The Holes in Clinton's "Popular Vote" Argument

May 20, 2008 9:58 AM

It's one of Sen. Hillary Clinton's last arguments -- she's ahead in the popular vote, she should be the nominee, even though she has won fewer delegates.

"Right now more people have voted for me than have voted for my opponent,” Clinton told Kentuckians recently. “More people have voted for me than for anybody ever running for president before."

One problem with these claims -- they don't appear to be true.

The problem is not Clinton mendacity. The problem is that popular vote tallies are woefully wrong.

The Iowa Democratic Party reported that 236,000 voters turned out for the Iowa caucuses on January 3. So why does the Associated Press tally only record 1,677 votes?

ABC News' Polling Director Gary Langer takes a look at this issue, and with his team attempts a good-faith effort to assess what the real popular vote numbers likely were.

Read it HERE.

The bottom line: Sen. Barack Obama likely won the popular vote as well -- even with those disputed contests in Michigan and Florida counting.

Anyone concerned with what the real popular vote tallies were -- and not just bragging rights or talking points -- should check out Langer's analysis.

- jpt

May 20, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Obama in Montana: Republicans Spreading Muslim Rumors About Me

May 20, 2008 9:35 AM

In Bozeman, Montana, last night, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said "the Republicans, they're trying to make this is not about you, it's about me. They're trying to say, 'Well, Obama, we don't know him that well, he hasn't been around that long, he's got a funny name, maybe he's a Muslim.'

"You know, they've been perpet- they've been saying that a long time now, it doesn't matter how many times you tell 'em I'm Christian, they keep on trying to perpetrate this...they want to make people worry about me."

Watch it HERE.

h/t Mike Allen

- jpt

May 20, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)

Hillary Sees Sexism in Campaign 2008

May 20, 2008 9:33 AM

In an interview with Lois Romano of the Washington Post, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, "for the first time addressed what women have been talking about for months, what she refers to as the 'sexist' treatment she has endured at the hands of the pundits, media and others. The lewd T-shirts. The man who shouted 'Iron my shirt' at a campaign event. The references to her cleavage and her cackle.

"'It's been deeply offensive to millions of women,' Clinton said. 'I believe this campaign has been a groundbreaker in a lot of ways. But it certainly has been challenging given some of the attitudes in the press, and I regret that, because I think it's been really not worthy of the seriousness of the campaign and the historical nature of the two candidacies we have here.'

"Later, when asked if she thinks this campaign has been racist, she says she does not. And she circles back to the sexism. 'The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable, or at least more accepted, and . . . there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when it raises its ugly head,' she said. 'It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists.'"

Last night we looked at this very issue on Nightline. Watch HERE.

But really, Clinton hasn't seen an examples of racism during this campaign? None?

Not even in the exit polls showing a small percentage of her white supporters motivated to vote for her because of race?

- jpt

May 20, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (15) | TrackBack (0)

The Political Significance of Thursday's 'Ellen'

May 19, 2008 10:23 PM

It all has to do with Sen. John McCain trying to pivot towards the center. Read more HERE and watch our "World News with Charles Gibson" report HERE.

- jpt

May 19, 2008 in 2008: Republicans | Permalink | User Comments (32) | TrackBack (0)

Byrd Joins the Flock

May 19, 2008 2:15 PM

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV, from Ku Klux Klan Kleagle to endorser of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois., in just 66 short years.

- jpt

May 19, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (121) | TrackBack (0)

Rove's Latest Electoral Maps Have Clinton Stronger Than Obama Against McCain

May 19, 2008 1:48 PM

Electoral maps put together by the consulting firm helmed by Karl Rove, and obtained by ABC News, show Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, to be a stronger general election candidate in a hypothetical general election match-up against Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., than Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois.

Click HERE to see the maps and charts from Karl Rove & Co., obtained by ABC News.

States are allocated in Rove's exercise based on an average of public polls, which many pollsters would tell you is a rather unscientific way to look at the data.

Still, for political junkies the information is interesting.

In the first map from Karl Rove & Co., McCain leads Obama in a hypothetical match-up, winning states totaling 238 electoral votes to Obama's 221 electoral votes.

There are 538 total electoral votes. At least 270 are needed to win the presidency.

The trend is positive for Obama -- he is up 14 electoral votes from May 11, and McCain is down 13 electoral votes.

The map shows McCain winning Florida, New Hampshire, West Virginia and Wisconsin. States with 79 electoral votes -- Connecticut, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, and Virginia -- are toss-ups, within a margin of error of +/- 3 points.

In the hypothetical Clinton-McCain match-up, Clinton leads with 259 electoral votes to McCain's 206 electoral votes.

States totaling 73 electoral votes -- Connecticut, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and New Mexico -- too close to call.

Clinton, too, is trending upwards, with a gain of 11 electoral votes since May 11.

The big differences between Clinton and Obama, beyond the her larger number:

Clinton would make competitive some states that Obama would lose -- such as Missouri and New Hampshire -- and she would win others outright, such as Arkansas, Florida, Ohio and West Virginia.

On the other hand, McCain would handily win beat Clinton in some states that Obama made competitive, such as Colorado, North Dakota, and Virginia. Some states that Obama would win, such as Minnesota and Nebraska -- Clinton would lose to McCain.

Occasionally this election cycle the electoral maps of Karl Rove & Co. have reared their heads. In March, McCain adviser Mark McKinnon was spotted holding some of these maps, as reported by Texas Monthly.

- jpt

UPDATE: Clinton referenced this blog post (kinda) in a campaign appearance today.

May 19, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (568) | TrackBack (0)

If Wives Are Off Limits…

May 19, 2008 11:07 AM

If wives are off limits in the politics theater -- as Sen. Barack Obama suggested on this morning's GMA should be the case-- then are Democrats not guilty of the same sin by attacking Cindy McCain for not releasing her tax returns?

It was just this month that the Democratic National Committee issued a press release saying that by "failing to release Cindy McCain's returns, the McCain campaign is raising serious concerns about his own credibility, about how McCain's position as a U.S. Senator may have benefited John and Cindy McCain's business ventures, and about how McCain's political career has benefited from her personal wealth."

Michelle Obama is being attacked, recall, for comments she made from a stage while campaigning for her husband. Should the Democrats "lay off" Mrs. McCain as well, to use Obama's words? Is it "low class" to go after Cindy McCain on the tax issue?

- jpt

May 19, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (130) | TrackBack (0)

Conservatives Hammer Obama for Meeting With Imam Who Also Met with Pope & Bush

May 19, 2008 10:41 AM

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, is being hammered on conservative websites for meeting with a Detroit imam, Sayed Hassan Al-Qazwini though that same Muslim religious leader has met with the Pope and even been embraced -- figuratively and literally by President George W. Bush.

Supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, are pushing this meeting as well.

- jpt

May 19, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (35) | TrackBack (0)

A Man, A Plan, An Indictment -- Panama

May 19, 2008 10:22 AM

With all the back-and-forth about possible conflicts of interest amidst the various lobbyists being purged from Sen. John McCain's Straight Talk Express the controversial client of a top campaign adviser to Sen. Barack Obama is getting renewed attention.

Greg Craig, a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama, is a partner at the big-shot DC law firm Williams & Connolly. There Craig represents Pedro Miguel González.

González is president of the Panamanian Legislature and is also under indictment in the U.S. for murdering U.S. Army Sgt. Zak Hernández in 1992.

There's a big difference between a lobbyist, who is paid to interact with lawmakers such as Mr. Obama, and a lawyer, who works with the courts. But in this situation, González's indictment has complicated passage of the U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreement. So there is legislative relevance.

In January, the Dallas Morning News called for Craig to choose between defending González and working for Obama.

"The murder indictment, combined with Mr. González's leadership position, is hindering bilateral relations and causing a new U.S.-Panama free trade accord to stall in the Senate, where Mr. Obama holds office," the newspaper wrote. "Mr. Obama has made clear that the White House is no place for influence-peddlers and special interests...This is one instance where he needs to show presidential decisiveness by asking Mr. Craig to choose between the campaign and involvement in a legal case where hot-button bilateral issues – and a Senate vote – hang in the balance."

"The campaign knows of my involvement" in the González case, Craig said at a forum in March, "and I have removed myself from participation in discussions with the candidate or his advisers on relations between the United States and Panama."

For his part, Obama told a Wisconsin labor coalition that he would vote against the Panama Free Trade Agreement specifically because of González's indictment.

"Until that situation is resolved, we cannot support any trade agreement with Panama," Obama wrote.

Craig also represents Carlos Sánchez-Berzaín, the Bolivian Defense Minister who has been accused in a federal lawsuit of "crimes against humanity" because of his alleged role in the suppression of labor union riots in 2003 that resulted in the deaths of 67 people. He has represented Kofi Anan in the UN's oil-for-food scandal, Elian Gonzalez's father, John Hinckley, Jr., and former President Bill Clinton.

- jpt

May 19, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)

Obama Declares Michelle Off-Limits

May 19, 2008 9:43 AM

On Good Morning America today, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, took issue with a Tennessee Republican Party attack on his wife Michelle for her February comments that "for the first time in my adult lifetime I'm really proud of this country."

The Tennessee GOP launched a web video making much hay out of those comments, suggesting she is unpatriotic.

"The GOP -- should I be the nominee -- I think can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record," Obama told Robin Roberts. (Watch HERE) "If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful. Because that I find unacceptable. The notion that you start attacking my wife? Or my family? Michelle is the most honest, the best person I know. She is one of the most caring people I know. She loves this country. For them to try to distort or to play snippets of her remarks in ways that are unflattering to her I think is just low class and I think most of the American people would think that as well."

He also said, "these folks should lay off my wife."

For her part, Michelle Obama denied reports that she did not want Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, to serve as her husband's vice president.

"I think the world of Hillary Clinton," Michelle Obama said. "Particularly, as a woman, having watched her go through a lot of what I might be going through, and doing it with a level of grace, and raising a phenomenal daughter, which -- I have two girls -- and I know how hard just in the little bit of exposure I've had to this what she's had to deal with, and what she's accomplished. So that being said, you know, there is no way that I would say absolutely no to one of the most successful and powerful and groundbreaking women on this planet. What I have said is that I think one of the things that the nominee has earned is the right to pick the vice president that they think will suit them... I think this should be Barack's say, through and through."

- jpt

May 19, 2008 in Obama, Barack | Permalink | User Comments (70) | TrackBack (0)

Obama Hammers McCain on Lobbyists; McCain Fires Back on Ayers

May 18, 2008 8:36 PM

"It appears that John McCain is very much a creature of Washington," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said today in Milwaukie, Oregon, in response to news stories about the 5th lobbyist to leave McCain's campaign amidst what has become a sort of lobbyist purge.

"And one of the things that we have said at the outset of this campaign is that if we are going to change policies, if we are going to deliver on universal healthcare or have an energy policy that over the long term could bring down gas prices, that we were going to have to change how Washington works," Obama said. "We can’t have special interests dictating what’s happening there. And that’s why I said at the beginning I wouldn’t take PAC money and I wouldn’t take money from federal lobbyists."

Obama went on: "And it does appear that over the last several weeks John McCain keeps on having problems with his top advisers being lobbyists -- in some cases for foreign governments or other big interests that are doing business in Washington," the Democrat said. "That I don’t think represents the kind of change that the American people are looking for."

The McCain campaign fired back, with spokesman Tucker Bounds going after Obama for his relationship with former Weather Underground member William Ayers. Given former President Bill Clinton's commutation of the prison sentences of two of the former members of the domestic terrorist organization, Ayers hasn't gotten a lot of play in recent days.

But McCain clearly intends to make a campaign issue out of his and Obama's relationship.

Bounds said that "just a few years ago when Barack Obama was beginning his career in politics he was launching it at the home of William Ayers, an unrepentant domestic terrorist who his chief strategist said Senator Obama was certainly friendly with.  If Barack Obama is going to make associations the issue, we look forward to the debate about Senator Obama's associations and what they say about his judgment and readiness to be commander in chief."

**

The McCain Lobbyist Purge began about a week ago, after McCain's campaign parted ways with two senior members of the team who had worked for a firm that had lobbied in the past for Burma.

Doug Goodyear was McCain's liaison to run the GOP convention this Summer in Minnesota, but both he and Doug Davenport, the former regional McCain campaign manager for the mid-Atlantic states, last week  vamoosed because of their work for DCI Group, which once had Burma (nee Myanmar) as a client.

But as we pointed out in that May 12 blog post, Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun had noted that other McCainiacs had lobbied for other nations whose leaders may not be taking any direct flights to Valhalla come Judgment Day. Specifically, McCain campaign national finance co-chair Tom Loeffler had lobbied for Saudi Arabia and senior adviser Charlie Black had chaired the BKSH & Associates lobbying firm when it had the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, which is largely state owned, as a client.

Since McCain has worked hard on campaign finance reform and has worked hard to promote himself as a reformer in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, this created some problems for him. And reportedly, the Senator was angry that this has happened. On May 15, McCain announced that campaign staffers "will be thoroughly, more thoroughly, vetted, and we'll make sure that that is the case," and campaign manager Rick Davis announced a new "Conflict Policy":

"1.) No person working for the Campaign may be a registered lobbyist or foreign agent, or receive compensation for any such activity.

"2.) Part-time volunteers for the Campaign must disclose to the Campaign any status as registered lobbyists or foreign agents. Such persons are prohibited from involvement in any Campaign policy-making on the subjects on which they are registered, including service on policy task forces or participation in policy discussions on those subjects.  Such persons are also prohibited from lobbying Senator McCain or his Senate personal office or committee staffs during the period they are volunteering for the campaign.

"3.) No person with a McCain Campaign title or position may participate in a 527 or other independent entity that makes public communications that support or oppose any presidential candidate.

"4.) No vendor to the McCain Campaign may also be a vendor to a 527 or other independent entity that makes public communications that support or oppose any presidential candidate without a pre-approved firewall pursuant to FEC regulations.

"5.) Senator McCain has also announced that it will be his policy that anyone serving in a McCain Administration must commit not to lobby the Administration during his presidency."

One day after this memo, it was reported that Craig Shirley, on McCain's Virginia Leadership Team, had in fact worked on an anti-Hillary Clinton 527, in direct violation of Conflict Policy rule No. 3.

Two days later, Newsweek added to what Gerstein had reported, noting that not only had Loeffler lobbied for the Saudis, he had told a reporter "at no time have I discussed my clients with John McCain" though lobbying disclosure forms indicated that Loeffler had listed a May 2006 meeting with the Saudi ambassador and McCain with the notation: "discuss US-Kingdom of Saudi Arabia relations." Moreover, Loeffler's firm began paying $15,000 a month to Susan Nelson, one of its lobbyists, after she left the firm to become McCain's finance director.

Sunday morning, Politico's tireless Mike Allen reported that Loeffler resigned. Combined with the others and the sayonara of McCain campaign energy adviser Eric Burgeson, at least five McCain aides or advisers have resigned within the last few days in this Lobbyist Purge.

**

The McCain campaign is now heralding the fact that it has the most restrictive lobbying policy of any of the three candidates in the race.

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign says it does not allow registered federal lobbyists to work on his campaign. It does not have a policy about 527 groups.

You may recall Obama used to say that lobbyists would never work in his White House. Then last December he suddenly flip-flopped on that pledge, saying instead they wouldn't run his White House. Notably, an Obama TV ad in Iowa replayed an excerpt from his well-received speech to the Iowa Democratic party's Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner in which he railed against lobbyists -- but the ad removed the mid-sentence clause from his speech in which he said lobbyists "will not get a job in my White House."

The Obama campaign claimed they'd made the cut purely for time, though it happened to coincide with his flip-flop on that very clause.

- jpt

May 18, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (109) | TrackBack (0)

Obama's Big Cross Kentucky Flier

May 18, 2008 11:58 AM

Some voters in Kentucky, where Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., is expected to romp on Tuesday, have received a flier from the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., where the lanky Illinoisan is emphasizing his Christianity. (Update: The Obama campaign says this flier is not new, though it's the first I've seen of it. I'm told it's being distributed on a limited basis to faith groups.)

On the front of the flier is a photograph of Obama speaking from a pulpit with a large cross hanging on the wall behind him.

"Faith. Hope. Change. Barack Obama for President. 'My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lord's work'. - Barack Obama"

Inside, it also mentions that as a "community organizer in neighborhoods devastated by the closing of local steel mills" the senator "forged a profound connection with the people of these communities. At their encouragement, he visited a local church one Sunday. That day, Obama felt a beckoning of the spirit and accepted Jesus Christ into his life."

Over at CBN, our friend David Brody writes: "I know the conservative policy purists will say that Obama is liberal and therefore Evangelicals won’t buy his 'Evangelical speak'. Not so fast. Remember, many people vote based on an emotional connection to a candidate or if they can relate to that person. Obama may need to work on this perception that he is 'elite' but when he talks about Jesus and the Bible and the fact that he’s a sinner, it makes him more real and in the process, more electable too."

The mainstream media's reaction has been quite different from the reaction when former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, invoked Christ in a TV ad.

Of course, the context is different. One senses that half the battle Obama is waging here is to let voters know he's not Muslim.

But still, why the different reaction?

- jpt

May 18, 2008 in Obama, Barack | Permalink | User Comments (218) | TrackBack (0)

Good Morning, 'Sweeties'

May 18, 2008 11:25 AM

G'morning. Back from a few days off. My thanks to Rick Klein, who did a great job filling in for me.

Last night, in addition to Sen. John McCain's "Saturday Night Live" cameo -- in which he said the next president should be "very, very, very old" and also urged Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to keep fighting -- the show satirized the NBA's "There Can Only Be One" ad campaign.

In the meantime, reviewing my e-mail folder, it seems I missed "sweetie"-gate (can you imagine the kerfuffle if McCain called a female reporter "sweetie"?)

Of more consequence, there was the Obama-McCain (and Rubin-Bush) dust-up over Hamas. And former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, endorsed Obama, as he seemed to hint he might do a few weeks ago in that interview with People magazine.

But looking forward... After Obama wins the Oregon primary Tuesday (assuming he does), he will, from Iowa, announce that he has won the majority of pledged delegates. That may be an achievement deserving of bragging rights, but it's of no official significance. This is a battle for overall delegates, not just pledged delegates. Obama and Clinton need 2,026 delegates to win the nomination, according to the Democratic National Committee rules.

I do think Sen. Obama has to be careful as to how much he makes Tuesday's likely achievement a victory lap.  He hasn't won yet, Clinton is still in the race, and even if her victory is improbable, it is not impossible.

That said, the Clinton campaign will push back on Obama's announcement, saying the actual number is 2,210, since the Clinton campaign includes those unrecognized contests in Michigan and Florida. This is delegate math according to Bizarro World. The DNC rules state 2,026 delegates are needed. (It used to be 2,025 -- but with the two special House elections in Louisiana and Mississippi, it's now 2,026. And the Clinton Bizarro World number has changed from 2,209 to 2,210.)

- jpt

May 18, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (36) | TrackBack (0)

The McCain Lobby Dance

May 16, 2008 4:59 PM

FROM GUEST-BLOGGER RICK KLEIN, OF ABC'S THE NOTE

Sen. John McCain's campaign yesterday put in place new rules regarding lobbyists' connections to his campaign that appear stricter than anything other campaigns have instituted.

Among the five-point policy implemented by campaign manager Rick Davis Thursday night, no McCain aide can be a registered lobbyist or foreign agent; volunteers must disclose their lobbying status and cannot lobby McCain's Senate office; no one with any "campaign title or position" may "participate in a 527"; no campaign vendor can do work for a 527 without a "pre-approved firewall"; and anyone who serves in a McCain administration must commit not to lobby his administration.

Because this is an internal campaign policy, it will be left to McCain's campaign to enforce -- and they may wind up busy. Several top aides and advisers will have to do what top campaign adviser Charlie Black did: He was a registered foreign agent, lobbying on behalf of Pakistan, Cyprus, and Greece, but left his lobbying firm to work for the campaign.

Others whose service on the McCain campaign will impact business: McCain fundraiser William Ball, a former secretary  of the Navy who signed a lobbying contract with South Korea just two months ago; and Tom Loeffler, a close McCain adviser who parlayed his career as a House member from Texas into a lucrative lobbying practice that includes work for  Saudi Arabia and Hong Kong.

Other registered lobbyists who are either on staff or serving as advisers include Susan Nelson, Rob Gray, Wayne  Berman, and Kirk Blalock.

The Media Matters Matters Action Network, a liberal group, has more on McCain's connections to lobbyists HERE.

This could be a tricky standard to enforce. What happens if someone drops lobbying clients but still works for -- or just receives benefits from -- a firm that does lobbying?

And once people register with Congress as a lobbyist, they are always registered as lobbyists -- even if they don't lobby anymore -- unless their firms de-register them, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The Senate lobbying database is hopelessly out-of-date, with many retirees and even deceased individuals still considered, in the eyes of the federal government, to be lobbyists, according to th center.

McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said the campaign will not comment on how individual aides and advisers handle the new rule. She did not say whether aides who were previously registered as lobbyists would be forced to de-register.

"The policy requires that all staff submit information about their potential conflicts," she said. "That process began this morning and everyone at the campaign will be required to comply.  If there are people who are not in compliance  they will become so or they will leave the campaign."

The new rules were put in place after Politico contacted the campaign to inquire about the fact that GOP operative Craig Shirley had been paid by the campaign while also working for an anti-Clinton 527 group, "Stop Her Now." Politico's Ben Smith reported that the campaign "asked" Shirley to leave the campaign.

As ABC's Justin Rood points out, the Shirley episode occurred just one day after McCain promised to more thoroughly vet his staff -- a statement he made "after two of his advisers resigned over their ties to the Myanmar military  junta."

For purposes of comparison, the Obama campaign also does not allow registered federal lobbyists to work on the campaign. According to a spokesman, the campaign does not have a policy governing volunteers' employment or other work for 527 groups, though the spokesman said the issue has not come up at all.

Like McCain, Obama has embraced a standard where no one who works for his administration will be allowed to lobby it. Obama also takes the additional step of refusing to accept donations from registered federal lobbyists; McCain does not refuse such donations.

-- Rick Klein

May 16, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (20) | TrackBack (0)

Could Hillary Force Her Way Onto the Ticket?

May 16, 2008 3:12 PM

FROM GUEST-BLOGGER RICK KLEIN, OF ABC'S THE NOTE

A fascinating column has posted on Real Clear Politics by Bob Beckel, who managed Walter Mondale's 1984 presidential campaign and therefore knows a thing or two about conventions and delegates.

Beckel's (quite far-fetched) argument: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton can force her way onto Sen. Barack Obama's ticket -- or, at least threaten to do so, to essentially force Obama to choose her.

The reason? Something we forget in this age of conventions-as-coronations: Technically, the delegates to the Democratic National Convention casts separate votes for president and vice president. In modern history, this has been a technicality, since the presidential nominee has simply had his choice rubber-stamped -- but as Beckel points out, it doesn't have to be this way.

He imagines a conversation between a superdelegate (one who might have gotten a job in the Clinton administration) and former President Bill Clinton.

Says the former president: "I know Obama has enough votes to win, but I wanted you to know Hillary has decided to run for vice president at the convention. You know there are two roll call votes at the convention: first president then for vice president. I know you are voting for Obama for president. Fine, but I want your commitment to vote for Hillary for vice president."

Highly unlikely to happen? Yes. The cause of party self-destruction, if Obama goes into the convention with his own choice for vice president, someone who isn't named "Clinton"? Almost certainly. Enough to damage the Clinton brand permanently? Very possibly.

But if you're inside the Clinton campaign, trying to game-plan ways to convince Obama to choose your boss in case she wants the No. 2 job, this strikes me as something that could be part of the argument.

Writes Beckel: "If Hillary Clinton wants the vice presidential nomination, and her loyal delegates demand it, and the Clinton machine puts its full weight behind it, she will be on the ticket. Count on it."

-- Rick Klein

May 16, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (273) | TrackBack (0)

McCain: 'We Are Going to Have to Deal With' Hamas

May 16, 2008 1:19 PM

FROM GUEST-BLOGGER RICK KLEIN, OF ABC'S THE NOTE

This hiccup just in from John McCain's attempts to blast Barack Obama over his supposed eagerness to meet with terrorist leaders: McCain wants to meet with them, too.

Well -- sort of, and not quite. Jamie Rubin, whom you may remember as a State Department spokesman during the Clinton administration, uses a Washington Post op-ed today to relate this interview he conducted with McCain two years ago, shortly after Hamas took over the Palestinian government.

Rubin: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the  Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCain: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I  understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their  dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the  Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy.  Fatah was not giving them that."

Huffington Post has the VIDEO HERE.

The Democratic National Committee is putting this out there actively.

And liberal bloggers jumping on this. At Huffington Post, Max Bergmann, deputy policy director at the National  Security Network, sprinkles in some quotes where McCain supports direct talks with the Syrians to come to this  conclusion:

"McCain is directly contradicting himself by attacking Senator Obama on his plan to confront Iran at the negotiating  table. A pattern is emerging. While McCain claims to be a deep foreign policy thinker with positions carefully  developed from his quarter century in Washington, the reality seems to be that his positions -- when not outright  crazy -- are often knee-jerk and contradictory -- often dictated by what his temperament is at that moment or  influenced by how the political winds are moving."

Rubin -- a supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's candidacy -- writes that McCain "is guilty of hypocrisy."

The McCain campaign is clearly concerned about this -- I got this identical response three separate times from the campaign this morning: "There should be no confusion, John McCain has always believed that serious engagement would require mandatory conditions and Hamas must change itself fundamentally -- renounce violence, abandon its goal of eradicating Israel and accept a two state solution." -- Campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds.

Bounds continues with the contrast: "John McCain's position is clear and has always been clear, the President of the United States should not unconditionally meet with leaders of Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah. Barack Obama has made his position equally clear, and has pledged to meet unconditionally with Iran's leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the leaders of other rogue regimes, which shows incredibly dangerous and weak judgment."

McCain's 2005 answer about Hamas is certainly interesting -- and doesn't exactly sound like something that would come out of his mouth as a presidential candidate. But I'm not convinced it's "hypocrisy," either.

But in that quote, McCain is not saying specifically how he would engage Hamas; critically, he is not advocating direct negotiations without preconditions.

Conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin writes at Commentary: "This is supposed to be a gotcha quote? It doesn't appear that McCain was saying we should talk to Hamas immediately and without preconditions, or that we should talk directly to their state sponsor Iran (the latter has been the real point of contention of late)."

As to whether McCain and Obama have a real difference here, recall the key quote that the McCain campaign hopes to hang around Obama's neck. Last July, Obama was asked at a Democratic debate whether he would "meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea."

Obama's answer: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

More recently, Obama has been clear that he would not meet with Hamas, and criticized former President Jimmy Carter's decision to do so. His pledge to meet with the leaders of rogue states, he told ABC's David Wright last month, "does not include Hamas. They are not heads of state and they don't recognize Israel. You can't negotiate with somebody who doesn't recognize the right of the country to exist. So I understand why Israel doesn't meet with Hamas."

Obama has said he would be willing to meet with the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, as president.

-- Rick Klein

UPDATE: The McCain campaign has secured a more complete clip from the Rubin-McCain interview -- and it seems to back up the McCain position, that he was not advocating direct negotiations with Hamas. View that clip HERE.

Rubin:  "So should we -- the United States -- be dealing with that new reality through normal diplomatic contacts to get the job done for the United States?"

McCain:  "I think the United States should take a step back, see what they do when they form their government, see what their policies are, and see the ways that we can engage with them.  And if there aren't any, there may be a hiatus. But, I think part of the relationship is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts, not by how the United States acts."

From the McCain campaign: "As the entire video -- just posted on SkyNews -- clearly shows, John McCain absolutely did not advocate unconditional engagement with Hamas. Indeed, Rubin conveniently cut off his follow-up question to which McCain was clear that any engagement with Hamas would be conditioned on their actions and policies -- that any actions would be "dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts."

UPDATE II: With the McCain campaign and the RNC in full attack mode -- subject line of the McCain campaign e-mail: "JAMIE RUBIN LIED" -- Jamie Rubin reached out to defend himself on Saturday.

He stands by his assertion that McCain was guilty of "hypocrisy" here -- and points out (rightly) that he never said in his op-ed that McCain favored direct negotiations with Hamas without preconditions. He wrote in the op-ed that McCain appeared "ready to do business with a Hamas-led government" in the two-year-old interview; he did not say that McCain embraced direct, immediate talks.

Rubin said Saturday: "There is an obvious difference between the John McCain of two years ago, and how he was talking about Hamas, and the John McCain of today, and how he was talking about Hamas. ... Someone who says that Obama is the preferred candidate of Hamas, that's a political smear, and it's hypocritical given that he was far more open to negotiating with Hamas than he is today."

May 16, 2008 in McCain, John, Obama, Barack | Permalink | User Comments (85) | TrackBack (0)

Stories From the Near Future

May 16, 2008 11:56 AM

FROM GUEST-BLOGGER RICK KLEIN, OF ABC'S THE NOTE

In a week where Sen. John McCain time-traveled four years to look back on his first term as president, maybe this feat from the current occupant of the White House isn't quite so impressive.

This morning, the White House issued a "fact sheet" about President Bush's meeting with King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia, detailing a series of agreements reached between the United States and the Saudi government.

From the fact sheet: "Today, President Bush met with King Abdallah to commemorate the 75th anniversary of formal diplomatic relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia."

That's interesting, because -- as ABC's Martha Raddatz points out -- the fact sheet was distributed to reporters a full two hours BEFORE President Bush even LANDED in Saudi Arabia, from his previous stop on his Middle East agenda, in Israel.

Apparently, though, the phantom meeting helped accomplish "four critical agreements" between the Americans and the Saudis -- wonderful news in a time of record gas prices, right?

You ready?

"1. Saudi Arabia will join the 70 partner nations of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism."

"2. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will also join more than 85 states participating in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)."

"3. The U.S. will help the Saudis develop both human and infrastructure resources in accordance with International Atomic Energy Agency guidance and standards."

"4. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia will sign a Memorandum of Understanding in the area of peaceful civil nuclear energy cooperation."

Wow -- a memorandum of understanding! That plus $75 will fill up my Jeep.

Clearly, I jest; equally clearly, someone at the White House erred in putting this memo out before the meeting, or in not adjusting verb tenses before it went out.

I'm not naive enough to think that visits between heads of state are actually where the hard work of diplomacy is conducted. It's not like they need that meeting to get things done, of course.

But this is interesting to think about in light of the big news so far out of the president's Mideast trip -- his attack before the Israeli Parliament on the kind of foreign policy that just happens to fit with the GOP talking-points version of what Sen. Barack Obama espouses.

Not to minimize the importance of these other American priorities, but with the president in the Middle East (where so much of the oil that's so expensive is resting), we now have a blatantly political attack on a presidential candidate, in addition to a "global initiative," a "proliferation security initiative," a vow of "human and infrastructure resources" to help the IAEA, and a "Memorandum of Understanding" on "nuclear energy cooperation."

Martha Raddatz notes that the president has not scheduled any press conferences for his trip.

The meetings are going well though, we hear.

UPDATE: Per Bloomberg News: "Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter, rebuffed a call by U.S. President George W. Bush to pump more crude for a second time this year, saying it would only boost supplies to meet customer needs."

-- Rick Klein

May 16, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (23) | TrackBack (0)

Welcome to the Show

May 16, 2008 9:25 AM

FROM GUEST-BLOGGER RICK KLEIN, FROM ABC'S THE NOTE:

Is it possible that Barack Obama's endorsement by John Edwards wasn't even close to being the most important story of the week?

Not discounting the psychological lift Obama derived from that well-timed endorsement, here are four nominees for storylines that could wind up being more important in the not-so-long run:

1. President Bush "welcoming" Barack Obama to the general election with a not-so-veiled swipe at his  foreign policy.

2. The California gay-marriage ruling, which means same-sex weddings are set to be performed in the nation's largest state.

3. The devastating GOP loss of a House seat in a red pocket of the red state of Mississippi.

4. The anger that's starting to bubble up from Hillary Clinton's female supporters over how the  Democratic nomination fight has played out.

This list doesn't even include the remarkable speech John McCain delivered Thursday -- overshadowed  by the president's comments in Israel -- where he tacked toward the center on Iraq, and went  point-by-point on how his White House would look and feel different than President Bush's.

Or the fact that Obama lost a swing state by 41 points, a week after essentially being anointed as the Democratic nominee.

These are disparate storylines, but all shift the landscape of the general election campaign before  it formally begins.

In today's Note, we round up all of it, under the title "Caveat Victor," or "winner beware." It all  speaks to the lack of flexibility Obama will enjoy if/when he becomes the Democratic nominee. It's partly a function of this overtime primary, but it's also a result of the always unpredictable world of national politics.

What's the single more important thing Obama has to do if/when he wins the nomination?

-- Rick Klein

May 16, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (100) | TrackBack (0)

Women Threaten Obama Boycott

May 15, 2008 5:04 PM

FROM GUEST-BLOGGER RICK KLEIN, OF ABC'S THE NOTE

I've posted a few times  in the last two days about female supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton who are angry -- at the Democratic Party, at the Obama campaign, or at the general situation that sees their candidate facing tough times, in their view, in part because of sexism.

Just talked to a 55-year-old Columbus, Ohio resident named Cynthia Ruccia, a spokesperson and organizer for a group calling itself "Clinton Supporters Count Too." She said the group -- numbering in the hundreds, and organized in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan -- stands ready to boycott the Democratic Party if Clinton doesn't win the nomination, and will work against superdelegates who support Obama over Clinton as a means of registering their displeasure with the party.

"We have a plan to campaign against the Democratic nominee," the group said in a press release Thursday. "We have the (wo)manpower and the money to make our threat real. And there are millions of supporters who will back us up in the swing states. If you don’t listen to our voice now, you will hear from us later."

Ruccia tells ABC News that she believes "millions" of women share her group's views, though they have only begun to make contact with like-minded women. They're disgusted, she said, that Democratic Party leaders haven't more aggressively denounced sexist media comments and coverage in the campaign, and are angry at the drumbeat for Clinton to get out of the race.

"We're just at the boiling point," Ruccia said. "Women will sit back and be quiet about things for a while, but we've had enough. Unless Hillary Clinton is our nominee, we are not going to support the nominee."

Part of their plan, she said, is a primary-night boycott of NBC and MSNBC during next Tuesday's primaries in Kentucky and Oregon, particularly to protest comments made by Chris Matthews and David Shuster that her group feels were sexist.

Ruccia said she doesn't necessarily view the disqualifying of delegates from Florida and Michigan as sexist in itself, but added: "I do believe the people there will not forget that Sen. Obama stood in the way of having their vote counted."

This is one group, and not a very large one at this point. But in gauging the fallout among female voters of this divisive campaign, it's also worth keeping in mind what's going on in the wake of NARAL Pro-Choice America's decision to endorse Obama on Wednesday.

As documented by the Huffington Post's Sam Stein, NARAL blogs are being overwhelmed, and many state affiliates are angry at the national group's decision.

Emily's List is furious. And Martha Burke, former chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations, tells Stein she is "disappointed": "It feels like they are abandoning a known ally for a less committed candidate because they want to jump on a bandwagon. I think the pro-choice community should stick by a woman who has stuck by them."

It's impossible to know at this point how big an issue this would be for Obama if he's the nominee. But clearly he would have some major work to repair rifts inside the party -- even if little of it is his fault, directly.

I confess to being a man who has not always seen what his female friends and colleagues see as sexist in this race. What do you think? Has Sen. Clinton faced particular (unfair) challenges because of her gender? More than Sen. Obama has faced because of his race?

-- Rick Klein

May 15, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (1178) | TrackBack (0)

Tale (of) the Pin on the Donkey

May 15, 2008 3:27 PM

FROM GUEST-BLOGGER RICK KLEIN, OF ABC'S THE NOTE

Something interesting made its way onto Sen. Barack Obama's lapel on Monday -- and it stayed there for three days: an American flag pin.

Obama told reporters on his campaign plane Wednesday night that he put the pin on at a veterans' event in West Virginia on Monday, because a veteran handed it to him "who said it was important."

Per ABC's Sunlen Miller, Obama continued: "This is an issue that is a phony issue because I was never opposed to wearing a flag pins, I’ve worn flag pins in the past. I said very specifically when I was asked about it that I had worn flag pins after 9/11 and that I had chosen not to wear one because I didn’t want to be perceived as wearing patriotism on my chest, but not voting or advocating on behalf of veterans in a patriotic way."

"And some people took that as a slight against people who wore flag pins. It couldn't be further from the truth. It was a commentary on politicians and folks in Washington who sometimes are very good about saluting our soldiers when they come home, but then don't follow up with budgets that make sure they are getting treatment for post traumatic stress disorder. So it was a commentary about out politics, not about individuals who wear the flag with pride."

As often comes from Obama, this in an interesting, multi-layered answer to a relatively simple question. You'll recall that Obama made this more of an issue than it probably needed to be when he answered an Iowa reporter's question last October about why he wasn't wearing a pin with a longer-than-necessary discourse.

"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest."

"I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism," he said.

Since then, that decision has stood out to Obama critics as an example of elitism and a perceived lack of patriotism. He's been asked about it regularly on the trail; Karl Rove said his response to the question in Iowa showed Obama to be "coolly detached and very arrogant," and Republicans are clearly hoping to use it as part of their efforts to frame Obama in a potential fall match-up.

Then, as Obama tried to show that he can be the candidate of working-class America, in West Virginia and its aftermath, the flag pin reappeared. Just wearing the little thing is the easy way to quiet the persistent questions -- but this looks like a slightly different politician than the man with the nuanced explanation for why he "won't wear that pin on my chest."

How long will it be there? (Obama has not public events Thursday, but you can bet reporters will be checking out his suit jacket on Friday.)

-- Rick Klein

May 15, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (54) | TrackBack (0)