of an overwhelmingly white electorate with a very dark view of the economy. It was also an electorate hungry for change, a political current that exit polls showed decisively favored Obama.

As expected, Wisconsin's open primary proved a boon to the Illinois senator. Independents (27%) and Republicans (9%) together made up more than a third of the Democratic Primary electorate - almost the exact same breakdown as in the 2004 primary here.

Obama carried independents by about 30 points, according to the exit polls.

But Obama's victory was emphatic for other reasons that will help him tout his electability to voters in upcoming states, and to the party's powerful bloc of un-pledged "super delegates."

One, his victory was big and broad, exit polls suggested.

Two, it came in a 50/50 battleground - the closest state in the country in 2004 -- that is a virtual must-win for Democrats in November.

Three, it came in the kind of environment that Clinton has said provides added legitimacy - a big-turnout primary, rather than the kind of low-turnout caucuses that Obama has dominated this year by out-organizing his opponent.

With its big independent vote, Wisconsin was a source of worry to the Clinton campaign throughout the run-up to Tuesday's primary. Her aides worked so hard to keep expectations low that at times they seemed to be conceding the state.

As of Monday morning, 24 hours before the voting started, Clinton had not done a single event outside the Milwaukee media market. One reason was a Sunday storm that postponed a planned fly-around. But the main reason was her tardy arrival to the state.

She got here four days later than her opponent, campaigning last week largely via surrogates, TV ads, phone and satellite. She launched the first exchange of "negative" ads between the two in the 2008 campaign. Exit polls suggested she fared poorly in that exchange, with more voters viewing her attacks as "unfair" than his. She also was outspent more than 3-to-1 on TV here.

Her efforts to pressure Obama into a Wisconsin debate, a key message of her ads, weren't helped by the fact she was making her case from Ohio and Texas.

"We've always said we think Wisconsin is challenging," said Clinton strategist Mark Penn Tuesday. "There's a very substantial independent vote that is very favorable to Senator Obama."

But while the state's open primary system favored Obama, its demographics were in some ways good for Clinton: white, relatively Catholic and blue-collar -- all features that had worked to Clinton's favor in many other places.

"Wisconsin, by their own definition, should be a very strong state for the Clinton campaign," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe Monday. "It's a strong blue collar state, a strong rural state. It's a large state. It's a primary state (with) a small African-American population."

Voters here Tuesday turned out in frigid single-digit temperatures, almost one fifth of them voting in their first presidential primary, according to the exit polls.

While about half the voters in the Democratic primary termed themselves liberal, an additional 36% described themselves as moderate and 13% as conservative.

The economy was rated the top concern by the largest number of voters (more than 40%), followed by the war and health care. Nine out of ten voters rated the economy "not so good" (55%) or "poor" (35%).

Those attitudes, and a state that has been unusually dependent on manufacturing, help explain why the campaigns of both Clinton and Obama took a noticeably populist turn here, debating their records on trade and their plans for the economy.

Obama faced a last-minute controversy, drawing keen attention on cable news and the Internet, over rhetoric he borrowed from friend and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. Clinton aides charged "plagiarism." But in dozens of interviews with Journal Sentinel reporters at polling places Tuesday, the issue almost never came up.

Asked to say what quality about the candidates mattered most to their choice, about half said it was the ability to bring about "needed change," and they broke heavily for Obama. Far fewer (about a quarter) cited the "right experience," and they voted overwhelmingly f

Message from the Commander in Chief

2008-02-19T08:36:00.000-05:00

Message from the Commander in Chief

Dear compatriots:

Last Friday, February 15, I promised you that in my next reflection I would deal with an issue of interest to many compatriots. Thus, this now is rather a message.

Fidel Castro RuzThe moment has come to nominate and elect the State Council, its President, its Vice-Presidents and Secretary.

For many years I have occupied the honorable position of President. On February 15, 1976 the Socialist Constitution was approved with the free, direct and secret vote of over 95% of the people with the right to cast a vote. The first National Assembly was established on December 2nd that same year; this elected the State Council and its presidency. Before that, I had been a Prime Minister for almost 18 years. I always had the necessary prerogatives to carry forward the revolutionary work with the support of the overwhelming majority of the people.

There were those overseas who, aware of my critical health condition, thought that my provisional resignation, on July 31, 2006, to the position of President of the State Council, which I left to First Vice-President Raul Castro Ruz, was final. But Raul, who is also minister of the Armed Forces on account of his own personal merits, and the other comrades of the Party and State leadership were unwilling to consider me out of public life despite my unstable health condition.

It was an uncomfortable situation for me vis-à-vis an adversary which had done everything possible to get rid of me, and I felt reluctant to comply.

Later, in my necessary retreat, I was able to recover the full command of my mind as well as the possibility for much reading and meditation. I had enough physical strength to write for many hours, which I shared with the corresponding rehabilitation and recovery programs. Basic common sense indicated that such activity was within my reach. On the other hand, when referring to my health I was extremely careful to avoid raising expectations since I felt that an adverse ending would bring traumatic news to our people in the midst of the battle. Thus, my first duty was to prepare our people both politically and psychologically for my absence after so many years of struggle. I kept saying that my recovery "was not without risks."

My wishes have always been to discharge my duties to my last breath. That’s all I can offer.

To my dearest compatriots, who have recently honored me so much by electing me a member of the Parliament where so many agreements should be adopted of utmost importance to the destiny of our Revolution, I am saying that I will neither aspire to nor accept, I repeat, I will neither aspire to nor accept the positions of President of the State Council and Commander in Chief.

In short letters addressed to Randy Alonso, Director of the Round Table National TV Program, --letters which at my request were made public-- I discreetly introduced elements of this message I am writing today, when not even the addressee of such letters was aware of my intention. I trusted Randy, whom I knew very well from his days as a student of Journalism. In those days I met almost on a weekly basis with the main representatives of the University students from the provinces at the library of the large house in Kohly where they lived. Today, the entire country is an immense University.

Following are some paragraphs chosen from the letter addressed to Randy on December 17, 2007:

"I strongly believe that the answers to the current problems facing Cuban society, which has, as an average, a twelfth grade of education, almost a million university graduates, and a real possibility for all its citizens to become educated without their being in any way discriminated against, require more variables for each concrete problem than those contained in a chess game. We cannot ignore one single detail; this is not an easy path to take, if the intelligence of a human being in a revolutionary society is to prevail over instinct.

"My elemental duty is not to cling to positions, much less to stand in the way of younger persons, but rather to contribute my own experience and ideas whose modest value comes from the exceptional era that I had the privilege of living in.

"Like Niemeyer, I believe that one has to be consistent right up to the end."

Letter from January 8, 2008:

"…I am a firm supporter of the united vote (a principle that preserves the unknown merits), which allowed us to avoid the tendency to copy what came to us from countries of the former socialist bloc, including the portrait of the one candidate, as singular as his solidarity towards Cuba. I deeply respect that first attempt at building socialism, thanks to which we were able to continue along the path we had chosen."

And I reiterated in that letter that "…I never forget that ‘all of the world’s glory fits in a kernel of corn."

Therefore, it would be a betrayal to my conscience to accept a responsibility requiring more mobility and dedication than I am physically able to offer. This I say devoid of all drama.

Fortunately, our Revolution can still count on cadres from the old guard and others who were very young in the early stages of the process. Some were very young, almost children, when they joined the fight on the mountains and later they have given glory to the country with their heroic performance and their internationalist missions. They have the authority and the experience to guarantee the replacement. There is also the intermediate generation which learned together with us the basics of the complex and almost unattainable art of organizing and leading a revolution.

The path will always be difficult and require from everyone’s intelligent effort. I distrust the seemingly easy path of apologetics or its antithesis the self-flagellation. We should always be prepared for the worst variable. The principle of being as prudent in success as steady in adversity cannot be forgotten. The adversary to be defeated is extremely strong; however, we have been able to keep it at bay for half a century.

This is not my farewell to you. My only wish is to fight as a soldier in the battle of ideas. I shall continue to write under the heading of ‘Reflections by comrade Fidel.’ It will be just another weapon you can count on. Perhaps my voice will be heard. I shall be careful.

Thanks.

Fidel Castro Ruz

February 18, 2008

Mac Sees Obama as Nominee

2008-02-15T17:52:00.000-05:00

The New York Times
February 15, 2008
McCain Calls for Obama to Use Public Financing
By JEFF ZELENY and STEVEN GREENHOUSE

OSHKOSH, Wis. — Hammering Senator Barack Obama for a fourth straight day, Senator John McCain said here on Friday that he expects Senator Obama to abide by his pledge use public financing for his general election if Mr. McCain does so as well.

“It was very clear to me that Senator Obama had agreed to having public financing of the general election campaign if I did the same thing,” he said after a town hall meeting here. “I made the commitment to the American people that if I was the nominee of my party, I would go the route of public financing. I expect Senator Obama to keep his word to the American people as well.”

Asked if he would use public financing even if Mr. Obama did not, he said: “If Senator Obama goes back on his commitment to the American people, then obviously we have to rethink our position. Our whole agreement was we would take public financing if he made that commitment as well. And he signed a piece of paper, I’m told, that made that commitment.”

Mr. Obama did not rule out the possibility of accepting public financing, but declared on Friday, “I’m not the nominee yet.”

“If I am the nominee, I will make sure our people talk to John McCain’s people to find out if we are willing to abide by the same rules and regulations with respect to the general election going forward,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a news conference in Milwaukee. “It would be presumptuous of me to start saying now that I am locking into something when I don’t even know if the other side will agree to it.”

Last year, Mr. Obama sought an advisory ruling with the Federal Election Commission to see whether the campaign could opt out of public financing in the primary and accept it in the general election. It was merely an inquiry, he said, not a pledge to accept the financing.

If he wins the Democratic nominating fight with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama said, “my folks will sit down and see if we can arrive at a common set of ground rules.”

Candidates who accept public funding are eligible for about $85 million paid for by a $3 checkoff on tax return forms, according to The Associated Press.

Before arriving for a campaign rally in Oshkosh on Friday afternoon, Mr. Obama spoke to reporters in a wide-ranging 30-minute news conference in Milwaukee. He accused Mrs. Clinton of attacking him for suggesting he attempted to weaken legislation to regulate the nuclear industry.

“I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal,” Mr. Obama said. “But I think this kind of gamesmanship is not what the American people are looking for.”

Both parties continued trying to build momentum from declarations of support. On the Republican side, Mr. McCain didn’t use the word “endorsement” or confirm that it was on its way, but he was visibly pleased when he said he would travel to Houston Monday morning to meet with former President George Bush.

When he was asked if this was a sign that the Republican Party is rallying around his candidacy, Mr. McCain said: “I hope so, because former President Bush is one of the more respected — most respected — people in our party. He is certainly, maybe the finest gentleman in our party in the view of one and all. He’s a great man, a great American hero going all the way back to World War II, so I’d be honored to be in his company at any time.” (And, in addition to a broad grin, he allowed himself a wink.)

And showing the enduring nature of his newly minted nickname of “Mac,” which gained popularity with shouts of “Mac is back!” in New Hampshire, a sign at his town hall meeting in this dairy state said “Wisconsin Loves the Mac and Cheese.”

On the Democratic side, the Service Employees International Union gave Mr. Obama its highly prized endorsement on Friday afternoon.

The S.E.I.U.’s endorsement is especially coveted because the union has 1.9 million members and has a rank and file that is far more politically active than most other unions. Moreover, its political action committee is expected to collect more than $30 million this campaign, making it one of the biggest PACs in the nation.

In a telephone news conference announcing the endorsement, Andy Stern, the union’s president, said: “This is about more than one election. It’s about building for the next generation of America. Barack Obama is creating the broadest and deepest coalition of voters we’ve ever seen.”

The union’s executive board cast ballots by e-mail and fax on Thursday night, and union officials were unable to finish the tallying until Friday.

With John Lewis, the Democratic Congressman from Georgia and former civil rights leader, indicating on Thursday that he might switch his support to Mr. Obama from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the S.E.I.U.’s endorsement is expected to further build momentum for Mr. Obama. Mr. Stern, like Mr. Lewis, said it would not be a good idea for superdelegates to ultimately choose the nominee in what could be a highly divided Democratic convention in August.

“We think the voters should make the decision, not elected officials and superdelegates,” Mr. Stern said in an interview. “We are very much hoping that by the time we get through the primaries, we will have a nominee without having to count on the superdelegates to make a decision. It would be a bad proposition for America and certainly for the Democratic Party.”

Last October, the service employees’ executive board was too divided between Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and John Edwards to agree on an endorsement. But the board did give the union’s state chapters the go-ahead to make endorsements on their own. Many S.E.I.U. members and state chapters backed Mr. Edwards, and his withdrawal from the race helped pave the way for the endorsement of Mr. Obama.

The service employees’ chapters in Nevada and California endorsed Mr. Obama shortly before contests in those states. Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton won both those states, with the union’s leaders saying that if they had made that endorsement several weeks, rather than several days, before those contents, that might have given them time to mount a campaign that made a big difference.

The union’s New York chapter was the only S.E.I.U. chapter to endorse Mrs. Clinton, helping her rack up a big victory in the state’s primary on February 5. Union officials said that New York S.E.I.U. leaders abstained in Thursday’s endorsement vote.

On Thursday, another large union, the United Food and Commercial Workers, with 1.1 million members in the United States, also endorsed Mr. Obama. As a result of these two endorsements, as well as that of Unite Here, which represents hotel, restaurant, apparel and laundry workers, Mr. Obama has the backing of three unions that have large Hispanic memberships and especially strong ties to the nation’s immigrant community.

Jeff Zeleny reported from Wisconsin and Steven Greenhouse from New York.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

2008-02-14T16:20:00.000-05:00

This says it all,the Hillary going door to door in South Texas.

M A

February 14, 2008
Knocked Off Balance, Clinton Campaign Tries to Regain Its Stride
By PATRICK HEALY and KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

SAN ANTONIO — The Texas and Ohio presidential primaries, on March 4, have become must-win contests for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, her advisers say. So why is she just opening campaign field offices across those states?

The primary in Pennsylvania, on April 22, is also a crucial battleground. So why is her campaign telling its most prominent supporter there, Gov. Edward G. Rendell, that there is not enough money now for his proposed piece of direct mail to voters?

And the Maine caucuses on Sunday were the one recent contest that Mrs. Clinton had hoped to win. So why did the campaign of her rival, Senator Barack Obama, have better political and Internet operations to energize its supporters there? (Mr. Obama won Maine.)

The answers go to the heart of Mrs. Clinton’s current political challenge. She and her team showered so much money, attention and other resources on Iowa, New Hampshire and some of the 22-state nominating contests on Feb. 5 that they have been caught flat-footed — or worse — in the critical contests that followed, her political advisers said.

She also made a strategic decision to skip several small states holding caucuses, states where Mr. Obama scored big victories, accumulating delegates and, possibly, momentum.

Her heavy spending and relatively modest fund-raising in January compounded the problems, leaving the campaign ill-equipped to plan after Feb. 5, advisers and donors say.

“It sure didn’t look like they had a game plan after Super Tuesday,” Mr. Rendell said in an interview on Wednesday. “What I would have done, knowing the line-up, I would’ve picked one or two states to make an all-out effort, whether Maine or Washington State or you name it, to really try to stop the Obama momentum.”

While Clinton fund-raising has rebounded, to about $1 million a day, her advisers acknowledge that Mr. Obama has been taking money in at a faster clip since January. They say his recent money advantage is one reason he was able to build stronger organizations and spend more on advertising than she did in several states this winter.

Several Clinton donors put the blame on the campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, and said that Ms. Doyle’s shortcomings as a long-range planner was a factor that led her to be replaced on Sunday by another longtime Clinton aide, Maggie Williams.

But Clinton aides said they were confident they would have enough money to prevail in Ohio and Texas. They plan to open a campaign headquarters in Austin this weekend, and to open field offices soon; more than 100 staff members have been redeployed to Texas.

They have a campaign headquarters in Columbus, Ohio, and are opening field offices now; an Ohio spokesman for Mrs. Clinton said there were staff members working in the state’s 18 Congressional districts.

Still, after eight straight losses by Mrs. Clinton since Feb. 5, and with finances only now stabilizing, the campaign is scrambling to build up its forces in both states. On Tuesday afternoon, it sent an urgent request for help to volunteers in California, New York and other states that have already voted, asking people to travel to Texas and Ohio “to spread Hillary’s message and help her win.”

“We are setting up field offices and are looking for volunteers to travel into these states and spend as much time as they can,” the campaign e-mail request stated. “Every phone call made and every person on the ground makes all the difference.”

The message did not mention assistance with travel costs.

If the Clinton organization appears a little improvisational, a review of its recent performances suggests that Mrs. Clinton was outmaneuvered by Mr. Obama, who won some of his victories by margins of two to one.

In Idaho, for example, Mr. Obama’s campaign started setting up nearly a year before the Feb. 5 caucus. By the day of the caucus, he had five offices in the state and 20 paid staff members. A few days before, Mr. Obama himself showed up in Boise, drawing 14,000 people to the Taco Bell Arena, the biggest in the state.

Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, sent one of her supporters, Senator Maria Cantwell of neighboring Washington State, to drop by just before the caucuses.

“Idahoans are not used to having attention paid, so when someone does, it’s a huge deal,” said Chuck Oxley, a spokesman for the state’s Democratic Party. Turnout in Idaho was four times what it was in 2000. Mr. Obama won Idaho by 62 percentage points and took most delegates.

In Minnesota, “the Clinton campaign was in triage mode,” said Lawrence Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. He said Mrs. Clinton appeared to have allocated her dwindling resources to New York and California, the biggest prizes in the Feb. 5 contests (and which she won), investing almost nothing in media advertising in Minnesota and leaving her campaign there “like a M.A.S.H. unit.”

At the same time, Mr. Jacobs said, Mr. Obama “had developed almost a new style of campaigning.”

“He merges modern campaign technology — he has the list of names, the follow-up effort, all the literature distribution — with these phenomenal rock-arena political revivals,” Mr. Jacobs said. “In a caucus state, it’s formidable.”

Mr. Obama won Minnesota by 34 percentage points.

In Washington State, Cathy Allen, a longtime Democratic strategist working for Mrs. Clinton, said the Clinton campaign had worked hard.

“Our people were there,” Ms. Allen said of caucus day, which was Saturday. “We got more of our people out than ever. They just did more.”

Mr. Obama won Washington by 36 percentage points.

Three months before the North Dakota caucuses on Feb. 5, the Obama campaign dispatched a staff member there to begin organizing. The campaign quickly expanded to include 11 full-time staff members, including one person solely for media outreach. And in Utah, in preparation for Feb. 5, Mr. Obama opened an office months before Mrs. Clinton did, said Rob Miller, the vice chairman of the Utah Democratic Party.

“Hillary did not set foot in the state of Utah,” Mr. Miller said.

Mr. Obama won both states.

In Maine, Arden Manning, chairman of the state’s Democratic Party, attributed Mr. Obama’s victory by almost 20 percentage points in Sunday’s caucuses to his superior organization, despite Mrs. Clinton’s apparent advantages with the state’s demographics of older, blue-collar, lower-income voters.

“A lot of the credit for what happened here goes to the Obama campaign, a grass-roots campaign, that was very well organized, with precinct captains and precinct leaders getting people out,” Mr. Manning said.

In addition, the Obama campaign was more adept at using the Internet.

“I got very little from the Clinton side,” said Amy Fried, a political scientist at the University of Maine, who signed up on both campaigns’ Web sites to compare them. “But I got a lot from Obama, urging me to come in and work and telling me about events, just giving me lots more.”

Mrs. Clinton has had her own share of big victories, like Arizona, California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Tennessee. Yet given the strong lead that she held in national opinion polls for much of 2007, and the image of inevitability that her campaign pushed so ardently, her organizational weaknesses — starting with her third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses — have been notable.

Guy Cecil, Mrs. Clinton’s field director, told reporters on Wednesday that Mrs. Clinton would not be outmatched again, committing to opening offices and dispatching staff not only to Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, but also other battlegrounds to come, like Kentucky, Mississippi and even Puerto Rico, which holds the final contest on June 7.

“We are recommitting and redoubling our efforts to not only have the best candidate in the race, but also have the most effective and largest grass-roots effort in the states going forward,” Mr. Cecil said.

While both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are only now expanding their operations in Texas and Ohio, some Clinton advisers expressed concern that she did not have a head start, given the importance of the two states.

Some Clinton allies and donors worry that Mrs. Clinton has left herself vulnerable after losing so many recent contests, but the candidate herself sounded cockier about her political fortunes on Wednesday than she has in recent memory.

At a news conference in McAllen, on the Mexican border, she noted that “the depth and breadth of my support is obvious” in South Texas.

“I want to congratulate Senator Obama on his recent victories and tell him to meet me in Texas — we’re ready,” Mrs. Clinton said.

Patrick Healy reported from San Antonio, and Katharine Q. Seelye from New York. Julie Bosman contributed reporting from New York.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

Is Obama's momentum unstoppable?

2008-02-14T06:43:00.001-05:00

BBC NEWS
Is Obama's momentum unstoppable?
By John Zogby
Pollster and independent political analyst

Has Barack Obama won the Democratic presidential nomination?

It is certainly tempting to make this conclusion based on his amazing string of victories on Saturday and Tuesday evening.

But the short answer to the question has to be no.

Senator Obama has now more states than his rival, Senator Hillary Clinton, including the last six (plus the Virgin Islands and the national capital, Washington DC) and he now leads among delegates pledged to vote for him at the Democratic National Convention.

In addition to his momentum of victories, he has made significant inroads into constituencies that were the core of his opponent's support.

Thus, in Virginia and Maryland, exit polls revealed that he tied with Senator Clinton among white voters, and actually defeated her among women, lower-income voters, rural voters, those over 65 years of age, Catholics, and Hispanics.

Swing groups

Those numbers are very important because they show the meaning of momentum, which is so vital to understanding the primary process, and because they take away one of the main arguments that has been used against Mr Obama: that he is the African-American candidate who has more limited appeal than Mrs Clinton with mainstream voters.

Mr Obama's victories are becoming numerous and sizeable.

In addition to expanding his political base among African Americans and young voters, he also has consistently demonstrated a greater appeal than Mrs Clinton among independents and moderates, swing groups that will give shape to the general election in November.

There is also an almost cult-like quality to Obama's following

This in itself is a powerful argument for Obama's nomination, because the Democratic nominee will likely face Republican Senator John McCain, who is very popular among centrist voters.

Above all, Obama generates an intense and growing level of emotion among young voters.

They are voting in record numbers in the primaries and can make the difference between victory and defeat for him in November.

'Clinton fatigue'

On the other side, Senator Clinton's campaign has been going through a rough patch.

She is having difficulty raising money, she has accepted the resignations of both her campaign manager (a Hispanic woman and long-time aide whose departure has not gone down well among Hispanics) and deputy campaign manager.

Her staff are already pointing fingers of blame at each other - never a good sign when so much positive energy is needed.

Perhaps more than anything else, there is a growing feeling of "Clinton Fatigue" among insiders and ordinary voters.

After all, a voter in November 2008 has to be at least 42 years old to have voted in a general election in which a Bush or a Clinton did not emerge as the victor.

And finally, there are almost 800 "super-delegates" - elected officials or Democratic party leaders - who also get a vote at the convention.

A key question: why aren't these establishment types already backing Senator Clinton?

Why are they waiting until the last minute?

To me, that speaks volumes.

'Formidable'

On the other hand, this deal is not closed.

At this time of writing, the two candidates are nearly tied among pledged delegates, and even if Obama wins all of the remaining states with 55% of the vote, he still falls short of the 2,025 total delegates he needs to secure the nomination.

Meanwhile, Clinton would continue to rack up almost the same number of delegates based on proportional voting.

Clinton is formidable.

She is after all a Clinton - she and her husband are popular, dogged, able campaigners.

She has been a successful senator and has core support among older women and Hispanics, both of whom can propel her to victory in Texas and Ohio and get her campaign rolling again.

There is also an almost cult-like quality to Obama's following.

He generates a lot of heat and excitement - but can he sustain it?

Will the press continue to love him tomorrow?

And if negative (or at least not glowing) stories begin to appear in rapid succession, will his supporters still be so enthusiastic?

So the nomination battle is far from over.

But - at least for now - Obama has truly taken his campaign much further than his opponents ever believed possible.

John Zogby is the President and CEO of Zogby International, an independent polling company in the US.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7243036.stm

Published: 2008/02/13 14:36:27 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

Obama Wins VA,Ma and DC

2008-02-12T23:33:00.001-05:00

Obama Sweeps Maryland, Virginia and D.C.

By Chris Cillizza
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) swept today's Democratic Potomac Primary, claiming a trio of victories to extend his consecutive winning streak over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) to eight states and jurisdictions.

Obama won by wide margins in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia -- a highly diverse region that includes large urban and suburban centers and significant swaths of rural territory. This trio of wins, when coupled with his other recent victories, give Obama a jolt of momentum and may well establish him as the front-runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"We're on our way," Obama said at a rally in Madison, Wis., tonight. While he expressed his pleasure with his victories, the Illinois junior senator cautioned his supporters that there was much work to be done in his drive to fundamentally change politics in Washington.

"We know it takes more than one night -- or even one election -- to overcome decades of money and the influence, bitter partisanship and petty bickering that's shut you out, let you down and told you to settle," he said.

Even as the results were rolling in, the shakeup in Clinton's senior staff continued as deputy campaign manager Mike Henry announced his resignation. Henry's departure came just two days after campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle stepped down and was replaced by Margaret A. Williams, Clinton's former chief of staff during her husband's first term in the White House.

Clinton, at a campaign appearance in El Paso, made no mention of the results from today's primaries or the changes in her senior staff. "I'm tested, I'm ready, let's make it happen," she said to loud cheers. Texas -- along with Ohio -- is scheduled to vote on March 4 and is increasingly regarded as a must-win for Clinton.

Clinton was long considered the front-runner in the contest, and even after a recent handful of primary and caucus setbacks, she still held a slight lead in the race for delegates to the August Democratic National Convention in Denver. But after Obama's impressive showing today, the delegate fight is a dead heat. According to estimates made by CNN, Obama has 1,195 delegates to Clinton's 1,178. A candidate needs 2,025 delegates to nail down the presidential nomination.

Exit polling in Virginia and Maryland showed that Obama not only won among groups who had favored him in past elections, but also among those who had been pillars of Clinton's support in earlier states. Obama won the support of women by double digits in Maryland and Virginia. Among Latino voters, Obama held a double-digit margin over Clinton in Virginia and carried the group slightly more narrowly in the Free State.

As expected, Obama racked up huge numbers among black voters. In Virginia, where African American voters made up 30 percent of the Democratic primary electorate, Obama's vote share was close to 90 percent. In Maryland, where blacks constitute almost four in 10 voters, Obama won by an eight-to-one margin.

But among white voters -- where Obama has struggled to match Clinton -- the Illinois senator fought his New York colleague to a draw in Virginia. In Maryland, exit polling showed Clinton with a 10-point edge.

Clinton entered the race hailed by many as the inevitable nominee and easily matched Obama in fundraising prowess. But more recently, she has fallen far behind Obama in fundraising, to the point that she had to lend her campaign $5 million, and she has been out-organized by Obama's campaign in the vast majority of caucus states.

Her campaign has struggled to build momentum after the 22 state primary and caucus contests on Feb. 5, as national polls have shown Obama pulling into a virtual tie with the New York senator.

Election officials throughout the region reported potentially record-breaking voter turnout today in the first-ever Potomac Primary, as voters seemed eager to take part in one the most closely contested and historic presidential races ever.

"Something or someone has energized the voters," said Rafael Beltran III, chief of elections at the polling station in the Verizon building in Arlington. "For the first time in years, some candidate or some message is coming out loud and clear."

More than 930,000 people participated in Virginia's Democratic primary, according to early estimates, a massive 130 percent increase over the voter turnout in the 2004 presidential primary vote in the commonwealth.

In the District, officials said the turnout was so high that some polling places ran out of ballots. William R. O'Field Jr., spokesman for the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics, said the city experienced a high voter turnout compared to past presidential primaries, leading to a number of problems at the polls.

In Maryland, officials were projecting a 39 percent turnout, which would be one of the highest in recent years. Bad weather forced state election officials to keep polling places open until 9:30 p.m. -- 90 minutes past the scheduled closing time -- and may have impacted turnout somewhat.

At one time, the Potomac Primary was considered an afterthought by the two Democratic rivals, with so much riding on the Super Tuesday contests. But with the race for the nomination a dead heat, the 168 combined delegates in Maryland, Virginia and the District emerged as an important political prize.

Given the Potomac Primary results, Obama will enter the votes next Tuesday in Wisconsin and Hawaii as a strong favorite. Victories there for Obama would set up the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas as must-wins for the Clinton campaign.

Clinton's campaign strategists have long viewed Ohio and Texas as a firewall for the former first lady -- two large, diverse, delegate-rich states that could offset Obama's string of victories in smaller caucus states where Obama's campaign has been more adroit in organizing and turning out supporters.

But recent events have troubled Clinton supporters and donors, with some fearing that Obama's momentum could well carry into Ohio and Texas, undermining Clinton's bid for the nomination.
The excitement surrounding the Democratic contest is a reflection of the historic nature of the choice. Clinton would be the first woman ever to be nominated as a major party's presidential nominee; Obama would be the first African American to lay claim to the same title.

Preliminary Virginia Poll has Obama and McCain with Sizable Leads: Huckabee Surges

2008-02-12T08:20:00.000-05:00

NEW: Preliminary Virginia Poll has Obama and McCain with Sizable Leads: Huckabee Surges

Eve of VA Democratic Primary 2/11/08: No Late Charge from Clinton; Obama Will Get Larger Share of Delegates: 24 hours till votes are counted in the Virginia Democratic Primary, Barack Obama is positioned to capture a majority of convention delegates, according to SurveyUSA's final pre-primary poll, conducted for WJLA-TV Washington DC, WDBJ-TV Roanoke and WTVR-TV Richmond. Today it's Obama 60%, Clinton 38%, not materially different from a SurveyUSA tracking poll released 72 hours ago, which showed Obama 59%, Clinton 39%. Voters in the DC suburbs moved to Obama over the weekend, increasing his advantage there. Voters in the Shenandoah moved to Clinton over the weekend, increasing her advantage there. The movement was offsetting. Obama held his ground among voters under age 50, and gained ground among voters age 50+. Among voters age 65+, Clinton had led by 5 on Friday, now less.

2008-02-11T16:21:00.000-05:00

Obama takes caucuses by storm
Snow fails to dissuade Democrats from thronging to take part in record numbers

By JONATHAN E. KAPLAN. Washington D.C. Correspondent February 11, 2008

John Ewing/Staff Photographer
John Ewing/Staff Photographer
Democratic and independent voters turned out in large numbers Sunday at polls around the state to vote in the Democratic caucuses. This line of people waiting to participate was a small fraction of the voters at Portland High School. The line of people waiting to get in stretched three blocks at one point.
John Ewing/Staff Photographer
John Ewing/Staff Photographer
A large turnout of Democratic and independent voters waiting to register fills the hallways at Portland High School during the state’s Democratic caucuses on Sunday.
John Ewing/Staff Photographer
John Ewing/Staff Photographer
Dory Anna Waman, right, a Maine Democratic Party official, collects ballots Sunday from voters at the Democratic caucus at Portland High School.
John Ewing/Staff Photographer
John Ewing/Staff Photographer
Democratic voters in Cape Elizabeth line up to register Sunday afternoon at Cape Elizabeth High School during the state’s Democratic presidential caucuses. Bad weather put the Cape Elizabeth event an hour behind schedule

Sen. Barack Obama won Maine's Democratic caucuses Sunday as massive numbers of voters braved inclement weather.

The Illinois Democrat beat Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., by a margin of 59 percent to 40 percent with 95 percent of precincts reporting, giving Obama 15 of Maine's 24 pledged delegates who will be bound to vote for him at the party's national convention.

More than 46,000 voters, including 4,000 who cast absentee ballots, participated in the caucuses, easily breaking the record of 17,000 from 2004.

"We exceeded that in a way none of us could have foreseen," said Arden Manning, executive director of Maine's Democratic Party. "Democrats really want something different, and they want something new. That's why they attended in such high numbers."

Obama and Clinton vigorously campaigned to win Maine, stumping in the state Saturday and sending in their biggest supporters.

Both camps squabbled about whether to debate, and Obama hammered Clinton for her votes on coastal drilling and her plan to provide home oil heating subsidies to poor households.

It was an "upset" victory, said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, adding that internal polling showed Clinton in the lead days before the caucus.

Obama swept the four states -- and the Virgin Islands -- that held primaries and caucuses this weekend. From Maine, the candidates headed to campaign in Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland, which will hold primaries Tuesday.

In the overall race to reach the 2,025 delegates, Clinton leads Obama 1,135 to 1,106 delegates, including the so-called superdelegates, who are not bound to vote for a specific candidate, according to The Associated Press.

The record voter turnout in Maine plus the bad weather led to long lines and confusion at many caucus sites about how a caucus works.

The caucus at Cape Elizabeth High School started an hour behind schedule. Caucusgoers waited in two lines snaking out the door even as a wet snow started to fall shortly after 1 p.m.

Portland High School was mobbed with voters three hours before the caucus was scheduled to begin. A line of people stretched from inside the building to outside in the falling snow, with the end of the line falling on Congress Street -- three blocks from the school's Cumberland Avenue entrance.

Inside, the school's athletic teams held bake sales as some voters clamored for seats inside the gymnasium and many others figured out where to register.

Sive Neilan, a Democratic Party caucus organizer, said the local party couldn't hold the caucus at bigger venues -- the Cumberland County Civic Center or the Portland Exposition Building, for example -- because organizers needed several rooms to hold separate precinct-by-precinct votes.

The high school classrooms provided an easy way to cordon off voters, Neilan said. "This is as good as we get," she said in the crowded hallway.

Neilan said turnout at the 2004 caucus was around 2,400. About 4,000 attended Sunday's caucus. Asked why party officials were unprepared for the surge, given the larger-than-usual turnout in many other states, she said the party trained about 30 registrars for the caucus -- more than double the number used in 2004.

While they expected more voters than usual Sunday, the massive turnout was a surprise, Neilan said.

"This is the Obama tsunami, and we're getting hit by it," she said.

Once inside, voters navigated a maze of lines to check in for the event. Some complained about the 60- to 90-minute wait; others saw it as evidence of a landmark election year.

Many appeared to take the delays and weather in stride.

"I am overwhelmed. It is such a good sign for our party," Maine House Speaker Glenn Cummings said. "The caucuses are not prepared for this level of capacity. It does make a case for primaries or absentee balloting."

"This is great, great that this many people are here," said Karen Westburg, a retired state employee. "I'm cold. I'm wet. But I'm still glad I'm here."

Many Democrats were patient through the bad weather and long waits to accomplish a singular goal: electing a Democrat in November.

"I'm sick of (President) Bush," said Erica Gilbert, 17, of Portland, who waited outside in the snow with friend Hillary Orr, 18, a senior at Portland High.

The caucus at Cape Elizabeth High drew 682 voters, more than doubling its turnout from 2004. Obama easily won, 556-217. Ninety-four Democrats voted by absentee ballot.

Obama's supporters, including 17-year-olds who will turn 18 before Election Day, Nov. 4, overwhelmed Clinton's backers.

"I've never had any experience in politics. Normally I don't care," said Tommy Houge, a 17-year-old senior. "If it wasn't for him, I would not be coming today."

Others were just as inspired by Obama, but a bit more strategically.

"I'm voting for Obama because he can beat McCain," said Haley Cushing, a 17-year-old senior at Cape Elizabeth High, referring to Arizona Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican nominee.

-- Staff Writer Elbert Aull contributed to this story.

Washington D.C. Correspondent Jonathan E. Kaplan can be contacted at (202) 488-1119 or at:

jkaplan@pressherald.com

Copyright © 2008 Blethen Maine Newspapers

2008-02-11T05:28:00.000-05:00

The Big Question is will the "Super Delegates" have a Bradley Effect on the Obama Campaign.

M A

Obama's Bradley Effect?

By Robert D. Novak
Monday, February 11, 2008; A13

Which Democrat won Super Tuesday? Thanks to the Democratic Party's proportional representation, it is not easy to say a week later. Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama ran to a virtual dead heat for the delegates at stake in 22 states that were clearly stacked in Obama's favor. But the way Obama lost California raises the specter of the dreaded "Bradley effect."

Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African American Democrat, unexpectedly lost his 1982 campaign for governor. His defeat came as voters told pollsters that they preferred the black candidate and then voted the other way. In California's primary last Tuesday, Obama lost by a landslide 10 percentage points despite one late survey showing him ahead by 13 points and two others giving him a one-point lead.

Was this presumed 20-point reversal caused by the Bradley effect, which has worried Democratic leaders since Obama became an obstacle to Clinton's majestic procession to the Oval Office? It is much too early for that conclusion, but the subject is on the minds and is coming up in private comments of Democratic politicians pondering the stalemate for the party's presidential nomination.

Other than an alarming racial gap separating supporters of the two candidates, Obama escaped from Super Tuesday without obvious damage. Clinton's capture of California, New York and New Jersey gave her the big states contested that day, except for Obama's home state of Illinois. Under Republican winner-take-all rules, her wins would have put her on the way to the nomination. Instead, Obama finished with a 13-delegate edge out of the 1,681 delegates that were on the line.

That is bad news for Clinton, who now faces a temporary drought. The next three weeks belong to Obama, with nearly all the states likely to be decided in his favor, culminating in Wisconsin on Feb. 19. Clinton's strategists have spread the word not to worry because of Texas and Ohio, two big states presumably favorable to Clinton, on March 4. With its large Hispanic vote, Texas looks good for Clinton, but Ohio is less certain.

But proportional representation rears its head. Obama strategists privately concede probable defeat in those two big states but forecast losing their delegate competition by only 174 to 160, a pitifully small margin of 14. The Obama team's projection of the delegate count after all the primaries have been held shows Obama with 1,647 and Clinton with 1,580 -- both short of the 2,025 needed for nomination. (This confidential information was accidentally e-mailed to Bloomberg News, which published it.) The issue could be settled by unelected, unpledged superdelegates or by a credentials fight over Florida and Michigan, which were stripped of their delegates for scheduling their primaries too early.

The prospect of going into a convention with the nominee unknown for the first time since 1952 upsets Democratic insiders not merely because of the uncertainty. Splitting the party along ethnic and racial lines is troubling -- especially in California, where massive Latino support for Clinton canceled out Obama's base among blacks.

However, disbelief that their voters harbor racial prejudices leads Democrats to reject speculation that those voters lied to pollsters in claiming to support Obama. The Zogby poll that showed a big Obama lead in California, and the Suffolk and Rasmussen surveys giving him a narrow edge, it is argued, were just plain wrong. It is also claimed that the state's final tally was skewed by an unexpectedly low African American turnout.

But briefings on exit polls early Tuesday evening, the product of nonpartisan technicians, cautioned listeners not to be carried away by favorable Obama numbers around the country because his actual performance often is overstated by exit polls. (Indeed, contrary to early exit poll signals of an Obama upset in New Jersey, Clinton carried the state comfortably.) No explanation was given for this aberration, but many listeners presumed it was the Bradley effect.

As much as the Democratic stalemate delights the news media, worried party leaders still hope that Clinton or Obama will break away in the popular vote before the party convenes in Denver late in August, even if neither achieves a majority of delegates.

Howard Dean, who was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee after the 2004 elections in a rare manifestation of internal party democracy, let it be known that he would be happy to mediate between the two candidates and pick a nominee in March or April. It was occasion for laughter in both the Clinton and Obama camps.

Â¿ 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Report item as: (required) X
Comment: (optional)

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
© 2008 The Washington Post Company

Obama Wins Maine

2008-02-10T19:40:00.000-05:00

This is from WCSH6 in Portland,Maine.

Obama Wins Maine

Web Editor: Craig Pushard, Producer
Created: 2/10/2008 3:43:40 PM
Updated: 2/10/2008 6:55:02 PM

(NEWS CENTER) -- Obama makes it a clean sweep this weekend adding Maine to his list of victories.

The party is also reporting record turnout. The previous record of 17,000 voters is already broken. Maine Democratic Party Executive Director Arden Manning says 27,607 people have come out, and the party has not heard from Portland, where the lines were especially long.
Democrats in 420 Maine towns and cities turned out in heavy numbers despite snow squalls and slippery roads to decide how the state's 24 delegates will be allotted at the party's national convention in August.
With 70 percent of the state's participating precincts reporting, Obama leads Hillary Rodham Clinton with 1,564 to 1,122 delegates to the state convention, with 17 uncommitted.
Maine's voting comes a day after Obama and Clinton made personal appeals in Maine, and after Obama picked up wins in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington.

NEWS CENTER

Patti Solis Doyle Out Williams In

2008-02-10T17:35:00.000-05:00

Clinton Campaign Manager Steps Aside

Patti Solis Doyle, the campaign manager for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (N.Y.) presidential bid has stepped down from that post and will be replaced by longtime Clinton operative Maggie Williams.

"This week Maggie will begin to assume the duties of campaign manager," Solis Doyle said in a statement. "I will serve as a senior adviser to Hillary and the campaign and travel with Hillary from time to time on the road."

The announcement followed Clinton's losses to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the Louisiana presidential primary and the Nebraska and Washington state caucuses on Saturday.

Solis Doyle has a long relationship with the New York senator dating back to the days when she served as scheduler for Clinton in the White House. Solis Doyle served as Clinton's fundraising and strategic guru during her early political career, then managed Clinton's leadership political action committee in the years leading up to this presidential bid. Due to that relationship, there was little surprise when Clinton announced that Solis Doyle would manage the effort.

In the wake of a surprisingly large defeat at the hands of Obama in the Iowa caucuses, there was talk of a staff shakeup and Williams was brought in to coordinate the campaign's activities. That move came on the same night that Clinton scored a stunning come-from-behind victory in New Hampshire -- a win that quieted talk that Williams was being brought in to replace Solis Doyle.

Williams, like Solis Doyle, is someone with a long and close relationship with Hillary Clinton, having served as the then First Lady's chief of staff during the first term of former President Bill Clinton.

It was not immediately clear whether Solis Doyle's departure had to do with recent events in the campaign or was a decision made independent of those events. The Democratic race appears to have settled into a protracted battle for delegates, although Obama seems to have gained momentum following his three-state sweep last night in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington state. Maine holds caucuses today and the Clinton campaign has expressed optimism about its chances there.

In a statement, Clinton praised Solis Doyle and said she looked forward to her continued advice in the coming months.

''Patti Solis Doyle has done an extraordinary job in getting us to this point -- within reach of the nomination -- and I am enormously grateful for her friendship and her outstanding work,'' Clinton said. ''And, as Patti has said, this already has been the longest presidential campaign in history and one that has required enormous sacrifices of everyone and our families."

Cleveland Plain Dealer endorses Obama

2008-02-09T21:21:00.000-05:00

For the Democrats: Obama

BARRING SOME UNFORESEEABLE EVENT, the Democratic Party is about to make history. Its presidential nominee this November will be either the first woman or the first African-American to carry the standard of a major political party. With the contest between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois a virtual deadlock, Ohio Democrats on March 4 can play a critical role in this historic decision.

As usual with intraparty battles, the policy and ideological differences between Clinton and Obama are slight. Both share the party's liberal traditions on social and domestic issues. Both are committed to expanding health coverage and to closing the gap between rich and poor. Both oppose the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq. Both promise to break America's addiction to carbon-based fuels.

Given these similarities, Ohio Democrats have to ask themselves which candidate is more likely, first, to win the White House, and, then, to persuade a closely divided country to embrace his or her vision of change. Put even more pointedly: Who is more likely to change the world of a child born in 2008?

The answer, we think, is Barack Obama.

Although Obama stands on the precipice of a historic breakthrough, his personal story is a classic only-in-America saga: A white mother from Kansas. A black father from Kenya. A childhood in multi-ethnic Hawaii. Scholarships to Ivy League schools. Work as a community organizer and later a law professor in Chicago. Two terms in the Illinois Senate, then a landslide election to the U.S. Senate. An electrifying keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

That speech laid out the template for this campaign. He has challenged America to move beyond rigid racial, religious or partisan divides to focus instead on shared, national goals. It's a message that appeals to young voters and independents, to disillusioned Democrats eager to regain a sense of possibility and, yes, hope.

Obama's frequent talk of hope strikes some people as naive. It leads others to question his toughness. But Obama understands something his critics do not: Change requires vision and optimism, shared sacrifice and mutual trust. Hope can sustain those elements; a presidency defined by political tactics cannot.

Hillary Clinton is an exceptionally bright and accomplished woman. Only a fool could dispute that. It would be nice if Obama's policy proposals were as meaty as those she has put forward. It's no wonder she wants Democrats to see this race as a choice between resumes.

But in a campaign where history matters, she carries an inordinate amount of baggage. Who wants to relive the soap operas of the 1990s?

Bill Clinton says his wife excelled at "making positive changes in other people's lives." Consider that construction. Then listen as Obama talks of bringing people together to change their own lives.

America needs a fresh start. Barack Obama is the Democrat to provide it.