Tag: 2008 (page 23)

Last night in Indiana, Obama came out swinging to justify his remarks about PA voters. Today, Obama says he erred.

[Obama] said on Saturday he erred in how he expressed the concerns of those voters...Obama told a campaign rally in Muncie, Indiana, his description was clumsy and did not convey his meaning. "I didn't say it as well as I should have," said Obama,

...Obama said he believed many voters were indeed bitter about the economy and he meant to say "when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on." "So people -- they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community," he said. But he said he had not meant to imply that was a bad thing.

"The truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation, those are important. That's what sustains us," he said.

What he said initially:

Those voters were "bitter" about job losses and other economic woes and so "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, an Illinois senator, said.

Is he digging himself into a deeper hole? Clinging to anti-immigrant sentiment isn't a bad thing? Isn't he still saying PA voters harbor anti-immigrant sentiment that have been passed down to them through generations?

The Chicago Tribune has the video to today's comments. He also says the brouhaha over his comments is "a little typical, sort of, political flare up." The AP has more on Obama's newest clarification.

Barack Obama gave an interview to the Advocate about his positions on gay issues. This leapt out at me:

“So I actually have been much more vocal on gay issues to general audiences than any other presidential candidate probably in history.’’

That strikes me about as credible as his comment about his record on anti-semitism:

And nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of anti- Semitism than I have."

I'd call it hyperbole, except his exaggerations are not intentional. He seems to really believe it.

Also, over and over again, on issues that matter to progressives, Obama talks about how fighting for change must be viewed in terms of whether it's worth it to expend political capital to effect it: [More...]

Obama spoke in Indiana today. Here's what he had to say about abortion and the pro-life Dems rhat are supporting him:

Barack Obama said anti-abortion Democrats are backing him because they feel he respects their opinion on the issue despite disagreement on it. ...."It may be that those who have opposed abortion get a sense that I'm listening to them and respect their position even though where we finally come down may be different," he told reporters at a news conference.

"The mistake that pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past, and this is a generalization so it has not always been the case, has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in it," he said.

"Most Americans recognize that what we want to do is avoid, or help people avoid, having to make this difficult choice. That nobody is pro-abortion, abortion is never a good thing."

Update: Comments Over 200, thread now closed.

Barack Obama's campaign responds to his gaffe about PA voters.

"Senator Obama has said many times in this campaign that Americans are understandably upset with their leaders in Washington for saying anything to win elections while failing to stand up to the special interests and fight for an economic agenda that will bring jobs and opportunity back to struggling communities. And if John McCain wants a debate about who's out of touch with the American people, we can start by talking about the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans that he once said offended his conscience but now wants to make permanent,”

Looks like news of this gaffe may last the weekend:

His comments have been distributed to allies on Capitol Hill, to members of the Pennsylvania press corps, to talk radio hosts across the country, to Republican state parties and to the congressional campaign committees. The National Republican Congressional Committee is using the statement to whack Chris Carney, an endorser of Obama and vulnerable frosh member of congress from Pennsylvania.

Obama's entire remarks, in context, can be read here.

(This is a continuation of Big Tent's original thread on the gaffe which is about filled up.)

Update: Thread closing, here's a new one for you to continue the discussion.

In reading through Hillary Clinton's new anti-crime proposal (background here), my chief interest was who, if anyone, would be subject to increased penalties and what new crimes would she create. My own position is that our criminal sentences, both state and federal, are already draconian and don't need to be raised any higher. We can't jail ourselves out of our crime problem. Smarter approaches are needed.

Here are the existing crimes for which Hillary would ask for greater sentences and the new crimes she would create:

• Online Child Exploitation, Online Sales of Prescription drugs to Minors, and Computer Fraud and Identity Theft

  Hillary will direct the Attorney General to crack down on online child exploitation and harassment through three steps:

• Hillary will sign a new law that makes it a federal crime for an adult to cyberstalk a minor.

• Enlist the private sector to crack down on online prescription drug sales to kids. Hillary will ask credit card companies to prohibit – and police – the use of their services for illegal drug sales to minors. ... At the same time, she will strengthen penalties against fly-by-night online pharmacies that prey on children.

[More...]

Update: Praise for Hillary's plan from some American Mayors.

Hillary Clinton outlined her anti-crime proposal in Philadelphia today.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton would eliminate the federal mandatory five-year sentence for crack cocaine users as part of a $4 billion-a-year anti-crime initiative designed, in part, to steer many nonviolent offenders away from prison.

Hillary signed as co-sponsor of one of the bills to eliminate the crack cocaine disparity, Joe Biden's S. 1711, some months ago. Obama signed onto the same bill recently. (Note: It is not the pending bill I would have signed onto as it contains too many law enforcement provisions and tougher penalties for other crimes.)

Details of the plan are here. Hillary also calls for funding more cops on the street. As for paying for the $4 billion plan: [More...]

Where's Obama on Israel and the Palestinians? On both sides.

Since running for President, he's become an outspoken supporter of Israel. While in the Illinois legislature, he was a friend, supporter and beneficiary of Palestinians whose organizations trashed Israel.

Yesterday, when asked on the campaign trail about why he didn't denounce Louis Farakahn before he became an issue in the campaign, Obama said:

Obama reminded the crowd that he'd denounced his church’s praise of Farrakhan, saying, "I’ve been very clear about saying that was wrong. And nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of anti- Semitism than I have."

Jake Tapper of ABC News responds:

Really? No one? Elie Wiesel? Simon Wiesenthal? Alan Dershowitz? No one? Wow.

More...

Update: Initial AP report here. The AP now reports that after complaints, Obama is reinstating hundreds of them.

Susie Madrak has the story and quotes Marcy Winograd at Daily Kos who says the anti-war activist and other liberal delegates have been replaced mainly with bundlers and their girlfriends.

Who was left standing, still in the running for the Sunday delegate caucuses? The bundlers and their girlfriends, the men and women who skirt campaign finance laws by bundling cash, a bundle of $2,000 here and a bundle of $2,000 there -- and some, though certainly not all, of the Obama precinct captains, loyalists from day one.

If CA is any example, progressive leaders in Penn better watch their back.

Wingrad ran unsuccessfully against Rep. Jane Harman in 2006. She had a lot of progressive support.

More on the purging at Huffington Post: "Obama's 'Big Tent' Campaign Cuts Out The Little People In California"

Yesterday I wrote about the wealthy donor fundraisers Obama attended in San Francisco last week.

Here's the Washington Post:

[T]hose with wealth and power also have played a critical role in creating Obama's record-breaking fundraising machine, and their generosity has earned them a prominent voice in shaping his campaign. Seventy-nine "bundlers," five of them billionaires, have tapped their personal networks to raise at least $200,000 each. They have helped the campaign recruit more than 27,000 donors to write checks for $2,300, the maximum allowed. Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million.

What's it mean?

[T]he work of bundlers... will be crucial as he heads into the final Democratic primaries with a lead against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).

The bundler list also sheds light on those who might seek to influence an Obama White House. It includes traditional Democratic givers -- Hollywood, trial lawyers and Wall Street -- and newcomers such as young hedge fund executives, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, Chicago-based developers and members of the black business elite....The list includes partners from 18 top law firms, 21 Wall Street executives and power brokers from Fortune 500 companies. California is the top source, with 19 bundlers.

Several of these top bundlers previously supported Republicans. Some have agendas markedly different from Obama's platform. Take Ken Griffith: [More...]

The New York Times reports kids are pestering their parents to vote for Obama, and it's working.

Here's one example:

Megan Simpson, a Penn State senior, had not been able to budge her father, a Republican. But the day before the deadline for registering for the coming Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, she handed him the forms and threw in a deal-sweetener as well. “I said, ‘Dad, if you change your party affiliation in time to vote for Obama,’ ” recalled Ms. Simpson, 22, an Obama campus volunteer, “ ‘I will get you the paperwork the day after the primary if you want to switch back to being a Republican.’ ”

Thus did Ralph E. Simpson Jr., 50, construction company owner, become a newly minted Democrat. “I probably will switch my affiliation back,” Mr. Simpson said, “but I haven’t decided who I will vote for in the general election. If Meg keeps working on me, who knows?”

More...

CNN says Obama's ad spending is not just record breaking, but record shattering:

Barack Obama has spent a record breaking $60 million to run more than 100,000 political television ads in pursuit of the Democratic presidential nomination, a new analysis conducted for CNN shows.

In contrast, John Kerry ran a little more than 19,000 TV ads four years ago in his successful bid for the Democratic nomination, according to TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG, CNN’s consultant on political television advertising spending.

Clinton, who trails Obama in fundraising by about $60 million, has run just over 60,000 TV ads in her bid for the White House.

In Pennsylvania, NC and Indiana...[More...]

Bump and Update: ABC's Jake Tapper and Politico report Obama may be opting out of public financing.

Tonight at a fundraiser in Washington, D.C., at the National Museum of Women in the Arts -- at a $2,300-per-person event for 200 people held before a $1,000-per-person reception for 350 people -- Obama previewed his argument to justify this possible future discarding of a principle.

We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful," Obama said.

Is he breaking a pledge?

*****

Original Post

By all accounts, Barack Obama raises a lot of money in small donations. But he also raises big bucks from the wealthy. Here's a photojournalist account of his fundraiser at the Getty Mansion in San Francisco this week -- one of four such events that day.

The photos alone are worth the look -- this one is my favorite for how it so captures San Francisco.

I don't really have a political comment here -- all campaigns need the wealthy donor parties -- but the blogger spent all day capturing the scene and did a very good job of it.