McCain Tries To Link Obama To Terrorists, Then Scapegoats The Voters

So here was McCain a few days ago trying to link Obama with the goals of Hamas, and "terrorists" in general, because according to McCain "terrorists" want Obama to win because he would supposedly engage in foreign policy more beneficial to them (don't mention the fact that the vast majority of people in nearly every country wants Obama to win and the Republicans to lose):

Barack Obama's foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders. Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Hamas Prime Minister said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America."

We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas, surrenders in Iraq and will hold unconditional talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

And here was Obama's response:



And here is McCain yesterday backsliding away from his comments:

It's very obvious to everyone that Senator Obama shares nothing of the values or goals of Hamas, which is a terrorist organization. But it's also fact that a spokesperson from Hamas said that he approves of Obama's candidacy. I think that's of interest to the American people.

[...]

Every issue that the American people want to be an issue, if it's part of their discussions, it's fine with me, it's fine with me. Just as the Rev. Wright’s remarks. I don’t believe that Sen. Obama shares his views in any way, but he has said it’s a legitimate topic of discussion. If that’s what the American people want to discuss, that’s fine.

So now that McCain and the Republicans have tried for days to connect Obama with being friendly with terrorists, now McCain says "well of course I know he isn't pro-terrorist and doesn't share the values or goals of Hamas, and I wouldn't bring it up, but its the voters that are making me do it!" Just like with Rev. Wright apparently. Funny, I don't remember the voters clamoring to associate Obama with Hamas, or the voters clamoring to associate Obama's former pastors comments with Obama, it was the media, the Republicans, and at times Hillary that pushed this. But now McCain is pulling a Hillary and putting the blame on the people, as if voters actually think Obama would be weak on terrorists, and as if people really don't want to be distracted with the issues that actually matter to them. Classic Republican bullshit.

To McCain's credit, at least he didn't say "Obama doesn't share the values and goals of Hamas, as far as I know."

Hillary's Supporters Target Superdelegates

Hardcore supporters of Hillary have apparently launched an anti-Obama email writing campaign to superdelegates in a desperate last ditch effort to save Hillary's campaign from reality. These emails are characteristically packed with vitriol, shocking ignorance and right-wing talking points. Some attack Obama on electability, with no evidence to back up their claims. Some attack him on Wright, and for supposedly being friends with "anti-American terrorists". Some call his racist and misogynistic. Some have the audacity to call pander-me-Hillary's opponent a fake. Some attack people who support Obama. Some attack hope. Many vow they will vote for McCain if (when) Obama is the nominee. Essentially they are hateful, desperate, and completely misinformed. And the best part is, they are completely counter productive, they just further highlight the negativity of Hillary's campaign, and the ignorance and negativity of many of her hardcore supporters.

Here is a response from Donna Brazille to one of the writers:

Honestly, this is the 9th email today. So I believe you're ready to not only destroy Roe versus Wade, voting rights, civil liberties and civil rights. Perhaps adding trillions more to the deficits through non-stop tax cuts to the wealthy and 100 more years in Iraq. Yes, please join Rush and McCain asap. The train has left. Catch it.

Another exasperated targeted superdelgate had this to say:

I spent my entire life in the two reddest states in the entire U.S. so please excuse me if I fail to discern the nuances of the arguments sent my way this evening in what appears to be an orchestrated campaign to intimidate the remaining unpledged delegates by threatening to leave the party and vote for a third Bush term if I and others like me don't vote for Sen. Clinton. I have been uncommitted throughout this campaign because I wanted to see how the candidates performed in a variety of settings. I am proud of them both. But I am horrified by this effort to threaten votes for McCain if super delegates don't vote for Sen. Clinton. I have received hundreds of emails from both sides - but I can say without exception that I have not received a single email from an Obama supporter that threatened a vote for McCain if I didn't support Sen. Obama. You really ought to be ashamed.

I think this latest development speaks for itself. I, for one, am ashamed that these ignorant, hateful people are in my party. I don't fault the run of the mill Hillary supporter because they are entitled to their opinions and they likely haven't been exposed to accurate information about Hillary or Obama. I DO fault her hardcore supporters who resort to this kind of hate and viciousness, against their own party. And this includes the Clintons and the nasty and divisive GOP tactics they have employed in their quest for power. I expect this kind of behavior from Bush and McCain and Fox News and the Republicans, but until this election I really thought that Democrats were better. These kind of people proved me wrong.

Hillary's Lead In Ohio Cut To Single Digits

The official results from Ohio were just released, and as is usually the case Obama got more votes that originally reported by the media (and as is always the case the media will never mention the change). Originally it was thought that Hillary won by 10.4%, but after they counted provisional ballots her lead dropped to only 8.8%, the difference? Her proclaimed double-digit lead versus a single digit lead, in a state that was made for her. Just like Texas which she actually lost, yet it was reported that she won. Just like Pennsylvania which it was reported that she won by 10%, when she actually won by single digits. The numbers aren't all that different, but the perceptions are important, especially for the media spin.

Going forward what does this mean? It means that in the total popular vote Obama has gained 26,022. Will these get included in the "official" numbers? Doubtful. Will these be included in Hillary's measures of the popular vote? Hell no. It raises a question though, in so many races Obama has gained after ALL the voters were finally counted, and this was a significant amount in many places, like New York and California. But were the updated numbers added to the "official" popular vote totals used by the mainstream media? Who knows, but I really doubt it, that is a little too "nuanced" for the media.

VO Day +3 Endorsements For Obama

It is only the morning still, but Obama has already picked up three superdelegates, one of which used to support Hillary, and a union endorsement.

First, New Jersey Rep. Donald Payne who had previously supported Hillary switched his support to Obama today.

Next, Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio, previously unpledged, has endorsed Obama, releasing this statement:

Senator Obama has proven he is able to energize young Americans, independents, and even moderate Republicans to support his candidacy. I believe he represents our best hope of winning in November, and puts the needs and priorities of hard working Americans ahead of the powerful special interests that have been extraordinarily favored by the Bush-Cheney administration.

Third, we have union leader and superdelegate John Gage, whose union, the American Federation of Government Employees, also endorsed Obama today.

At this point ABC notes that Obama has overtaken Hillary in superdelegates, but their numbers are quite a bit different than all other news outlets, and I hold them in pretty low regard, so I'm going to say they are full of crap. However there are only a handful standing between Obama and Hillary, and the tipping point will likely come within the next week.

And did John Edwards vote for Obama and is he going to endorse...? You be the judge. (I'm voting for yes)

A fourth superdelegate for Obama today, this one coming from California DNC member Ed Espinoza, who released this statement:

I am endorsing Barack Obama today because throughout this process I have seen him show a judgment and character that we need in our next president. From day one he opposed the Iraq war and has a plan to end the war in a responsible way and bring our sons and daughters home. He has shown he has the character to lead our great nation, from his choice to spend his career serving people in the poorest communities in Chicago to his commitment to speaking truth to the American people, even when it isn’t politically convenient to do so. To unify the country at this time in our history we need a president who has these qualities, and that is why I am proud to endorse him today. My good friend Bill Richardson, who backed Obama some weeks ago, knows what it takes to lead and I trust his judgment in this decision as well. I look forward to working with this great movement to bring victory in November.

Obama has received the endorsements of four more superdelegates this afternoon bringing his daily total to 8, to Hillary's -1.

His latest four are congresswoman Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, New Mexico add-on Laurie Weahkee, South Carolina party vice chair Wilber Lee Jeffcoat, and California DNC member Vernon Watkins.

Not good news for Hillary.

He received a 9th for the day, DNC member Joe Johnson from Virginia!

According to the AP Obama is only .5 delegates under Hillary now, essentially tied.

And this is fun, Rasmussen is no longer going to do national polls between Obama and Hillary for the Democratic primary because inn their view "it is over". Nice. =)

5 Myths About Being 'Pro-Israel' (Repost)

[Last month I wrote about the formation of a new progressive pro-Israel group, J Street, which seeks to provide an alternative to the anti-peace neoconservative group AIPAC and other hardline American Jewish lobby/advocacy groups. Last Sunday the executive director of J Street wrote this in the Washington Post, which I'm reposting here because I think it is very important to get out, and I'm sure almost everyone missed the original publication. Essentially we can't hope to achieve peace in the Middle East, and reduce anti-American sentiment until we recognize the following:]

5 Myths About Being 'Pro-Israel'
by Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street

Six decades ago, my father fought alongside Menachem Begin for Israel's independence. If you'd have told him back then that politicians in the world's last superpower would be jockeying today to see who can be more "pro-Israel," he would have laughed at you. Grateful as I am for decades of U.S. friendship to Israel, I have to wonder, as the state my father helped found turns 60, just who is defining what it means to be pro-Israel in the United States these days.

Some purported keepers of that flame claim that supporting Israel means reflexively supporting every Israeli action and implacably opposing every Israeli foe -- adopting the talking points of neoconservatives and the most right-wing elements of the American Jewish and Christian Zionist communities. Criticize or question Israeli behavior and you're labeled "anti-Israel," or worse. But unquestioning encouragement for short-sighted Israeli policies such as expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank isn't real friendship. (Would a true friend not only let you drive home drunk but offer you their Porsche and a shot of tequila for the road?) Israel needs real friends, not enablers. And forging a healthy friendship with Israel requires bursting some myths about what it means to be pro-Israel.

1. American Jews choose to back candidates largely on the basis of their stance on Israel.

This urban legend has somehow become a tenet of American Politics 101, which is why politicians work so hard to earn the pro-Israel label in the first place. But it's a self-serving fable, cultivated by a tiny minority of politically conservative American Jews who actually are single-issue voters. Most Jewish voters make their political choices the way other Americans do: based on their views on the full spectrum of domestic and foreign policy issues.

Moreover, the American Jewish community still has a markedly progressive bent. Exit polls suggest that nearly 80 percent of Jewish Americans voted for John F. Kerry over George W. Bush in 2004; some 70 percent of them were opposed to the Iraq war in 2005, according to the American Jewish Committee; and polls show that most American Jews say they favor a more balanced U.S. Middle East policy that's aimed at achieving peace.

2. To be strong on Israel, you have to be harsh to the Palestinians.

Wrong, and counterproductive to boot. One popular way for members of Congress to earn their pro-Israel stripes is to come down as hard as possible on the Palestinians, by using economic and diplomatic pressure or giving the Israelis a freer hand for military strikes. That may satisfy some primal urge to lash out at Israel's foes, but it does Israel more harm than good.

As Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has argued, Israel's survival depends on offering the Palestinians a more hopeful future built on political sovereignty and economic development. As long as Palestinians despair of a decent and dignified life, Israel will be at war. And as long as the only channel for the Palestinians' ingenuity is building better rockets, not even the Great Wall of China will protect Israel's cities from their wrath. Helping the Palestinians achieve a viable, prosperous state is one of the most pro-Israel things an American politician can do.

3. The Rev. John Hagee and his fellow Christian Zionists are good for the Jews.

Hardly. Are Israel and American Jewry really so desperate that we must cozy up to people whose messianic dreams entail having us all killed or converted to Christianity? Hagee, the founder of Christians United for Israel, and his ilk believe that Israel dare not cede any territory in the quest for peace, claiming that the Bible promised all of the holy land to the Jews. In other words, Christian Zionists look at the trade-offs that Israel must make to achieve peace -- and hope to thwart them. Then again, peace is not what these folks have in mind; they hope that Israel will seek to permanently expand its borders, thereby goading the Arabs into a war that will become the catalyst for Armageddon and the second coming of Christ. Do your ambitions for Israel extend beyond turning it into the fuel for the fire of the "End of Days"? Then Hagee and company are not -- repeat, not -- your friends.

4. Talking peace with your enemies demonstrates weakness.

You don't need an advanced degree in international relations to recognize that pursuing peace only with people you like is pointless. Most Israelis know this; a recent poll in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz found that two-thirds of Israelis favor cease-fire negotiations between their government and Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement that controls the Gaza Strip, exactly because Hamas is such a bitter foe. But in Washington, we self-righteously refuse to engage -- even indirectly -- with Hamas, Iran or Syria.

Hamas won the most recent Palestinian national elections in a landslide. Do we seriously think that it can be erased from the political landscape simply by assassinations and sanctions? Precisely because Hamas and Iran represent the most worrisome strategic challenges to Israel, responsible friends of Israel who'd like to see it live in security for its next 60 years should be engaging with them to search for alternatives to war.

5. George W. Bush is the best friend Israel has ever had.

Not even close. The president has acted as Israel's exclusive corner man when he should have been refereeing the fight. That choice weakened Israel's long-term security.

Israel needs U.S. help to maintain its military edge over its foes, but it also needs the United States to contain Arab-Israeli crises and broker peace. Israel's existing peace pacts owe much to Washington's ability to bridge the mistrust among parties in the Middle East. So when the United States abandons the role of effective broker and acts only as Israel's amen choir, as it has throughout Bush's tenure, the United States dims Israel's prospects of winning security through diplomacy. The best gift that Israel's friends here could give this gallant, embattled democracy on its milestone birthday would be returning the United States to its leading role in active diplomacy to end the conflicts in the Middle East -- and help a secure, thriving Israel find a permanent, accepted home among the community of nations.

jeremyb@jstreet.org

Jeremy Ben-Ami is executive director of J Street, a lobby and political action committee that promotes peace and security in the Middle East.

As Starvation Skyrockets Around The Globe, So Do Profits For Agri-Multinationals

If I had to point to one problem in our country as the most menacing, I'd say it is big corporations, which ruin basically everything, through their insatiable greed. Maybe greed is the more menacing problem in our country, in our society. Yes, I change my answer to greed, but greed's main vehicle of destruction is corporate America, and the Republicans (and corporate Democrats) it owns. Read:

Giant Food & Biotech Corporations Make Billions in Profit from Growing Global Food Crisis
by Geoffrey Lean, The Independent

Giant agribusinesses are enjoying soaring earnings and profits out of the world food crisis which is driving millions of people towards starvation, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. And speculation is helping to drive the prices of basic foodstuffs out of the reach of the hungry.

What Would You Do With $3 Trillion?

I bought universal health care and a scooter for every American, and solar power for every American household, and I had money left over.

What would you do with $3 trillion?

Update: Here is how John Cusack spent his.

The New York Times Faults The McCains And The Clintons On Transparency

The New York Times is troubled, troubled by a disturbing lack of transparency, which has become a pattern, for some of our country's presidential aspirants. One candidate they aren't troubled by is Barack Obama, who has led the way in transparency and ethics, and the Times praised him accordingly. But let's look at the bad apples, starting with the apples that actually matter still:

John McCain

John McCain is old. Too old? Who knows. But he is old, and he has had a history of health problems, most notably an aggressive form of skin cancer in 2000. Now hopefully it is fine, but voters have no idea. He could be dying and no one would know, because he continually refuses to release his medical records to the public. He managed to become the Republican Party's presidential nominee, without letting the voters know about the health of a man who is 71, who will turn 72 a couple months before election day, and who could conceivably be 80 upon leaving office. I'm not picking on the guy here, and neither is the New York Times, the American people have a right to know whether or not their potential president is going to pull a William Henry Harrison on them. As the Times stated the other day in an editorial, "No presidential candidate should get to the point that he has locked up his party’s nomination without public vetting of his health. And Mr. McCain, in particular, knows that. ... Voters are entitled to know about other potential health concerns for an average 71-year-old man." Yet McCain has continued to stall, which would not make much sense unless he had something to hide. John McCain has also not released nearly as many financial records as Obama has released, which the Times criticized as well.

Cindy McCain

Cindy McCain is dirty filthy rich, as the daughter of a major beer distributor, and now the corporation's chair. Cindy used her fortune to finance McCain's first congressional election back in the 80s, thus he essentially owes his political career to her and her corporate money. Yet Cindy McCain won't release her financial information. Even today on the Today Show she said unequivocally that she will never disclose her financial records, even if she becomes First Lady. The Times disagrees, saying it is vital that she disclose her financial records "to gain public trust and to air potential conflicts of interest". Apparently Cindy McCain is hoping Americans don't care about McCain's relationship to corporate money, his conflicts of interest, and his campaign joyriding on corporate jets owned by Cindy's company.

It should also be noted that in the same interview she repeatedly promised that McCain will not run a negative campaign with negative attacks, and said that they would rather lose than resort to that -- this coming after McCain's attempts to say that terrorists support Obama because a spokesman of Hamas commented that he wanted Obama to win (or conversely just didn't want another neoconservative to win), because apparently wanting America to change it's neoimperialistic warmongering, as the whole world wants, is a crazy pro-terrorist thing. McCain obviously hasn't noticed that the majority of people in almost every country want Obama to win the presidency, people want change. So so much for no negative campaigning...and I guarantee there will be a lot more where that came from, so I'll probably be referring back to this interview with Cindy McCain from time to time.

The Clintons

After much delay the Clintons finally released some of their financial records a few weeks ago, showing us that in the last few years they have made over $100 million. Left out were tax returns from 2007, as well as a full accounting of where Bill's money came from, leading to further questions of potential conflicts of interest. As the Times notes:

The public is still owed a more complete accounting of the sources and amounts of Mr. Clinton’s speaking fees and business income. Still missing, too, is a complete list of the major donors who have been supporting the Clinton presidential library and foundation.

Also Hillary still refuses to release most of her records from her time as First Lady, a period that includes all of her claims to superior experience. Of course the matter is pretty much moot at this point, because she has lost, but it is just further evidence of the Clintons' proclivity for secrecy and their resistance to transparency in government, a resistance we've lived with for the last 8 years in the White House, and a resistance shared by the McCains.

The editorial ends by saying, "The extent of a candidate’s candor is a good measure of how candid he or she will be in the White House."

Exactly, yet another area where Obama sets a high bar, and the Clintons and McCain fail to pass a low bar.

Update: Here is Obama's very presidential response to McCain's "Hamas" pathetic smear attempts:

VO Day +2 Endorsements For Obama

In this, the second day since Obama's victory against Hillary, we can be sure more endorsements will come. I'll keep updating them here.

First, David Bonior, former Edwards '08 campaign manager and former Michigan congressman has endorsed Obama, citing Obama's positive tone, his message of change, and his firm stance against taking money from federal lobbyists.

For the second one today we have Montana superdelegate and rancher Jean Lemire Dahlman, who made a few important points about Obama:

There's no 'white working voter' problem for Barack here. Yesterday, I was at the post office and I asked a retired welder - a union guy - if he was going to Billings tomorrow to see Bill [Clinton] and he said he didn't think he should since he's going to vote for Barack. And another guy - a young electrician - told me that he's supporting Barack and working hard for him. The people I see on the street are all white and they have no problem voting for a man whose father is black. It's what he stands for - he's authentic, he isn't pandering and he's telling us the truth - that's why people here are voting for him and that's why he'll win Montana.

[...]

I care about health care insurance, the economy, and the war in Iraq and I also want a person who is unafraid to go against the grain, even when it's unpopular. I don't give a dime about [Sen. Clinton] gas roll-back plan. It's not going to do us any good in the long run and when Obama came out against that - that's what I'm looking for. Nonsense issues like the gas roll-back or wearing an American flag pin on your lapel. He [Barack] keeps tells the people the truth.

Bam! Way to go Jean!

Third for the day, North Carolina Rep. Brad Miller has endorsed Obama.

White Problem? Tell That To Utah, And Most Of The States Obama Has Won

Here is a great diary by a Utahan who takes issue with the Hillary/media myth of some kind of white problem for Obama, which I've repeatedly exposed on my blog as nothing but unsubstantiated bullshit:

Plea From The Bleach-Whitest State In The Union: Give Us The Inspirational Black President!
by steina, Daily Kos