Hillary’s Voice

Lobbying Firms RSVP “No” to Conventions (Capital Eye)
Two of Washington’s most influential lobbying firms have taken a hint (or maybe a hit) from the presumptive presidential nominees’ anti-lobbyist mantra and won’t be involved in this summer’s presidential nominating conventions. Both Cassidy and Associates and Van Scoyoc Associates will not attend either political party’s gathering, sponsor parties or donate to the host committees that organize the four-day fetes, according to The Hill… And while John McCain and Barack Obama continue to distance themselves from the influence of lobbyists, contributions from the industry have not changed much compared to the last presidential election cycle. In 2004, the lobbying industry ranked 14th in our industry tallies of campaign contributions, which is the same position it holds so far in 2008. The biggest change in lobbyist contributions is where the money is going. In 2004 Republicans received 52 percent of the industry’s contributions; now Democrats are claiming 56 percent.

Time Magazine uncritically prints Nancy Pelosi’s “justifications” for the FISA “compromise” (by Glenn Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory, Salon)
What the Democratic leadership is saying is quite clear: we will continue to trample on the Constitution and support endless expansions of the surveillance state because that is how we’ll win in swing districts and expand our Congressional majority… The only objective of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer is to have a 50-seat majority rather than a 35-seat majority, and if enabling the Bush administration’s lawbreaking and demolishing core constitutional protections can assist somewhat with that goal, then that it what they will do. That’s what they are saying all but explicitly here.

Until that calculus changes, their behavior never will. That’s why it is so vital to target and defeat selected Democrats in Congress who are enabling these unconstitutional and lawless assaults. Democratic leaders need to learn that this strategy won’t work.
If you’ve read MakeThemAccountable only since January, you may remember that I have been saying something similar for months.  While much of the blogosphere was ecstatic over Obama’s supposed ability to attract independents, and even Republicans, to vote for him, I was warning that maybe we don’t want those folks dragging the party leadership EVEN FURTHER TO THE RIGHT.  Just call me Cassandra.  Maybe someday I’ll get some respect.

Sunstein An Advisor To Barack Obama? (by Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft)
AdamB announced his law panel for Netroots Nation and it is an impressive one. But one thing stuck out for me in his announcement - the bio of Cass Sunstein: “One of America’s foremost legal scholars, Cass Sunstein is a professor at Harvard Law School and a visiting professor at The University of Chicago Law School, and serves as an advisor to Obama for America.” Cass Sunstein is an advisor for Obama for America? That is extremely troubling as Cass Sunstein holds views that I believe should be anathema to most progressives. For example, Sunstein supported John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court… Cass Sunstein supported the Bush Administration theory of inherent authority to spy on Americans without warrants… The question is this - to what degree do the views of Cass Sunstein on these issues reflect the views of Barack Obama? I would like to know.

Torturegate: Truth, But No Consequences (by Chris Floyd at Empire Burlesque)
[Last week was] one of the most extraordinary weeks in modern American history… By week’s end, the evidence that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and other top government officials had deliberately created a system of torture which they knew was illegal – indeed, a capital crime – under U.S. law was so plain, so overwhelming, and so handily concentrated that it broke through the levees of institutional cover-up and media complicity that had held this clear truth at bay for so long…
Barack Obama – who has been busy … bolstering “Blue Dog” supporters of executive tyranny and appointing a gaggle of dim warhawks, has-beens and imperial factotums as his national security team) – has given every indication he too sees the Administration’s high crimes as “dumb policies” that don’t require any legal redress…

[V]ery strong, credible, evidence-based charges of launching a criminal war of aggression based on deception is not an “exceptional circumstance” worthy of the investigative and prosecutorial process of impeachment. It might just be a “very dumb policy.” Very strong, credible, evidence-based charges of knowingly, deliberately creating a regimen of systematic torture is not an “exceptional circumstance” worthy of impeachment; it might not even be worth further investigation by the Justice Department. It too could just be a “dumb policy” that we should forget about – especially if Republicans are going to make a fuss about it.

He changed (by Jeff Jarvis)
Whenever you want to show how soft big media are on Barack Obama, refer back to Howard Kurtz’ column on their coverage of the candidate’s hypocritical flip-flop on campaign financing. Chapter and verse. “The question: Are the media going to call Obama on the reversal? Will there be hand-wringing pieces about the corrupting role of money in politics? Or will the story just be covered as the two sides trading charges?” Howard analyzes their leads and how they tucked in mentions of the flip. e.g., “NYT’s lead graf: ‘He argued that the system had collapsed, and would put him at a disadvantage running against Senator John McCain, his likely Republican opponent.’ Fourth graf: It ‘represented a turnaround.’”

Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol (New York Times)
The ethanol industry has provided some top advisers to Senator Barack Obama, who has delivered ringing endorsements of ethanol as an alternative fuel.

Obama courts U.S. mayors as Bush foe (McClatchy)
MIAMI _ Making his pitch to a key group of power brokers, Barack Obama on Saturday promised hundreds of mayors gathered in Miami that he would push back on President Bush’s threatened veto of legislation aimed at rescuing homeowners facing foreclosure.

Obama on Elian: that was 8 years ago (Miami Herald)
Speaking to reporters from a waterfront park along Jacksonville’s St. John’s River, Barack Obama briefly responded to the flap over his advisors’ association with Elian Gonzalez: “That was eight years ago and obviously it was a wrenching situation for the families but I’m running for president in 2008 and my focus is: how do we create a Cuba policy that will create political freedom on that island and allow the people who live there to prosper?” Obama said. “That’s not what we have right now.” He referred to his “extensive approach” he outlined last month to lift travel restrictions for family members of relatives in Cuba.

Obama Asks NBC to Draw Up Olympics Ad Packages
But Could Such a Media Buy Be Too Much, Too Soon?

Obama braces for race-based ads (AP)
A presidential candidate who’s named Hussein and wears a turban? A building that’s called the White House but run by a black guy? Those political images and ideas already have found their way onto TV airwaves and campaign buttons, possible harbingers of racially tinged messages in a general election involving the first black candidate to head a major party’s ticket… The Obama campaign vows to fight back fiercely and fast, not repeating John Kerry’s mistake of waiting to respond to the 2004 “Swift Boat” ads that Democrats saw as a smear of his military record. McCain’s camp is alert for attacks on its man, too.

Republican Congressman ‘Mistakenly’ Calls for Assassination of Obama
Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Highland Park, Ill.) from the June 18 broadcast of WLS’ ‘Don Wade & Roma in the Morning.’ DON WADE: In fact, yesterday in a conference call, Barack Obama’s advisers were asked, “If Osama bin Laden were caught, should he get to challenge his detention in U.S. courts?” And the advisers said that — should that right to challenge detention that they get at Gitmo based on the Supreme Court ruling, should that be applied to bin Laden? — and Obama’s advisers said, “Yes.” KIRK: Yeah, and I would much rather have a policy where if we see Obama there’s a shoot-on-sight order.
Click through to listen to the audio.

Why Clinton voters will come back to the fold (by Walter Shapiro, Salon)
Don’t worry about those angry Hillary supporters who say they’ll vote for McCain or stay home in November. History proves they’ll vote for Obama.
Go right ahead and believe, it, Walter.  Go right ahead.

Why Clinton voters say they won’t support Obama (by Rebecca Traister, Salon)
The attack of the PUMAs, or a dozen reasons why Clinton voters are still too angry to come home.

On Private Conference Call, Hillary Urges Major Donors To Throw Weight Behind Obama (by Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central)
On a private conference call [Thursday], Hillary urged her top fundraisers in no uncertain terms to throw their weight behind Barack Obama, and directly asked them in surprisingly candid terms to give or raise money to help her pay off her campaign’s debt. At the same time, in a move that took some participants on the call by surprise, she also clarified that she was not asking their help in paying off her personal loans to the campaign. [Emphasis added.]

Clinton fulfills girl’s graduation wish
NEW YORK (AP) — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton fulfilled a pledge to a young supporter by speaking at the teenager’s high school graduation on Sunday… Clinton said she had known Aleatha “and her wonderful mother, Patricia,” since the girl was 2 and had promised her when she graduated from eighth grade that she would attend her high school graduation. “Four years later, here I am with all of you,” Clinton said… Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, who attended the school’s commencement ceremony at nearby Fordham University, said students should always remember that an American hero spoke at their graduation.

Pantsuits and the Presidency (by Clark Hoyt, Public Editor, New York Times)
I think a fair reading suggests that The Times did a reasonably good job in its news articles. But [Maureen] Dowd’s columns about Clinton’s campaign were so loaded with language painting her as a 50-foot woman with a suffocating embrace, a conniving film noir dame and a victim dependent on her husband that they could easily have been listed in that Times article on sexism, right along with the comments of Chris Matthews, Mike Barnicle, Tucker Carlson or, for that matter, [Bill] Kristol, who made the Hall of Shame for a comment on Fox News, not for his Times work.

“I’ve been twisting gender stereotypes around for 24 years,” Dowd responded. She said nobody had objected to her use of similar images about men over seven presidential campaigns. She often refers to Barack Obama as “Obambi” and has said he has a “feminine” management style. But the relentless nature of her gender-laden assault on Clinton — in 28 of 44 columns since Jan. 1 — left many readers with the strong feeling that an impermissible line had been crossed, even though, as Dowd noted, she is a columnist who is paid not to be objective.

Latest Rejections from Obama Supporters (by Truth Partisan at Corrente)
From Anon.: A close activist friend lectures me that American politics is “dogs eating dogs” and that I cannot expect truth from any politician and therefore I have to accept “Obama won.” This same friend was saying last week that the Democratic vote had been stolen.
My note:
Why do some Democrats need to fit in so badly?
Why isn’t knowing the truth important?
Why isn’t holding politicians and ourselves to standards important?

Internet-savvy voters shake up US presidential election
SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) - Videos shared on YouTube and blogs scrutinizing candidates are part of an Internet-age revolution shaking up the US presidential election and sweeping in a new political era.

Lots more really good stuff at MakeThemAccountable.com.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com