Newsweek: Behind the scenes of the 2008 presidential campaigns

5 11 2008

All of this is from an upcoming special edition report by Newsweek magazine that was produced by a bunch of reporters with the understanding that none of it would be published until AFTER election day. There’s some really interesting tidbits in it, check it out…

From HuffingtonPost.com…

— McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin during the campaign and aides kept him in the dark about the details of her spending on clothes because they were sure he would be offended. Palin asked to speak along with McCain at his Arizona concession speech but campaign strategist Steve Schmidt vetoed the request.

— The Obama campaign was provided with reports from the Secret Service showing a sharp and very disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October, at the same time that the crowds at Palin rallies became more frenzied. Michelle Obama was shaken by the vituperative crowds and the hot rhetoric from the GOP candidates. “Why would they try to make people hate us?” Michelle Obama said to a top campaign aide.

— On the Sunday night before the last debate, McCain’s core group of advisers–Steve Schmidt, Rick Davis, adman Fred Davis, strategist Greg Strimple, pollster Bill McInturff and strategy director Sarah Simmons — met to decide whether or not to tell McCain that the race was effectively over, that he no longer had a chance to win. The consensus in the room was no, not yet, not while he still had “a pulse.”

— The Obama campaign’s “New Media” experts created a computer program that would allow a “flusher”–the term for a volunteer who rounds up nonvoters on Election Day–to know exactly who had, and had not, voted in real time. They dubbed it Project Houdini, because of the way names disappear off the list instantly once people are identified as they wait in line at their local polling station.

— Palin launched her attack on Obama’s association with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground bomber, before the campaign had finalized a plan to raise the issue. McCain’s advisers were working on a strategy that they hoped to unveil the following week, but McCain had not signed off on it, and top adviser Mark Salter was resisting.

— McCain also was reluctant to use Obama’s incendiary pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a campaign issue. He had set firm boundaries: no Jeremiah Wright; no attacking Michelle Obama; no attacking Obama for not serving in the military. McCain balked at an ad using images of children that suggested that Obama might not protect them from terrorism; Schmidt vetoed ads suggesting that Obama was soft on crime (no Willie Hortons); and before word even got to McCain, Schmidt and Salter scuttled a “celebrity” ad of Obama dancing with talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres (the sight of a black man dancing with a lesbian was deemed too provocative).

— Obama was never inclined to choose Sen. Hillary Clinton as his running mate, not so much because she had been his sometime bitter rival on the campaign trail, but because of her husband. Still, as Hillary’s name came up in veep discussions, and Obama’s advisers gave all the reasons why she should be kept off the ticket, Obama would stop and ask, “Are we sure?” He needed to be convinced one more time that the Clintons would do more harm than good. McCain, on the other hand, was relieved to face Biden as the veep choice, and not Hillary Clinton, whom the McCain camp had truly feared.

— McCain was dumbfounded when Congressman John Lewis, a civil-rights hero, issued a press release comparing McCain with former Alabama Gov. George Wallace, a segregationist infamous for stirring racial fears. McCain had devoted a chapter to Lewis in one of his books, “Why Courage Matters” and had so admired Lewis that he had once taken his children to meet him.

— The debates unnerved both candidates. When he was preparing for the Democratic primary debates, Obama was recorded saying, “I don’t consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, ‘You know, this is a stupid question, but let me … answer it.’ So when Brian Williams is asking me about what’s a personal thing that you’ve done [that’s green], and I say, you know, ‘Well, I planted a bunch of trees.’ And he says, ‘I’m talking about personal.’ What I’m thinking in my head is, ‘Well, the truth is, Brian, we can’t solve global warming because I f—ing changed light bulbs in my house. It’s because of something collective’.”





A Moment for History

5 11 2008




CHANGE IS HERE

4 11 2008

Jimi Hendrix – The Star Spangled Banner (live at Woodstock)





McCain-Palin Supporter Starts Backlash Over Obama Anti-Muslim Poster

31 10 2008

What’s wrong with being a Muslim in America?

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “McCain-Palin Supporter Starts Backlas…“, posted with vodpod





McCain spokesman hilariously clams up during Rick Sanchez interview

30 10 2008

Okay, in all honesty…. this is the funniest interview with a campaign spokesperson I have seen in this election season thus far. Rick Sanchez does a great job of trying to force the McCain spokesman to substantiate their BS argument that “Obama pals around with terrorists”.





McCain admits Obama is not a socialist; Larry King confronts McCain about “redistributing wealth” argument

30 10 2008




‘The Economist’ mag endorses Obama

30 10 2008

By Jason Linkins
HuffingtonPost.com

Since I received a spate of emails wondering how The Economist would come down with their Presidential endorsement, I figured I might as well end the suspense: it’s Obama.

Released today, The Economist‘s endorsement is titled, “It’s Time,” and encourages America to “take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world.” That’s the overall tenor of their support: the acknowledgment of a gamble, yet one they recommend with few misgivings:

The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.


Click here for the full article





Drudge Report and McCain campaign conspiring in 11th hour Obama smear

27 10 2008

From DailyKos.com…

Fresh off of breaking the “story” that a McCain volunteer was “mutilated” (er, scratched) by a big, bad black man (er, herself, really), Drudge continues his descent into the absurd and the McCain campaign is again willing to join him in the nosedive down the rabbit hole.

Today’s false story of choice?  Drudge claims this:

2001 OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT ‘REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH’ NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT

The “headline” links to a YouTube video of a seven year old radio interview which, as was expected, reflects the complete opposite of the screeching headline.

In the interview, Obama actually states the following:

Obama said “one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still stuffer from that.”

The “tragedy” wasn’t that the Supreme Court did not, as Drudge screeches, pursue the “redistribution of wealth.” In fact, he states that the “tragedy” was that the civil rights movement, in seeking equalizing policies, focused too much on courts and not enough on political and community organizing.

In other words, the Drudge/McCain/Fox “News” hype of this story is as painfully desperate and transparently faux as a backwards “B” scratched into the face of a McCain volunteer by her own hand.

The legal minds over at the Volokh Conspiracy agree:

[Obama] seems to think that it was a huge error for activists to try to achieve more general redistribution through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (In the waning days of the Warren Court, there was a movement to try to constitutionalize a right to a minimum income.) Co-interviewee Dennis Hutchison even suggests that in pre-interview conversation, Obama agreed with him that Goldberg v. Kelley, establishing procedural protections for welfare recipients, was wrongly decided, or at least promised much more than it could possibly achieve.

And Cass Sunstein sets the record straight, pointing out that not only was Obama arguing the exact opposite of what the smear claims, but that “redistributive” doesn’t mean what most people think it means in this narrow legal context:

Sunstein argued that Obama is discussing redistribution in a relatively narrow legal context: The discussion in the 1970s of whether the Supreme Court would create the right to a social safety net — to things like education and welfare. He also noted that in the interview, Obama appears to express support for the court’s rejection of that line of argument, saying instead that the civil rights movement should aim for the same goals through legislative action.

“What the critics are missing is that the term ‘redistribution’ didn’t man in the Constitutional context equalized wealth or anything like that. It meant some positive rights, most prominently the right to education, and also the right to a lawyer,” Sunstein said. “What he’s saying – this is the irony of it – he’s basically taking the side of the conservatives then and now against the liberals.”

Meanwhile the Obama campaign responds to the faux outrage de jour:

“This is a fake news controversy drummed up by the all too common alliance of Fox News, the Drudge Report and John McCain, who apparently decided to close out his campaign with the same false, desperate attacks that have failed for months. In this seven year old interview, Senator Obama did not say that the courts should get into the business of redistributing wealth at all. Americans know that the real choice in this election is between four more years of Bush-McCain policies that redistribute billions to billionaires and big corporations and Barack Obama’s plan to help the middle class by giving tax relief to 95% of workers and companies that create new jobs here in America. That’s the change we need, and no amount of eleventh-hour distractions from the McCain campaign will change that.”

**EDIT**

See a screenshot of the Drudge Report’s extremely unethical misleading headline (as of 10/27/08 at 11:31 p.m.):

Click to see Drudges misleading and unethical smear headline

Click to see Drudge's misleading and unethical smear headline





Sarah Palin’s War on Science

27 10 2008

By Christopher Hitchens
Slate.com
Click here for the original article

In an election that has been fought on an astoundingly low cultural and intellectual level, with both candidates pretending that tax cuts can go like peaches and cream with the staggering new levels of federal deficit, and paltry charges being traded in petty ways, and with Joe the Plumber becoming the emblematic stupidity of the campaign, it didn’t seem possible that things could go any lower or get any dumber. But they did last Friday, when, at a speech in Pittsburgh, Gov. Sarah Palin denounced wasteful expenditure on fruit-fly research, adding for good xenophobic and anti-elitist measure that some of this research took place “in Paris, France” and winding up with a folksy “I kid you not.”

It was in 1933 that Thomas Hunt Morgan won a Nobel Prize for showing that genes are passed on by way of chromosomes. The experimental creature that he employed in the making of this great discovery was the Drosophila melanogaster, or fruit fly. Scientists of various sorts continue to find it a very useful resource, since it can be easily and plentifully “cultured” in a laboratory, has a very short generation time, and displays a great variety of mutation. This makes it useful in studying disease, and since Gov. Palin was in Pittsburgh to talk about her signature “issue” of disability and special needs, she might even have had some researcher tell her that there is a Drosophila-based center for research into autism at the University of North Carolina. The fruit fly can also be a menace to American agriculture, so any financing of research into its habits and mutations is money well-spent. It’s especially ridiculous and unfortunate that the governor chose to make such a fool of herself in Pittsburgh, a great city that remade itself after the decline of coal and steel into a center of high-tech medical research…

Click here for the full story





Even the U.N. wants Barack Obama

26 10 2008

By Colum Lynch
for the Washington Post
Click here for the original article

UNITED NATIONS — There are no “Obama 2008” buttons, banners or T-shirts visible here at U.N. headquarters, but it might be difficult to find a sliver of territory in the United States more enthusiastic over the prospect of the Illinois senator winning the White House.

An informal survey of more than two dozen U.N. staff members and foreign delegates showed that the overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body.

Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere. One American employee here seemed puzzled that he was being asked whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was even a consideration. “Obama was and is unstoppable,” the official said. “Please, God, let him win,” he added…

Click here for the full article