Batting Over .500
Turns out that White House aide who resigned over plagiarism plagiarized 20 of his 38 columns in The Fort Wayne News-Sentinel.
--Josh Marshall
How's It Hagee?
Over at Swampland, even Joe Klein is taking notice of the McCain-Hagee nomination and McCain's refusal to renounce or reject.
Says Klein ...
A McCain rejection of Hagee's support would be seen as another sign of weakness by Rush and such. An acceptance of Hagee's support would spell trouble for McCain with catholics and sane people everywhere. So, what's it to be, Senator?
As Chris Matthews once so aptly put it: "The press loves McCain. We're his base." So for McCain to lose Klein would be like a conservative losing James Dobson.
I fear that Klein probably finds some way to let McCain off the hook. But the temperature does seem to be rising.
--Josh Marshall
Total Quality Torture
From the Salt Lake Tribune (courtesy of TPM Reader DB)
A supervisor at a motivational coaching business in Provo is accused of waterboarding an employee in front of his sales team to demonstrate that they should work as hard on sales as the employee had worked to breathe.In a lawsuit filed last month, former Prosper, Inc. salesman Chad Hudgens alleges his managers also allowed the supervisor to draw mustaches on employees' faces, take away their chairs and beat on their desks with a wooden paddle "because it resulted in increased revenues for the company."
Prosper president Dave Ellis responded that the allegations amount to "sensationalized" versions of events that have gone uncorroborated by Hudgens' former coworkers.
"They just roll their eyes and say, 'This is ridiculous . . . That's not how it went down,' " Ellis said.
The suit claims that Hudgens' team leader, Joshua Christopherson, asked for volunteers in May for "a new motivational exercise," which he did not describe. Hudgens, who was 26 at the time, volunteered in order to "prove his loyalty and determination," the suit claims.
Christopherson led the sales team to the top of a hill near the office and told Hudgens to lie down with his head downhill, the suit claims. Christopherson then told the rest of the team to hold Hudgens by the arms and legs.
Christopherson poured water from a gallon jug over Hudgens' mouth and nostrils - like the interrogation strategy known as "waterboarding" - and told the team members to hold Hudgens down as he struggled, the suit alleges.
--Josh Marshall
In It To Win It
Hillary to appear on The Daily Show on primary eve, March 3rd.
--Josh Marshall
Bird Doggin'
Seems the folks from back in Jack Kingston's (R-GA) district are following him around with a video camera to see if he's started wearing that flag lapel pin yet. Still no luck ...
Don't know the backstory to this one? See here.
--Josh Marshall
Constitutional Showdown -- Late Friday Edition
This evening Attorney General Michael Mukasey, as expected, refused to prosecute the contempt of Congress resolutions against White House officials Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers for their refusal to testify in the U.S. attorneys scandal.
The House had referred the contempt citations to the Department of Justice only yesterday.
In response to Mukasey's refusal, Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised to pursue a civil lawsuit to enforce the congressional subpoenas. House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers issued a statement saying:
[T]oday’s decision to shelve the contempt process, in violation of a federal statute, shows that the White House will go to any lengths to keep its role in the US Attorney firings hidden. In the face of such extraordinary actions, we have no choice but to proceed with a lawsuit to enforce the Committee's subpoenas.”
Our exhaustive coverage of this story is here.
--David Kurtz
Hasty Exit
White House announces resignation of plagiarizing Special Assistant to the President.
--David Kurtz
That's it?
McCain's statement on Hagee, his new endorser, who calls the Catholic Church the "great whore" and "anti-christ" ...
"Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee's views, which I obviously do not."I am hopeful that Catholics, Protestants and all people of faith who share my vision for the future of America will respond to our message of defending innocent life, traditional marriage, and compassion for the most vulnerable in our society."
So he welcomes Hagee's endorsement for president, though that doesn't mean he agree with all his views.
Let's run down some specifics.
Hagee says that if America presses Israel allow the Palestinians to found a state in the West Bank and Gaza God will "release the terrorists" to come to America to create a "bloodbath." (See this video, at approximately time mark 3:00)
Hagee says that God brought the Katrina disaster down on New Orleans because of a planned "homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came ... that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades."
Then there's Hagee on why the Jews have had such a rough time of it for the last couple thousand years ...
"It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God's chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day....How utterly repulsive, insulting, and heartbreaking to God for His chosen people to credit idols with bringing blessings He had showered upon the chosen people. Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.... it rises from the judgment of God uppon his rebellious chosen people." ["Jerusalem Countdown: A Prelude To War", paperback edition, pages 92 and 93]
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: Weekend Clip Extravaganza #6
It was quite a week: John McCain forgetting which party he's in, Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson saying they're not going to take anti-White Man prejudice any longer, Tim Russert channels angry Iraqi nationalists and so much more ...
Watch this episode on YouTube.
--Josh Marshall
WEAK, WEAK, WEAK
Campaign sources tell CNN that John McCain raised a little more than $12 million in February.
--David Kurtz
More Penn Follies
What I like most about Mark Penn is his ability to take a situation in which his candidate is in a decent position and push them decisively over into looking like an idiot. You've seen Hillary's new 'red phone ringing in the night' ad. Is it like the 2004 wolves ad or Johnson's daisy ad? Not at all, says Penn, "a positive ad. Very soft images."
--Josh Marshall
Another Google Gotcha
Special assistant to the President plagiarizes in his newspaper column.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
A sampling of the agencies currently crippled by impasses between the White House and Senate over nominations:
Federal Elections Commission
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Council of Economic Advisers
National Labor Relations Board
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Just a coincidence that these are mostly regulatory agencies?
--David Kurtz
You Need To Know
MJ Rosenberg gives more background on the vicious campaign -- already underway for many months -- to smear and discredit Barack Obama among American Jews.
--Josh Marshall
Scene Shifts from D.C. to Chicago
We spent quite a bit of time yesterday on that story by Canada's CTV on the Obama camp giving a wink and a nod to the Canadian ambassador about Obama's heavy anti-NAFTA rhetoric. Basically, the alleged backchannel communication was: Don't worry, he's not as bad as he sounds.
The Obama campaign initially, in an on-camera interview by a spokesperson, didn't deny the report. Later it made an artful and very general "the story is inaccurate" denial, the precise inaccuracy not being identified. That was followed by about as categorical a denial as you can have, from the Canadian embassy in Washington.
Now CTV has followed up, not only standing by its story, but naming the Obama adviser who allegedly talked with Canadian representatives. He is reported by CTV to be Obama senior economic adviser Austan Goolsbee. According to CTV, the conversation took place not with the D.C. embassy but with the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago. Goolsbee is on the faculty at the University of Chicago School of Business.
Goolsbee "refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago," when contacted yesterday by CTV.
Late Update: Another round of denials from the Obama camp, more strenuous this time, including a denial from Goolsbee himself.
--David Kurtz
Security Moms?
Take a look at the latest TV spot from the Clinton campaign.
Late Update: The Obama camp was ready with a withering reply.
Later Update: Hey, it's a positive ad! Mark Penn claims.
--David Kurtz
Too Long on the Trail?
Spirited? Dispirited? Am I a Liberal? A Conservative?
John McCain has a couple bumpy moments on the trail ...
--Josh Marshall
Mondo Muck North of the Border?
I have very little feel for Canadian domestic politics. So I'm going to frame this post more as a suggestion to read more and a question for those who know the subject matter better.
But the bare outlines are these. Back in 2005, while the former Liberal government was tottering on the brink of collapse after many years in power, representatives of the opposition Conservatives went to an independent MP whose vote could topple the government and offered him a bribe for his vote.
The nature and context of the alleged bribe are particularly ghastly. The late Chuck Cadman was then in the final stages of terminal cancer. And in exchange for his vote, Conservative Party reps offered to purchase a $1 million life insurance policy for Cadman "and a few other things" in order to provide for his wife.
Cadman refused, voted to keep the government in power rather than cause a new election, and died a short time later.
The charges come from a new book about Cadman's life, and they are backed up strongly by his widow who is now a candidate for Parliament running as a Conservative (though one wonders for how long).
The kicker, though, is in an interview contained in the book: Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper in essence admits that it's true and that he knew about it at the time.
Here's the CTV description ...
Zytaruk interviewed Harper in Surrey, B.C, in September 2005, shortly after the MP's death. Zytaruk asked if Harper knew anything about allegations that Tory officials had offered Cadman a $1 million insurance policy to help his wife."I don't know the details. I know there were discussions," Harper replied.
Harper also said the discussions included talk of money.
"The offer to Chuck was that it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election," he told the author.
Harper also said he did not believe that Cadman would be swayed to change his vote.
"I told them they were wasting their time. I said Chuck had made up his mind," he said.
Sort of an admission wrapped in a denial if you ask me, as least as this report frames it. And now it seems the interview with Harper was recorded and is still in existence.
So for all you Canadians who've been entertained over the years by our scandalous politics, please give us the low-down. What's the score?
--Josh Marshall
D'oh!
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) has always been one of my favorite buffoons in Congress. No one trick pony, he's been putting in long moron hours for years up on the Hill and on the chat shows. But it was a particular tour de force even for Jack when he showed up last night on MSNBC to bash Barack Obama for not wearing a flag lapel ... without remembering to wear one himself ...
--Josh Marshall
Who You Telling to Move Quickly?
TPM Reader FZ:
Maybe people didn't pay much attention to President Bush's presser today, but he did say this regarding the incursion of Iraq by Turkey:"The Turks need to move quickly, achieve their objective, and get out."
Quite an astonishing statement, as we head into the sixth year of our own objective.
--David Kurtz
Such a Shrewd Use of Money
From The Australian ...
THE Iraq war has cost the US 50-60 times more than the Bush administration predicted and was a central cause of the sub-prime banking crisis threatening the world economy, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.The former World Bank vice-president yesterday said the war had, so far, cost the US something like $US3trillion ($3.3 trillion) compared with the $US50-$US60-billion predicted in 2003.
...
Professor Stiglitz told the Chatham House think tank in London that the Bush White House was currently estimating the cost of the war at about $US500 billion, but that figure massively understated things such as the medical and welfare costs of US military servicemen.
The war was now the second-most expensive in US history after World War II and the second-longest after Vietnam, he said.
The spending on Iraq was a hidden cause of the current credit crunch because the US central bank responded to the massive financial drain of the war by flooding the American economy with cheap credit.
"The regulators were looking the other way and money was being lent to anybody this side of a life-support system," he said.
That led to a housing bubble and a consumption boom, and the fallout was plunging the US economy into recession and saddling the next US president with the biggest budget deficit in history, he said.
--Josh Marshall
Now What?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refers the criminal contempt resolution against Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers to the U.S. attorney for D.C.
--David Kurtz
Warms My Heart
Ickes: Seen any missteps in the Clinton primary race? Talk to Penn.
Late Update: So, so sad. Now even Shrum's piling on about Penn's incompetence. Now that's gotta hurt ...
Late Udpate: Now Arianna decides to slap Penn around a bit.
--Josh Marshall
The Big Money
We're seeing some new jousting now between the Hillary and Obama camps over February fundraising hauls. Camp Hillary says they're going to hit $35 mill. Meanwhile, Obama's folks are saying they're on track to raise "considerably more" than that.
But this is a case where it's important to step back from the intramural squabble and look at the bigger picture. It would seem that the Dems as a whole, or at least the two remaining presidential candidates, are on track to raise some number in excess of $70 million in the short month of February. Maybe Obama will raise $45 million, who knows. But even if he does, $35 million would have been a shockingly large sum as recently as, well, last month. The impact of the small-donor fundraising engine the Dems are sitting on is difficult to overstate going into the summer and fall.
--Josh Marshall
Some Perspective on NAFTA
From TPM Reader ND:
I have been an avid reader of your blog for many years and was moved to email you because it seems to me that this whole discussion about NAFTA seems to be missing a key component.A little background--I am a professor of political science and my focus is almost exclusively on Latin America and development issues. In this context it is almost hallucinatory to watch the debate about NAFTA, and the comments about it from newspapers to blogs (including a headline here in TPM about Mexican and Canadian reactions), that are completely uninformed about how the rest of the countries in this hemisphere view, frame and consider these trade agreements.
There is much discussion in academic circles about the effects of free trade agreements on developed economies--Dani Rodrik at Harvard is an excellent example of this-- and I could write at least twenty pages on the different angles there are on this and which have played quite a lot in the media and to some extent in this election cycle. But there is also a very passionate debate about the effects of these agreements on developing countries, and this pops up here and there in the media but only in the context of anti WTO demonstrations.
In reality, passing trade agreements in Latin America is probably the hardest and most contentious policy decision a government can make. It is not just about anti Americanism, or a sovereignty issue, it has to do with concerns regarding social safety net programs that have to be cut, massive privatization programs, and all the regulations that guarantee safe working conditions, environmental compliance and good wages. So when Obama or Clinton talk about renegotiation it seems to be assumed that the other countries would NOT want to renegotiate and do NOT have the same concern about having enforcement of these issues. They do, even if renegotiation might be a hard pill to swallow politically because of the changed policy environment in the region.
To my mind what has been missing is an awareness of how contentious these agreements are and how they have been part of elections in these countries as well. If the press did a little of leg work they would have discovered that in 2006 the Mexican presidential election was very much about renegotiating NAFTA (the candidate most in favor of this, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, lost very narrowly).
Perhaps the best example is playing out in DC today--all the signatories of CAFTA-DR are giving Costa Rica (the most staunch ally of the united States in Latin America) an extra 7 months to be able to join the pact because even after 5 years of negotiation, of having signed it, of having approved it in a referendum last October, opposition parties in congress in CR are fighting tooth and nail to assure the guarantees that the candidates mentioned in the debate on Tuesday and that so far have not been included to these parties' satisfaction.
With all the back and forth about Canada the big hemispheric picture seems to be missing. Just something I thought your readers should know.
--David Kurtz
Ruth Rosen remembers Barbara Seaman, the crusading pioneer of the women's health movement.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv: Campaign 2008 Roundup, #14
What's likely next Tuesday? And what's John McCain's real plan for running against Barack Obama? We give you our read in today's episode of our weekly campaign 2008 roundup ...
Watch this episode on YouTube.
--Josh Marshall
Behind the Scenes
As you know, for seven or eight months now, we've been slowly redesigning and retooling our entire network of sites -- first with TPM and the news section we rolled out mid-2007 and now with all of our sites. So I wanted to take a moment to note the work of the outfit we've been working with on this on-going project: Apperceptive.com.
TPM has always been a tiny operation run by the skin of our collective teeth. So this has been the first time we've had the resources to go to industry standard experts on the publishing platform we operate on (Movable Type) -- something that the size of our audience and operation has now made essential. The change in the graphics and layout are obvious, if you're a longtime reader. What's less clear is that the way the site functions on the back-end is vastly more complex (with the news section, comments, the way the sites are now integrated together) than was the case in any of the earlier iterations of the site. One other point I should note: because of our size and resources, we've never been able to field close to the hardware resources behind the site as would be called for with the scale of traffic we get (to give you a sense, we now regularly get traffic equal to what we got on election night 2006, and almost four times what we got on election night 2004). That's required some custom tinkering to keep our blog train from going off the server rails.
Now, we've gotten some nice praise recently for the stuff our team has published at TPM. But literally none of it would be possible without the engine the folks at Apperceptive have built for us that keeps the words streaming off our keyboards on to your computer screens. So they come with our strong recommendation. And if you're looking for people who do this kind of work I'd be happy to answer your questions about our experience.
--Josh Marshall
An Unequivocal Denial
The Canadian embassy is refuting the CTV report, saying no such conversations about NAFTA ever took place with either campaign.
Late Update: ABC News has more reaction from the Canadian embassy.
Later Update: Meanwhile, a key labor surrogate for Hillary is hitting Obama over the CTV report.
Latest Update: Greg Sargent is reporting similar denials from the Canadian embassy, but with the caveat that discussions about NAFTA with both campaigns has occurred, although none like the one described in the Canadian TV report.
--David Kurtz
A Non-Denial Denial?
The Obama camp has put out a statement describing as "inaccurate" that CTV report about back-channel communications between the campaign and the Canadian ambassador to reassure him about Obama's NAFTA rhetoric.
They don't say what exactly is inaccurate about the report.
We have the full statement here.
--David Kurtz
Smear Machine Gears Up
Fox News falsely claims that Weatherman Bill Ayers was Obama's "mentor" and a "principal" in his first campaign.
--David Kurtz
McCain Road Plan, II
TPM Reader ER ...
In your piece about the tennesse RNC emphasizing the Hussein in Barack Obama's name, I believe you have missed an important dynamic. When Mr. Cunningham made his statements, John McCain was lauded for denouncing said remarks. Now everyone is squawking about the "Hussein" and John McCain and the National Republicans don't have to soil their hands with the proxy grade-school name-calling campaign. I predict a pattern will develop, local and state level Republican operatives will repeatedly emphasize the "Hussein" only to be chastised by more powerful GOP who would like to appear more temperate while amplifying the message. The media will be unable to resist the he said she said middle school dynamic and the chattering class will do the heavy lifting for the GOP. As a side benefit, those localities where race baiting plays well with the electorate will this sort of name-calling will energize the base, so they will be the primary source of such utterances.
This is part of it too. It's all part of the same game. The one McCain is playing.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
GOP leadership aides on the Hill are grumbling that their party isn’t getting more political money from the telecoms -- even after all they've done on telecom immunity. Those ingrates.
--David Kurtz
Nod and Wink?
Canada's CTV reports:
Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.
But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico "that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards."
Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.
"Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn't intend to keep," the spokesperson said.
Low-level sources also suggested the Clinton campaign may have given a similar warning to Ottawa, but a Clinton spokesperson flatly denied the claim.
Late Update: Here's the video of the report.
--David Kurtz
Barack Hussein Obama
Earlier today at TPM Election Central, Eric Kleefeld wrote about a scurrilous press release from the Tennessee Republican Party that used innuendo and faulty causation to try to link Obama with anti-semitism.
As a bonus the press release featured the now-notorious photo of Obama in Somali tribal garb from a 2006 congressional trip to Kenya -- and referred to him as Barack Hussein Obama.
Ben Smith Jonathan Martin at The Politico is now reporting that the Republican National Committee has "warned" the Tennessee GOP about using "Hussein" in the press release:
The Republican National Committee this afternoon scolded the Tennessee Republican Party over their use of "Barack Hussein Obama" in an official press release and warned the state party that they will be denounced by the national committee if they use the Democrat's middle name again, said a GOP official close to the RNC."The RNC has notified the Tennessee GOP that they do not support or agree with their approach," said this source, requesting anonymity to discuss the private conversation between a staffer in the national committee's political department and a top aide at the state party. "If they don't refrain from doing so again, they will be publicly repudiated by the Republican National Committee."
This source said the national committee did not ask the Tennessee party to retract their statement, but effectively put them on notice for the future.
Pretty stiff stuff. I mean, you can associate Obama with Louis Farrakhan and anti-semitism, you can repeat garbage from Farrakhan and make it look like Obama approves of it, and you can cast all sorts of other aspersions about Obama, but use "Hussein" and you've crossed some invisible line drawn by the RNC (which it will enforce with anonymous hand-wringing and ineffectual warnings).
Sure enough, the press release is still up, stripped of the Hussein reference (we captured a portion of the earlier version, with Hussein intact). The author of the press release was state communications director Bill Hobbs. Ironically, Hobbs apparently missed the sarcasm in Josh's satirical post below about these attempts to smear Obama, and late today he was approvingly citing it in a post on his own blog.
Meanwhile, the McCain campaign says their candidate condemned the press release and apologized to Obama, Smith Martin reports. But, really, what's the McCain camp to do? "There will be times in this campaign where people do and say stupid things," a spokesperson told The Politico. "It's a fact and it's beyond our control."
As Josh notes, we'll be hearing a lot of that over the next nine months.
Late Update: There's now a new version of the press release posted, with the following "clarification" (via Jake Tapper):
*Clarification: This release originally referenced a photo of Sen. Obama and incorrectly termed it to be “”Muslim” garb. It is, in fact, Somali tribal garb, hence, we have deleted the photo. Also, in order to diffuse attempts by Democrats and the Left to divert attention from the main point of this release - that Sen. Obama has surrounded himself with advisers and recieved endorsements from people who are anti-Semitic and anti-Israel - we have deleted the use of Barack Obama’s middle name.
--David Kurtz
Will Tim Russert denounce longtime supporter Don Imus? Rejecting we can leave for another day.
--Josh Marshall
Feel the Surge
McClatchy: "Iraq's three-man presidency council Wednesday announced that it's vetoed legislation that U.S. officials two weeks ago hailed as significant political progress."
--David Kurtz
Rejected or Denounced?
From the AP:
During a series of satellite television interviews, [Hillary] Clinton was questioned by Dallas station KTVT about comments by Adelfa Callejo, a local activist who supports Clinton candidacy. The interviewer quoted Callejo as saying "Obama's problem is he happens to be black" and asked Clinton to respond."Well obviously I want all of us judged on our merits," Clinton said. "I believe strongly that the fact we have an African American and a woman running for the Democratic nomination is historical and I'm very, very proud of that."
"I want people though to look beyond, look beyond race and gender, look at our records, look at what we stand for, look at what we've done and I think that's what most voters are looking for," she said.
The interviewer asked Clinton whether she rejected or denounced Callejo's comment.
"People have every reason to express their opinions, I just don't agree with that," she said, adding "You know, this is a free country. People get to express their opinions."
Late Update: According to the Dallas Morning News, the Clinton campaign later issued a statement: "After confirming that they were accurately portrayed, Senator Clinton, of course, denounces and rejects them."
--David Kurtz
Into the Wild Blog Yonder
Danger Room: "The Air Force is tightening restrictions on which blogs its troops can read, cutting off access to just about any independent site with the word "blog" in its web address." (via Think Progess)
--David Kurtz
Road Map
Hopefully, everyone can now see the McCain strategy for running against Barack Obama. Yes, we have some general points on taxes, culture wars and McCain as war hero who can protect us in ways that flash-in-the-pan pretty boy Barack Obama can't.
But that's not the core. The core is to drill a handful of key adjectives into the public mind about Barack Obama: Muslim, anti-American, BLACK, terrorist, Arab. Maybe a little hustler and shifty thrown in, but we'll have to see. The details and specific arguments are sort of beside the point. They're like the libretto in a Wagner opera, nice for some narrative structure. But it's the score that's the real essence of it, the point of the whole exercise.
Now, a good deal has been made out of John McCain's repudiation of talk radio yakmeister Bill Cunningham, who led off for McCain at one of his rallies with the full run of Obama sludge. But don't be distracted or fooled. This is more like an example of what the digital commerce folks refer to as 'channel conflict'. You've got your multiple distribution channels. You've got the way McCain's selling the product. Broadcast. Broad and thematic about McCain. But you've got a number of other product channels to sell through, most of them a lot grittier, but no less essential for ultimate success.
Both can work simultaneously. In fact, in the kind of campaign McCain's running, they're both essential for success (see the 2000 Republican presidential primary in South Carolina). The key is just that the channels don't cross. Because that's when the trouble starts and they can begin to undermine or even short-circuit each other. And that's what threatened to happened here.
Don't insult your intelligence or mine by pretending that John McCain's plan for this race doesn't rely on hundreds of Cunninghams -- large and small -- across the country, and the RNC and all the GOP third party groups, to be peddling this stuff nonstop for the next eight months because it's the only way John McCain have a real shot at contesting this race.
If McCain really wants to repudiate this stuff, he can start with the Tennessee Republican party which dished all the slurs and smears about Obama being a Nation of Islam-loving anti-Semite, just today. And once he's done talking to the people who will be running his Tennessee campaign, we'll have a number of others he can talk to, like the head of his Ohio campaign, former Sen. Mike DeWine, who gave that Cunningham guy his marching orders.
Let's just not fool ourselves, not lie to ourselves about what's happening here and who's in charge.
Late Update: A few insightful readers have noted that Wagner is perhaps not the best illustration of my libretto to score metaphor since Wagner is one of the few major composers -- I'm actually not sure there are any others -- to write his own libretti. Perhaps my blind spot is a product of my listening to Wagner without knowing German. In any case, I think my general point remains valid. Perhaps I should have picked on Verdi. But for me nothing -- nothing in opera at least -- compares to Wagner.
--Josh Marshall
Tougher Than Marching in Selma
Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) discusses his decision to switch his support from Hillary to Obama:
--David Kurtz
Working the Refs
Is Hillary's 'media's against me' offensive getting results? CNN goes long on the Obama-Israel-Scary-Muslim front.
--Josh Marshall
Don't Mess with Texas
Greg Sargent takes an in-depth look at the state of play of the Democratic race in Texas, at TPM Election Central.
--David Kurtz
Obama's Silence on Kaddafi
Can we ignore Sen. Obama's silence about Muammar Kaddafi?
We know that Louis Farrakhan has said positive things about Barack Obama. And he's not the only one. This is the same Louis Farrakhan who has travelled to Libya to meet with and say positive things about Kaddafi, who has long-standing ties to terrorism. And that's not all. The former pastor at Obama's church, Jeremiah Wright, has not only said positive things about Farrakhan. In the 1980s, he went on a trip with Farrakhan to ... you guessed it, Libya, to meet with Kaddafi.
With all of Obama's ties to Kaddafi and all Kaddafi's ties to terrorism, not to mention a lot of Muslims and Arabs and blacks, how much longer can Obama stay silent on his relationship to Kaddafi? Does he support Kaddafi? Has he met with him? Will he denounce Kaddafi, notwithstanding that nuclear deal we have with him now?
These questions won't go away.
And I don't think even denouncing is going to be enough. He'll have to reject.
(ed.note: A distressingly large number of readers weren't clear that this post was satire. But as long as we inhabit the same universe as Tim Russert, can we blame them?)
--Josh Marshall
Meat!
From the Cincinnati Enquirer ...
Radio talk show host Bill Cunningham told listeners today that Mike DeWine, John McCain's Ohio campaign chairman, and county prosecutor Joe Deters asked him over lunch last week to speak at the McCain rally.They wanted him “to throw some red meat to the crowd… To get the crowd on their feet and get them happy,” he said.
DeWine is a former U.S. senator and Deters used to run the Republican party in Hamilton County. Deters spoke at the rally.
Cunningham called Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama a "hack Chicago-style Daley politician" and used Obama's middle name -- Hussein -- twice. Cunningham also mocked the foreign policy in an Obama presidency.
The comments were subsquently repudiated by McCain, who said his campaign would not denigrate Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton.
--Josh Marshall
Points for Candor
The director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, told the Senate today that waterboarding is inhumane and a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
--David Kurtz
Mandates v. Affordability
At TPMCafe, Nathan Newman asks: Are we really going to impose a mandate to buy health care on working people if it's not affordable -- and, if health care is truly affordable, who really thinks people will opt not to get coverage?
--David Kurtz
Jumping Ship
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, that supposedly "bipartisan" group running a national ad campaign against House Dems over the FISA bill, is losing its Democratic members en masse.
--David Kurtz
Lanny Davis: It's hard to criticize Obama without being accused of playing the race card.
--David Kurtz
William F. Buckley, Dead at 82
You may already have seen the breaking news flashes. Bill Buckley died last night in his study in Connecticut, aged 82. It's really an epic passing. We'll have more as the story develops. Of course, our sincere condolences to his family and colleagues.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
Last week, the administration briefly hyped having lost intelligence information because Congress failed to pass the new FISA bill.
Today we learn that at issue is what the administration says are more cumbersome legal standards they would have to abide by if they were to stumble across a new terrorist group not already covered by a previous wiretapping order.
But that hasn't happened yet.
Still, be very afraid.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv: When Russerts Attack ...
The standout performance of last night was Tim Russert's repeated tirades at the candidates for not answering his clownish questions. So we thought we'd string all of Tim's gonzo moments into one tight reel. Let's all repeat together, "I'm rough enough, I'm tough enough, and doggone it, people like me!"
Watch this episode on YouTube.
--Josh Marshall
Shoe is on the Other Foot
Tom Edsall reports:
Top Clinton aides are pleading with uncommitted super delegates to hold off making any commitments, fearful that any commitments they make would be to back Obama, not Clinton.A set of talking points emailed to Clinton supporters within organized labor describes the arguments to use on uncommitted super delegates. In the email, the Clinton campaign suggests telling the uncommitted delegates that "it would be unfair and unjust to cut off the nominating process now. There might come a time when the process needs to come to a close, but that time is not now."
In language that could have been lifted from the Obama playbook just a few weeks ago, the email says Clinton backers should make the case to super delegates that: "If House, Senate and DNC members try to end this process now, it would be very damaging to those institutions, the Democratic Party and our chances in November."
--David Kurtz
And if Mars Aligns With Venus, And Al Qaeda Takes Over Iraq
TPM Reader GB laments Russert's silliness ...
Tuesday's debate did little to improve my opinion of the snake in the grass. First as you mentioned, the cant let it go Farrakhanh moment which I thought came in second to the gotcha of Iraq falling to Al Qaeda as a certainty and will you send troops back in to essentially correct your mistake. At that point Russert morphed into Bill Kristol.
It's a cutting way to say it. But I think GB touches the heart of the issue here. These are not lines of reasoning I do not expect to hear in this campaign cycle. But they are precisely the sort of dingbat, tendentious reductio ad absurdum questions that I'll expect to hear from febrile talk radio yakkers and in outlandish political snuff ads. Which is sort of where Russert got himself to last night.
--Josh Marshall
Gettin' In On Home Renovation Action
Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) to challenge Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK).
--David Kurtz
Russert's Lowest Moment (and that's saying a lot)
I discussed this in the live debate blog. But I think it's worth going back and watching Russert's run of shame here. I would say it was borderline to bring up the issue of Farrakhan at all. But perhaps since it's getting some media play you bring it up just for the record, for Obama to address.
That's not what Russert did. He launches into it, gets into a parsing issue over word choices, then tries to find reasons to read into the record some of Farrakhan's vilest quotes after Obama has just said he denounces all of them. Then he launches into a bizarre series of logical fallacies that had Obama needing to assure Jews that he didn't believe that Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness".
As a Jew and perhaps more importantly simply as a sentient being I found it disgusting. It was a nationwide, televised, MSM version of one of those noxious Obama smear emails.
Late Update: TPM Reader RMS does some close analysis ...
I think that breaking down Russert's Wright/Farrakhan questioning helps illuminate how truly bizarre it is:1. The title of Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope," came from a sermon delivered by Jeremiah Wright. Wright is Obama's pastor.
2. Wright is the "head" of United Trinity Church.
3. Wright said that Louis Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness."
4. Wright went with Farrakhan in 1984 to visit Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.
5. Farrakhan has said that Judaism is a "gutter religion."
6. Wright said that when Obama's political opponents found out about the Libya visit, Obama's Jewish support would dry up "faster than a snowball in Hell."
Russert's question is then "What do you do to assure Jewish Americans... you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness."
The first question about Farrakhan—and Russert's insistence on mentioning Farrakhan's views regarding Judaism after Obama had already denounced Farrakhan's bigotry—was all foreplay leading up to this masterstroke in which Russert synthesizes the six discrete facts into a knockout punch of innuendo and guilt by association: perhaps Obama thinks that Louis Farrakhan, the man Obama explicitly denounced not one minute before, is the very epitome of greatness.
All of the stuff about going to Libya, Farrakhan's "gutter religion" comment, and Jewish supporting drying up like a snowball in hell—that was all totally unnecessary to reach the ultimate question, but wasn't it fun?
--Josh Marshall
Live Debate Blogging (There Will Be Blood Edition)
9:02 PM ... Sigh, Russert.
9:05 PM ... Okay, if you've been waiting for the fight debate, it's looking like this is it.
9:07 PM ... Oy, they go right into the Somali garb photo issue. But Clinton's response is much better, more across the board than anything from yesterday. Hopefully that whole issue is behind us now.
9:10 PM ... I may lapse into boxing metaphors in through this debate. But you've clearly got both of them right on their game tonight. These are both just incredibly accomplished sharp people and both at the top of their game. (As a side light, as I've said before, at least at the level of policy fundamentals, I think Clinton has the better part of the argument on the health care question.) What's more, this is a tough and not-friendly exchange, but it's on the substance and about a really serious issue.
9:17 PM ... I don't think this first question, SNL, pillows flurry served Hillary well. I don't think it matters whether you think her underlying point is accurate -- just not the right way to do it. Just not good. I think that for you to get a lot of what she was referring to you need to be at least a semi-political junkie and thus have probably already made up your mind.
9:24 PM ... Russert: If I don't get a yes or no answer to my clownish question, you're toast, woman!
9:27 PM ... Button this up?
9:31 PM ... Russert: I'm one hardass, Dude. You can't put anything past me.
9:32 PM ... Pretty quick on her feet with that Al Gore comeback.
9:35 PM ... TPM Reader SQ: "Here's a general rule. When you are bitterly and sarcastically whining about debate process, you aren't ready to answer on Question One, you are Alan Keyes."
9:38 PM ... Curious to see how Obama responds to this litany from Hillary which is I think at best a series of half truths and distortions.
9:41 PM ... Very effective response, in part because he didn't address each detail on the list, hit a couple and the rest was thematic.
9:42 PM ... I love it when Tim goes into character as an Iraqi nationalist.
9:44 PM ... I'm glad Hillary said this (re: hypotheticals). Russert's militant simpletonism is getting a bit tiring. What if we partly withdrew and then the Iraqis told us to completely withdraw and then al Qaida was elected president and then they allied with North Korea, do you have a policy ready for that!?!?!?!
9:46 PM ... I've always thought this Europe subcommittee issue with Obama is a bit weird. Also not sure saying that he was too busy campaigning works that great as a response.
10:03 PM ... Big question for Obama. Should have done better to hit at McCain over his FEC shenanigans. I think he did okay on that, but not great.
10:08 PM ... Russert spews the Farrakhan story. Russert: Let me take a few moments to read into the record some of Farrakhan's most rancid quotes.
10:10 PM ... I guess it's good in some way that this sludge gets thrown around now in advance of the general. But Russert is well beyond the normal bounds of disgusting on this front. As a separate matter, the covert campaign to smear Obama with the Jewish community is a topic of great importance that I've been meaning to hit on and haven't done enough on it yet. At least we know now that Russert's enlisted with the cause.
10:13 PM ... I thought for a moment there that Hillary was going to say something classy. Guess I was wrong.
10:22 PM ... Having thought over that whole Obama/Russert exchange on Farrakhan, that was really ... well, bringing up Farrakhan was one thing, borderline, but maybe fair. But trying to read into the record some of the guy's most toxic statement, it really takes Russert into a whole new level of awfulness. It was disgusting.
10:33 PM ... TPM Reader MF chimes in: "It seems that Russert is asking the questions in the aspect that the candidates are guilty of something. It is really quite odd. And when did it become okay for a moderator to be an antagonist in a Presidential debate. I thought the job of a moderator was to moderate and not antagonize."
--Josh Marshall
Much More Like It
Late last week, one of the politicals at the Bush Pentagon, spokesman Bryan Whitman tried to stick his thumb into the ongoing presidential campaign by publicly doubting the veracity of the anecdote Sen. Obama used about the Army Captain in Afghanistan in last weeks Democratic debate. "I find that account pretty hard to imagine," he told reporters after the debate.
Today Gen. George Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee with a very different take on the story. From the AP ...
Gen. George Casey, the Army's chief of staff, said Tuesday he has no reason to doubt Barack Obama's recent account by an Army captain that a rifle platoon in Afghanistan didn't have enough soldiers or weapons.But he questioned the assertion that the shortages prevented the troops from doing their job.
Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Casey said the incident would have occurred in 2003 and 2004 following the Iraq invasion. He said he remembers it as a "difficult time" trying to rush armor and other equipment to the troops.
He didn't endorse what Obama said, which there's no need for him to do. And he was frank about the supply difficulties that were widely reported at the time and which few people who follow these matters question. But mostly, if the AP report is an accurate guide, Casey sought to answer the question to the extent possible without engaging the politics of it.
This is not some partisan nit to pick. The Bush administration has had a dangerous and corrosive tendency to partisanize the Pentagon and use it to game domestic political controversies and campaigns. A host of traditions, laws and regulations testify to the importance we place on walling the military off from domestic politics. Members of the armed forces are not at complete liberty to speak their mind about the current commander-in-chief. They're not allowed to appear in uniform at political rallies. And there are a host of other examples. The deterioration isn't solely tied to the Bush administration. It builds on pre-existing trends. But their abuses are much greater than anything seen in the past.
It's an extremely important issue; and one that everyone should be sensitive to.
--Josh Marshall
Koolaid Auto-Intoxication
A knowledgeable TPM Reader on Le Penn ...
On Penn, Clinton, and plans (or lack thereof), I think it's important to stress that Penn did actually go into this campaign with a plan (a version of the only plan he ever uses). Penn's great flaw as a pollster is his inability to read an electorate with objectivity and adjust his advice to reality. He only ever sees what he wants to see , so his advice is always some version of his obsession with centrist triangulation (this time with some Margaret Thatcher stoicism thrown in for good measure).Penn was never going to catch on to this whole 'change' thing because to Penn 'change' is too wrapped up in the Democratic populism that he has been trying to exterminate in the Democratic Party since the 90s. It is the great irony of this campaign that Penn, champion of the DLC and sworn enemy of populists like Greenberg, Borosage, and Shrum, is now being forced to churn out populist messaging in the dying days of the campaign.
For an interesting trip down memory lane, check out this back and forth between Penn and Will Marshall and Stan Greenberg and Bob Borosage.
--Josh Marshall
La Grande Dumpage
Clinton supporter Leon Panetta dumps on the Clinton campaign.
As you know, I believe that it is an inexorable fact of the universe that Mark Penn is a vastly over-rated, fairly mendacious pollster whose refined tactic of saying incredibly stupid things on behalf of his candidates seldom serves them well. I've done a little back research to flesh out my recollections. And as near as I can tell the guy hasn't won a contested Democratic primary either in a decade or maybe forever. He's the classic rooster whose one well-timed break he's interpreted as an ability to make the sun rise.
All that aside, I'd like to return to something I've written many times here at TPM. Name me the losing campaign that didn't suck and wasn't made up of complete imbeciles. And name me the winning campaign that wasn't run on a genius master plan. Winning looks like genius, a fact not easy to miss in various aspects of everyday life. And losing actually creates the reality of confusion and inconstancy in even more direct ways.
Disarray and lack of a plan are easy to avoid when you're winning. Because when you're winning, you just keep with the plan that's working. Losing campaigns, at a certain point, have little choice but to desperately flail between various new messages since obviously they need to move from what clearly isn't working to something that might. Same applies to staff shake ups.
I'm not saying Clinton ran or is running a great campaign. And it's too early for post-mortems, though, let's be honest, not by much. But this reality of our inherently distorted view of the campaign has to be front and center in any analysis. The clearest error that jumps out at me, which many, many people have noted, is that the Clinton campaign simply was not prepared for a race that was not resolved on Super Tuesday. Of course, from their perspective, a whole lot had to go wrong before that even became an issue.
The various instances of poor planning and insufficient preparation look pretty striking right now, yes, but we're looking through a very distorting prism.
Late Update: Penn hedging his bets? Penn's loyalty surcharge no longer within the budget?
--Josh Marshall
Last Debate?
I was just going to do a short post letting you know that we'll be doing live debate blogging tonight of the Democratic debate in Ohio. And it occurs to me that this is quite likely the last debate of the 2008 primary season. The Republican race is over, at least in terms of debates and unless some other shoe drops. The Democratic race may well continue past March 4th. But absent some major reversal of fortune in favor of Hillary Clinton it's hard for me to see where Barack Obama agrees to another debate after this one tonight.
Obviously this rests on several contingencies, mostly Hillary not exceeding current expectations for March 4th, which are diminishing relatively quickly. But I hadn't thought of it quite that way yet. So, if either of them have something to say, now's the time to say it.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: Campaign Finance Deformed
John McCain: straight shootin' maverick and courageous champion of campaign finance reform. So then why is he currently doing his best to defy the FEC and make his own set of campaign finance rules? We puzzle it all out in today's episode of TPMtv ...
Watch this episode on YouTube.
--Ben Craw
Reed Hundt: John McCain should take the lead right now in shutting down the GOP's racist and sexist attacks and incipient funding efforts directed at Obama or Hillary.
--David Kurtz
John Solomon's Washington Times rolls out the next Obama smear: Military "fears" him.
--David Kurtz
Is Hillary's Firewall Holding?
There's a bunch of new polls out in the last few days on the Democratic races in Ohio and Texas.
So where do things stand, just a week before those crucial primaries?
Here's the poll of polls on Texas, from Pollster.com, updated through yesterday:
Speaks for itself. It's a pretty stark trend line, with Obama finally moving ahead after trailing Hillary there for the entire campaign. But it's also still close.
Pollster.com's poll of polls in Ohio is a couple of days behind. This is through Sunday:
Several Ohio polls have been released since yesterday, all showing Hillary with the lead, but it's a narrowing lead in each instance. So you would expect to see Obama's upward trend line continuing once Pollster.com updates the chart, but he hasn't caught her in Ohio yet.
--David Kurtz
Elizabeth Warren, on why Larry Summers and the mortgage industry are wrong.
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
The clock is still ticking.
Any day now, McCain will pass the spending limit for the primaries under the public financing system. He wants out of the system and claims he has a "constitutional right" to withdraw. The FEC says it must agree to his withdrawal, but it's unable to act because of a lack of commissioners.
--David Kurtz
Tale of the Tape
Jan 13: Clinton 42%, Obama 27%
Feb 3: Clinton 41%, Obama 41%
Feb 25: Obama 54%, Clinton 38%
--David Kurtz
You Better Still Be Scared
Dana Perino explains how the nation is in jeopardy because the Dems didn't pass an extension of the Protect America Act that President Bush himself opposed.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv: John McCain Lobbyin' Blues
The affair story was thin, thin, thin. But the lobbying shenanigans are the real deal. We look at the latest on Mr. Clean Government, John McCain, in today's episode of TPMtv ...
Watch this episode on YouTube.
--Josh Marshall
Wolfson
On a conference call, Howard Wolfson just made pretty much the kind of 'loosely categorical' statement about the Obama picture that I said in the post below that we were surprised not to have heard. Here's our report on the conference call.
--Josh Marshall
That Drudge Headline
You've probably already seen that blaring headline on Drudge's site, alleging that Clinton staffers have been circulating a 2006 photo of Obama in the garb of a Somali village elder with a turban. The photo apparently comes from a 2006 congressional delegation he was on during his second year in the senate. The Obama campaign has now jumped on board slamming the Clinton campaign. (The pretty transparent subtext is that the picture has Obama looking done up like a guy you might see on some documentary on the Taliban, though obviously members of Congress try on local garb all the time when they're on foreign trips.)
Now, Drudge's claim is vague -- who circulated it? and who did they circulate it to? And, in any case, this is Drudge. So as a fact witness his say-so is close to meaningless.
We spent the better part of the morning trying to get some comment from the Clinton campaign. For the first hour or more we couldn't get anything. Then we got this statement in which the Clinton camp says Obama should be "ashamed" at saying the picture is "divisive," without addressing one way or another what they're accused of doing.
Here's the text ...
Enough.If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.
This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.
We will not be distracted.
Put it all together and the Clinton camp would appear to be unwilling to make even the most perfunctory denial that they are or were circulating this photo around.
We held up on this because we never want to take Drudge as a fact witness for anything. But I think the Clinton camp's statement speaks for itself.
Late Update: The Clinton campaign has now put out a second statement that goes further but I think still basically amounts to the same thing. You be the judge. In any case, I know you come to TPM to find out what's happening in politics not to get insights into our editorial process. But a number of readers have asked so, a little more detail. When we first heard about this brouhaha this morning, we didn't want to do anything with it before we heard what the Clinton camp had to say, for the reasons I described in the initial post. We know that without doing some sort of exhausted internal investigation, there's no way a national campaign can say that no one in their campaign had anything to do with it. There's high-level staff, mid-level, hundreds of volunteers, etc. That's not what we were looking for. In most cases, in a situation like this a campaign or in this case, say, perhaps Howard Wolfson or some other top level staff would say: "We don't condone this. We didn't authorize this. As far as we know no one in our organization had anything to do with this. Our campaign is made up of hundreds of people. So we can't say definitively that someone somewhere didn't make a stupid decision. But this isn't something the campaign has anything to do with." We pushed and pushed. But we didn't get anything like that. The new statement goes further. But not that much. The Clinton campaign is either terribly inept at dealing with the story or they know or suspect that it's accurate. In any case, what we try to do is give you the background to the blaring headlines you see and the benefit of what we find out through our own reporting. That's just what we did in this case.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
Finally.
The long-awaited, much-anticipated 60 Minutes segment on the Don Siegelman case aired last night -- except on one Alabama CBS affiliate, which mysteriously went dark.
--David Kurtz
Mukasey to TPM: Let's Be Friends!
As we told you a few weeks back, late last year the Justice Department's Office of Public Affairs (OPA) kicked TPM off the department's press list. Various explanations followed -- like an apparent budget shortfall or bandwidth dearth that made the costs of sending us their email press releases prohibitive. A more likely explanation seemed to be the article TPMmuckraker.com's Paul Kiel wrote at the end of August detailing the litany of false statements DOJ spokesman Brian Roehrkasse had made during the course of the US Attorney scandal before being promoted to Director of the Office of Public Affairs at the end of last summer. Our banning took place shortly after he took over.
In any case, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and others took the matter up with Attorney General Mukasey. And it would seem that after he found out what had actually happened he decided to do the right thing and have us reinstated.
The press releases and information alerts started showing up in our in-boxes again on Friday afternoon.
Roehrkasse is now telling the New York Times that the issue was simply one of whether or not TPM was a "credentialed" news organization. But suffice it to say that we are no more 'credentialed' today than we were in October. So I'll let people draw their own conclusions.
In any case, we appreciate being reinstated. It helps us do our work.
--Josh Marshall
CNN Signs on with Rep. Kingston (R-GA)
I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Ben Smith, at The Politico, flags that today CNN's running a 'online poll' asking if Barack Obama has enough patriotism to be president. As Ben, with some understatement, put it's "it's odd to see the mainstream media drive a largely whispered question that none of his main, named critics -- Hillary, McCain, or the RNC -- will touch." Yeah, I'd say so.
That's how it works. Starts at right-swing smear sites and hoax emails. Then the AP's Nedra Pickler, who specializes in scooping up this slop and laundering it into the mainstream press, writes it up for the AP that runs across the country. And then picks it up and makes it a regular part of the campaign conversation.
I doubt some top exec at CNN came up with this or any name anchor. It's some producer in the bowels of the operation. But it amounts to the same thing because it's part of the culture and there's no accountability.
Get ready for more.
--Josh Marshall
Republican Congressman Embraces Obama Hoax Email
Overtime, and pretty quickly now, it'll make sense to keep a list of stuff like this. On Friday night's Bill Maher show, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) claimed that Barack Obama refuses to say the pledge of allegiance to the American flag. This along with other bogus claims about Obama come from the hoax emails circulating on the internet.
If you see any local or national media outlets asking Kingston about this or if you get a word out of him, please let us know.
Of course, last night, the Associated Press signed on to the Obama hoax email train.
--Josh Marshall
