Hillary’s Voice

Media Tenor: Foreign Policy Impacts Image (by Media Tenor)
Obama’s advantage in polls and predictions narrows
McCain dominates on Iraq and foreign policy
Candidates jockey for position on economy

Reuters

Obama debuts new campaign plane (The Swamp, Chicago Tribune)
The president arrives in foreign countries aboard Air Force One with the words “United States of America” emblazoned across the fuselage. Well, presidential candidate Barack Obama debuts on the international stage with a newly reconfigured campaign plane with its own distinctive message painted across it, “Change We Can Believe In.” On the tail, instead of the American flag on the presidential plane, is the rising-sun logo of the Obama campaign.

CBS scores first Obama interview abroad (Politico)
Forty journalists, including such leading correspondents as Dan Balz of The Washington Post, will be aboard his plane for next week’s swing through Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and England. The campaign received 200 requests for press seats on the plane. Among those for whom there was no room was Ryan Lizza, Washington correspondent of The New Yorker. The campaign, which was furious about the magazine’s satirical cover this week, cited space constraints in turning him away.
It wasn’t just the cover.  The Obama campaign has to be furious about the Lizza article in the same issue.  It dared to cover a lot of Obama’s rise in Chicago politics.

Snubbed by Obama (by Christoph von Marschall, writing in the Washington Post on Sunday, July 20, 2008)
Barack Obama is on his way to Europe, where an adoring public awaits. But I wonder if the reception would be quite so enthusiastic if Obama’s fans across the Atlantic knew a dirty little secret of his remarkable presidential campaign: Although Obama portrays himself as the best candidate to engage the rest of the world and restore America’s image abroad, and many Americans support him for that reason, so far he has almost completely refused to answer questions from foreign journalists. When the press plane leaves tonight for his trip, there will be, as far as I know, no foreign media aboard. The Obama campaign has refused multiple requests from international reporters to travel with the candidate.

Is Obama Speech Site Contaminated by Nazi Past? (Der Spiegel, Germany, thanks to No Quarter)
Finally, Barack Obama’s campaign has settled on a site for his Berlin speech. But some German politicians have now criticized his choice as being one full of Nazi-related symbolism.

Were Troops Forced to Assume New “Identities” For Obama Photo Ops? (by Ron Winter)
[T]he word out of Afghanistan is that troops were ordered to attend the Obama “breakfast” … [and] some troops … were ordered to alter their identities, at least as far as their home states are concerned, for the benefit of the Senator’s campaign. Apparently, the Senator’s campaign people wanted to make sure that the photo ops showed the Senator talking with service personnel from the appropriate parts of the country. Appropriate in this case apparently meaning places where he needs a big boost in the polls. So if military people pictured with Barack were from, say, Michigan, they were told to say they were from someplace like Arizona instead. This is problematic on several fronts. Remember this portion of the trip wasn’t supposed to be campaign related, just a good ol’ American Senator on a junket, er, Congressional Inquiry.

What Maliki Didn’t Say: And where Obama didn’t pivot. (by Mickey Kaus, Slate)
Here’s Spiegel’s transcript of Prime Minister al-Maliki’s comments on when U.S. troops might withdraw from Iraq: “As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.” [E.A.] And here’s the NYT’s own translation of the tape: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.” [E.A.] There’s a not inconsequential difference between the two, no? The Times version specifically does not “endorse” the timetable of 16 months (no matter what some bloggers claim). It says 16 months isn’t crazy.

Public Opinion Snapshot: It’s Time to Go (by Ruy Teixeira, Center for American Progress)
It’s Time to Go New public opinion data clearly shows that the public thinks we should leave Iraq, and that we don’t have to stay in Iraq to succeed against terrorism.

A Cast of 300 Advises Obama on Foreign Policy (by Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times)
WASHINGTON — Every day around 8 a.m., foreign policy aides at Senator Barack Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters send him two e-mails: a briefing on major world developments over the previous 24 hours and a set of questions, accompanied by suggested answers, that the candidate is likely to be asked about international relations during the day… Behind the e-mail messages is a tight-knit group of aides supported by a huge 300-person foreign policy campaign bureaucracy, organized like a mini State Department, to assist a candidate whose limited national security experience remains a concern to many voters.
I guess you need a huge staff when you have so little foreign policy experience yourself.

Obama’s Civilian National Security Force (by Charles Lemos at No Quarter, from his blog, By The Fault)
That little bit from Barack Obama’s speech on national service is not in the transcript of his prepared remarks. So just what does Senator Obama mean by this: “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”… What exactly does Senator Obama mean by a “civilian national security force”? Is he referencing the ATF, FBI, or DEA? Or something new and different say like the Defense of the Revolution Brigades that they have in Cuba and Venezuela where neighbors spy on neighbors?… And why did it take the press so long to catch the discrepancy between the speech as delivered and the prepared remarks? Why are the references in the transcript to this deleted or omitted? Should we be worried? He was rather emphatic about it so I doubt that he just got carried away and ad libbed it.

The audacity of ego (by Joan Vennochi, Boston Globe)
JUST LIKE the Obama girl, Obama has a crush on Obama. Barack Obama always was a larger-than-life candidate with a healthy ego. Now he’s turning into the A-Rod of politics. It’s all about him. He’s giving his opponent something other than issues to attack him on: narcissism. A convention hall isn’t good enough for the presumptive Democratic nominee. He plans to deliver his acceptance speech in the 75,000 seat stadium where the Denver Broncos play. Before a vote is cast, he’s embarking on a foreign policy tour that will use cheering Europeans - and America’s top news anchors - as extras in his campaign… The McCain campaign is beginning to jump on the ego issue. “I don’t know that people in Missouri are going to like seeing tens of thousands of Europeans screaming for The One,” a McCain aide quipped in response to Obama’s upcoming visit abroad… A presidential candidate is supposed to get bigger on the national stage. That doesn’t mean his head should, too.

Needing a Star, CNBC Made One
Erin Burnett’s meteoric rise is the most recent example of how television networks try to transform fresh-faced hosts into household names.
That’s exactly what the Illinois Combine did with Barack Obama.  They made themselves a star.

Throwing Fitz (by Joseph Cannon at Cannonfire)
Marcy Wheeler … in her recent important story about Patrick Fitzgerald. The story confirms what we already knew: Rove had hoped to have Fitz removed. Marcy thus quotes Fitz: “…I should be clear that I did not understand that any putative effort to replace me as United States Attorney was related to my conduct as Special Counsel but understood instead that it was related to the investigative activities of federal agents and prosecutors conducting a corruption investigation in Illinois.”… Hop aboard Dr. Doom’s time machine and place yourself back in 2005. Hastert is the House Speaker, the Dems aren’t split, Randi Rhodes is still tolerable, and Plamegate is all that anyone on the left wants to talk about.

Now imagine that a shadowy informant tells you: “The White House wants to can Fitzgerald.” “I’m not surprised,” you answer. “They want to protect Libby, Rove, Cheney, Bush…” “No,” your informant tells you. “This ain’t about Plame. They want to protect Tony Rezko and his crooked pals in Illinois.” How would you react? Probably with a dropped jaw and a loud “Whaaaaaa?” Or perhaps you would wave your hand dismissively. “Get outta here. Who the hell is Tony Rezko, and why would Rove give a shit about him?” Pretty good question. Protecting the Illinois Combine mattered more to this White House than protecting Scooter Libby. Think about that.
Click through to find out why.

Obama’s Third Term (by NewHampster at Alegre’s Corner)
According to Politico, the One expects to be in office for the next 8 to 10 years.  So now we have 57 States and 10 year Presidents. “‘The objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people … who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years,’ Obama said during a long interview in Afghanistan. ‘And it’s important for me to have a relationship with them early, that I start listening to them now, getting a sense of what their interests and concerns are.’”
And don’t forget the one bomb that hit Pearl Harbor.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Obama is dumb.  I think that, like George Bush, he makes mistakes when talking about things he doesn’t care much about.  Especially when he pretends to care about them.

Obama returns to Reagan (Politico)
It could have been a coincidence when Barack Obama gave a major policy speech last week at a building named after former President Ronald Reagan… During his bid for the presidency, Obama has repeatedly praised the political gifts of Reagan, the modern president most revered by Republicans, and whose policies are still held in contempt by many leading liberals… Looking back earlier this week on Obama’s previous praise of Reagan, Mario Cuomo asked, rhetorically, “What did Reagan transform?” He answered: “It wasn’t morning in America. If you are saying he transformed Americans toward a new hopefulness, hopefulness doesn’t buy peace, it doesn’t buy jobs.”

Famous last words: “We can win without them!” (by Joseph Cannon at Cannonfire)
[A] recent comment on MSNBC sums up the progblog position: “Hillary’s supporters are not needed by Obama. He’ll have enough votes without them. Those fat old poor white women can go pound salt.”… Why, then, does the PUMA movement arouse so much fury in Obot-land? After all, the bots spent months calling for a party purge… [T]he message was loud and clear… “Hillary was never more than Bush in a dress, and her supporters were never more than the George Wallace / Joe Lieberman wing of the Party with a large dash of untreated menopausal psychosis.”

Never forget: The Obots created PUMA. Kos created it, Arianna created it, Marshall created it, Aravosis created it, their readers created it, the Obamabots created it. They knew that Obama could not win in a fair fight, so they race-baited, they smeared, they lied, they commandeered the caucus vote, they held illegal secret meetings and they rigged the DNC rules. They became, in short, Republicans. In 2000, the Republicans told me: “Get over it.” I never did. In 2004, the Republicans told me: “Get over it.” I never did. In 2008, the Obots keep telling me:”Get over it.” I never will.

Is the DNC Pro-Choice? (by riverdaughter at The Confluence)
What is the difference between having your name on a roll call vote and being explicitly nominated for president at the Democratic Party Convention in Denver? It turns out that one is merely symbolic and the other is a real threat to Barack Obama. If Hillary Clinton’s name is on a roll call vote, her delegates have the opportunity to vote for her but their votes have no more weight than “present”.  They only count if her delegates create a petition to have her name entered into nomination.  If she signs the petition, she can be nominated and the roll call will count, provided the DNC doesn’t contest the petition or try to block it in some way… So, my question is, is the party pro-choice or not.  Do we get a selection of candidates to choose from?  You know, the one who won the biggest and swing states plus popular votes vs the one who won Idaho?  Is this a pro-choice party or is it a Potemkin party?

The political and legal pedigree of the petition - a time honored democratic tool (by Heidi Li Feldman, J.D., Ph.D.)
For those following The Denver Group’s petition/open letter to Howard Dean, a brief essay on the legal and political history of the petition in Anglo-American Democracy.

Sponsor Our Convention And We’ll Give You Retroactive Immunity Dept: The AT&T Convention in Denver (by Glenn Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory, Salon)
[DemConWatch] has obtained an image of the very handsome welcome bag that every delegate and member of the media will receive upon arrival at the Democratic National Convention next month in Denver. Here is one side (in my view, the prettier side) of the bag:

He … notes that there’s “no word on what will be in the bags yet.” If AT&T’s parents taught it any manners at all, that bag will runneth over with all sorts of fine items, as AT&T has much to be grateful for, both to the Party whose convention it is generously sponsoring and to the media stars who will be attending. How far are we away from both parties selling naming rights to the companies on whose behalf they so assiduously labor? What’s most striking about the Convention bag — aside, of course, from its stunning design — is how the parties no longer bother even trying to hide who it is who funds and sponsors them.

$22.5 Million for the Party, $18 Million for Obama (by campskunk at Alegre’s Corner)
Let’s see, things are looking up. The DNC raised $22.5 million in June, so we ought to be getting right to work on that 50 state strategy, grow-the-party, downticket support stuff, right? Wrong. Marc Ambinder has news today that the DNC will put $18 million into a fund to help The One™… So it might be better to think of gross and net fundraising for the DNC from now on… That’s why I stopped contributing to the DNC’s Democracy Bond program - the reason they gave me when it started (to grow the party, 50 state strategy, blah blah blah) changed abruptly and without notice. I got a refund… Oh, for the record, Obama is opposed to outside spending groups such as the one the DNC is setting up.

The DLC And The Netroots (by Big Tent Democrat at  TalkLeft)
Writing from Netroots Nation discussion between Markos and DLC Chair Harold Ford, Ezra Klein writes about the incongruity of Ford speaking at Netroots Nation: “[T]he DLC ceased being a threat and became simply a foil. In 2005, when DailyKos was preparing to destroy the DLC, they were punching up, or thought they were. Now it would be baffling if they took the DLC on: What would be the point? The netroots are bigger, richer, and more relevant, or at least feel as if they are.” That strikes me as hilarious. Who was “bigger, richer and more relevant” on FISA?

Ford said [that] the “Netroots” candidates like Webb and McCaskill et al voted for FISA Capitulation. They voted like the DLC wanted. So who won? Who was “bigger, richer and more relevant on FISA?” The DLC or the Netroots? It is important to deal with reality and the reality is the DLC is closer to the Dem agenda and the Obama agenda, style and rhetoric than was the Netroots of a year ago. I do not see how anyone can claim the Netroots won its fight with the DLC. It didn’t. It lost. And it seems that it lost willingly with a smile on its face.

Obama disinvited ‘lobbyist’ Cleland (Politico)
Former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland was an icon of Sen. John Kerry’s 2004 campaign, a badly wounded war hero who lost his seat, Kerry deplored, after a television advertising campaign questioned his commitment to national security. But to the Obama campaign, Cleland has another qualification: Registered lobbyist. So Cleland — despite his iconic status — was abruptly disinvited from appearing with Obama in Atlanta July 8, three sources familiar with the incident said… Cleland is registered to lobby for a company whose products are aimed at helping soldiers recover more quickly from battlefield injuries, Tissue Regeneration Technologies. “Sen. Cleland is definitely not doing lobbying work. He gives speeches and campaigns for a few friends, but mostly he’s spending his time taking care of his father,” said Cleland advisor John Marshall.
Could it be that the lobbying thing was just an excuse?  Is Cleland another remnant of the past that Obama doesn’t care to have by his side?

Some Florida Dems miffed by who runs Obama’s Latin outreach
There is a fierce behind-the-scenes battle for influence over presumptive Democratic candidate Barack Obama’s Hispanic and Latin American agenda, and some Democratic strategists say that its outcome could determine the result of the November elections.

The Chris Matthews Show: Why The White House REALLY Wants McCain To Win (by Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars)
We’ve long since documented the desperate lengths that John McCain is willing to go to win the office of the Presidency, even to the point of hiring the same people responsible for those whisper campaigns in 2000 that he might be a little off his rocker from his years as a POW and that he fathered an illegitimate black baby.  Chris Matthews seems a little surprised that John McCain is actually seeking to win the election.  Not sure what Chris thinks McCain’s been doing for the last 18 months, but it’s Howard Fineman who gives the real answer to the $64,000 question.  The White House wants McCain to win because they know there would be no accountability for all their criminal acts with another Republican in office.
I’ve been trying to warn Democrats about this.  Does Howard Fineman read MakeThemAccountable?  Click through to watch the video.

Gramm to continue as McCain adviser and surrogate. (Think Progress)
Last week, Phil Gramm, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) “econ brain,” said that America is a “nation of whiners” suffering from a “mental recession.” In response, McCain said that Gramm “does not speak for me,” and McCain policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin asserted that Gramm would no longer be giving McCain advice. Today, however, Robert Novak reports that “Gramm will continue as an adviser and surrogate“.

Unlike McCain, many seniors depend on the Web
Only 35 percent of Americans over age 65 are online, according to data from April and May compiled by the Pew Internet Project at the Pew Research Center. But when you account for factors like race, wealth and education, the picture changes dramatically. “About three-quarters of white, college-educated men age over 65 use the Internet,” says Susannah Fox, director of the project… McCain spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan presented a somewhat updated picture when contacted by The Associated Press on Friday: “He’s fully capable of browsing the Internet and checking Web sites,” Buchanan said. “He has a Mac and uses it several times a week. He’s working on becoming more familiar with the Internet.”

That’s a good thing, says Tobey Dichter, CEO of Generations on Line… “He needs the self-empowerment” of going online himself, says Dichter. “There are too many people surrounding John McCain who are willing to print an e-mail for him” - or do a search on his behalf, like the aides who, he says, show him the Drudge Report. “But that cheats him of an opportunity to let his own mind take him to the next link,” says Dichter. “If he doesn’t know what links are available, he will only get exactly what he’s asking for, and nothing more.”

Frontline And Newsweek Partner To Report Campaign
PBS’ award-winning public affairs series, FRONTLINE, has joined forces with Newsweek to tell the inside story of the 2008 presidential campaign.

Insulting to sewage (by lambert at Corrente)
AP: “A measure seeking to commemorate President Bush’s years in office by slapping his name on a San Francisco sewage plant has qualified for the November ballot. The measure certified Thursday would rename the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.” I mean, come on. When did sewage ever torture anybody? And when did George W. Bush ever fertilize anything?

Lots more really good stuff at MakeThemAccountable.com.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com