Obama

Tribune's Silva Repeats Palin's Claim That Dems Attacked Her Family

Josh Kalven — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:26:28 -0700

Yesterday, Media Matters caught the Tribune's Mark Silva simply repeating GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's claim in a fundraising letter that "Obama/Biden Democrats" leveled "vicious" attacks at her family. From his September 4 post on the newspaper's Swamp blog:

Democrats have criticized Palin for her pointed remarks about Obama, deriding his experience as a community organizer for isntance [sic]. But in a fundraising letter issued today, Palin maintained that "the Obama-Biden Democrats have been vicious in their attacks directed toward me, my family and John McCain. The misinformation and flat-out lies must be corrected."

Meanwhile, some other reporters actually questioned Palin's accusations and found their wasn't much to support them. From Media Matters:

[I]n a September 4 entry on his Political Punch blog, Tapper wrote, "I asked spokespeople of the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee just which 'Obama/Biden Democrats' they're referring to. The response I got was that Obama spokesman Mark Bubriski erroneously attacked Palin as a supporter of Pat Buchanan. That's it. That's the evidence. An attack on Palin herself. In other words, they can't name one person affiliated with the Obama-Biden campaign who attacked the Palin family."

"Who Are They Fighting For?"

Josh Kalven — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 07:44:58 -0700

Driving out of Minneapolis yesterday, I browsed the AM dial for a while and found myself listening to Mark Heaney's local talk radio show. Until the signal faded, I heard a string of livid Minnesota residents calling in to express their disgust with Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani's denigrating comments about community organizers during the RNC proceedings Wednesday night. One listener pointed out that, in these months leading up to the election, it's the community organizers on all sides who are spearheading voter registration drives and focusing on large turnout this November. And now, thanks to Palin and Giuliani, those organizers on the left side of the spectrum are pissed off and ready to work even harder to hit back.

Locally, Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights director Josh Hoyt had this to say to the AP:

"I don't like seeing the really hard work that goes on in really poor communities being demeaned by cheap politicians," said Joshua Hoyt ... "Community organizing is as American as democracy. It believes that ordinary people can do extraordinary things."

Meanwhile, in New York City:

“I have ‘actual responsibilities,’” said Jacqueline del Valle, a community organizer in the Bronx. “If Mayor Giuliani and President Bush cared more about working people instead of just people who can hire high-powered lobbyists, maybe I wouldn’t have so much responsibility. Maybe working people would have an easier time in America today. But that’s not our reality, and they don’t have to mock us while we’re trying to clean up their mess.”

And the liberal punditry is also fired up. Here's Time's Joe Klein:

This is what Palin and Giuliani were mocking. They were making fun of a young man’s decision “to serve a cause greater than himself,” in the words of John McCain. They were, therefore, mocking one of their candidate’s favorite messages. Obama served the poor for three years, then went to law school. To describe this service–the first thing he did out of college, the sort of service every college-educated American should perform, in some form or other–as anything other than noble is cheap and tawdry and cynical in the extreme.

Chris Hayes:

I suppose it's not surprising that Republican politicians aren't enthused about community organizers since often they're the ones who are getting their ass kicked by them. (Just ask Rudy.) Also, I'm assuming they didn't read The Nation's forum on just this topic in the last issue.

But this kind of hits me where I live, since my dad is a community organizer, so lemme spell this out: the difference between a community organizer and a politician is that a community organizer can't tell anyone what to do. They have to listen. So they can't order books banned from a library to indulge their own religious sensibilities. They can't fire someone because they didn't follow orders to fire an estranged family member. They can't ram through a $15 million dollar sports complex that leaves their local town groaning underneath the debt. Unlike politicians, they don't have any power other than the power of people who want to see something changed.

And Ezra Klein:

When Giuliani sneered about community organizers on the “South side” of Chicago, it’s pretty clear what he’s saying: Barack Obama spent his time rabble-rousing among black people. It’s no different then when the RNC called him a “street organizer.” It’s fairly clear what they’re trying to evoke. No reason anyone should help them mask it. A community organizer can be a PTA member or a Christian Coalition lieutenant. But that’s really not what Palin and Giuliani are getting at. Obama organized poor black people. That’s change you can fear.

On last night's Daily Show, Jon Stewart dropped this great line (as the screen showed the RNC crowd waving signs labeled "SERVICE"):

By the way, if it seemed odd that the GOP was denigrating community service the night after making "service" their slogan, you're confused. Those Republicans were not praising service with those signs -- they were demanding it from the waitstaff.

Finally, Barack Obama himself responded effectively yesterday:

Look — I would argue that doing work in the community to try to create jobs, to bring people together, to rejuvenate communities that have fallen on hard times, to set up job training programs in areas that had been hard-hit when the steel plants close, that is relevant only in understanding where I’m coming from. Who I believe in. Who I am fighting for, and why I’m in this race.

The question I have for them is — why would that kind of work be ridiculous? Who are they fighting for? What are they advocating for? Do they think that the lives of those folks who are struggling each and every day, that working with them to try to improve their lives is somehow not relevant to the Presidency? I think that as part of problem, may be why they are out of touch and do not get it, because they haven’t spent a lot of time working on behalf of those folks.

Ironically, hours later, McCain concluded his acceptance speech by stating: "Fight with me. Fight for what's right for our country. ... Fight for justice and opportunity for all." As one NPR anchor stated after the address, that final message seemed a bit out of sync with the previous night's attacks.

Thompson Fans Faux-BAIPA Controversey

Adam Doster — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:54:29 -0700

Jill Stanek must be so proud. In St. Paul last night, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) casually dropped this line into his RNC address:

We need a President, and Vice President, who will take the federal bureaucracy by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shaking. And my friends we need a President who doesn't think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade.

"Newly born baby," huh? Clearly, this was red meat for the pro-life conservatives who have equated Barack Obama's votes in the Illinois Senate on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) with supporting infanticide. Too bad Obama's views on this legislation are (and were) perfectly in line with legislators from both sides of the aisle.

(H/T TPM)

Even On Holiday, Labor Works For Obama

Adam Doster — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 10:28:45 -0700

While there are many struggles ahead, the past year has been a good one for organized labor. Despite an increasingly hostile organizing environment, the rate of union membership rose -- albeit marginally -- from 2006 to 2007, the first such bump in almost 30 years. That means that more workers will have access to higher pay, retirement accounts, medical insurance, and paid leave -- reason enough to celebrate this holiday weekend.

But the movement isn't resting until a we have both a labor-friendly White House and Congress in Washington. Despite some dissention about tactics, the American Prospect's Harold Meyerson explains that unions nationwide are throwing their lot behind Barack Obama in a big way:

The practical effect of the Alliance's semi-defection is too early to gauge. Overall, labor's program for the fall is massive and strategically very smart: Micro-targeting three million labor households in battleground states with a combined worksite, door-to-door, phone, mail, and e-mail campaign on which unions, in and out of the AFL-CIO, will spend a total of between $300 million and $400 million.

The organization Working America is pounding the sidewalks too. With 2.5 million members, the AFL-CIO's "community affiliate" -- which mails workers election-related materials, talks to them on the phone, and sends canvassers to their doorstep -- is storming working class neighborhoods across the country this election cycle. David Moberg has the details:

Working America is one of the brightest new developments for a beleaguered labor movement--giving a boost to political work this fall at a time when traditional union membership has been declining in the long run (despite an uptick last year). After Labor Day, canvassers for the group will try to contact every Working America member at the door with a field-tested, two-pronged message on behalf of Barack Obama. They'll contrast the positions of Obama and John McCain on critical issues, especially healthcare, but they'll also talk personally about why they're working on behalf of Obama. "We will give people information they're not getting," says Karen Nussbaum, the group's executive director,"but we also will communicate the way people personally make their decisions."

It's no surprise why organized labor is jumping behind the Democratic nominee this election. While you can't find one mention of unions on John McCain's website, Obama wants to pass the Employee Free Choice Act and raise the minimum wage. He's also in favor of banning the permanent replacement of striking workers, appointing labor friendly board members to the National Labor Relations Board, and passing the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The senator will speak to these issues after walking in Detroit's Labor Day parade this morning. He also released a video statement commemorating the holiday that can be seen here.

For Progress Illinois' past coverage of labor issues, check out the archives here. For more union-related posts this Labor Day, head over to Today's Workplace.

PI @ DNC: YoYo Economics At Invesco

Adam Doster — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:15:13 -0700

I agree with Digby that this was the key section of Barack Obama's acceptance speech last night.

For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.

Well it's time for them to own their failure.

Ripped right from Jared Bernstein, this new formulation strikes to the heart of why John McCain and the Republican Party are unequipped to deal with economic insecurity in this country. As Obama put it, McCain and his cohorts are abandoning the "American Promise," a smart turn of phrase for a candidate hoping to convince the nation of his judgment and pragmatism. It wasn't the biggest applause line of the night, but it proved Obama is ready to take the fight to the ideology that has failed this nation by every conceivable measure, and that's a fight he should win.

A few other stray thoughts from Invesco last night.

- It was an absolute madhouse trying to get into the stadium, but it was well worth the (three hour) wait. I still haven't seen what the optics looked like on TV, but from the upper deck, it was a truly breathtaking sight.

- Stevie Wonder could be the coolest cat on the face of the earth.

- John Kerry delivered a stinging speech Wednesday and last night it was Al Gore's turn. In some ways, it speaks to Obama's oratorical skills that he can deliver stunning address after stunning address while under the same pressures that stifled these two previous Democratic nominees' energies in 2000 and 2004.

- Whoever came up with the idea to feature a series of regular Joes and Janes testifying about their support of the Democratic nominee should get a massive raise. From the Detroit Teamster to the New Mexico educator, they offered moving anecdotes with poise and gravitas, which the the crowd ate up. And you just have to tip your cap to whoever wrote this line for Barney Smith, a laid-off factory worker from Marion, IN: "We need a president who puts Barney Smith before Smith Barney." Watch it:

Overall, a wonderful evening that I won't soon forget. Now we can turn our attention to Minnesota, where Republicans will undoubtedly talk about Obama -- and not their own ideas -- four four straight nights. Let the fun begin.

McCain's Weak Housing Defense

Adam Doster — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:19:03 -0700

How did a vulnerable McCain camp rebut attacks about the Repbulican's inadequate real estate knowledge? Drudging up his military service, of course. Because the two are very related.

[Spokesman Brian Rogers] also added: "This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years -- in prison," referring to the prisoner of war camp that McCain was in during the Vietnam War.

But that defense wasn't enough for the campaign. They've also decided to attack Obama over his past dealings with convicted political fundraiser Tony Rezko. Politico's Jonathan Martin notes that the McCain camp has released swaths of opposition research on this front, including the following nugget:

Obama Paid $300,000 Less Than The Asking Price For His Mansion, While Tony Rezko's Wife Paid Full Price For A Vacant Lot Next Door On The Very Same Day. "Two years ago, Obama bought a mansion on the South Side, in the Kenwood neighborhood, from a doctor. On the same day, [Antoin 'Tony'] Rezko's wife, Rita Rezko, bought the vacant lot next door from the same seller. The doctor had listed the properties for sale together. He sold the house to Obama for $300,000 below the asking price. The doctor got his asking price on the lot from Rezko's wife." (Tim Novak, "Obama And His Rezko Ties," Chicago Sun-Times, 4/23/07)

It's the same old suggestion: by purchasing the adjacent lot for the full price, the Rezkos allegedly helped the Obamas save $300,000 on the actual house. Unfortunately, it isn't just the McCain campaign advancing the claim these days. Earlier this week, CNN reported that Rezko "enable[d] Obama to buy his house at $300,000 below the asking price."

In response, Media Matters cited a Bloomberg News report that "[t]he couple who sold Barack Obama his Chicago home said the Illinois senator's $1.65 million bid 'was the best offer' and they didn't cut their asking price because a campaign donor bought their adjacent land, according to e-mails between Obama's presidential campaign and the seller." Read our more thorough debunking of this pervasive myth here.

(H/T Washington Independent)

The Vanishing Health Care Debate

Adam Doster — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:12:09 -0700

Front and center during the primaries, the Tribune's Jill Zuckman reports that health care has receded from the presidential campaign, eclipsed by other concerns:

The continual tussle between the two presumptive presidential nominees — Obama and McCain — has largely centered recently on national security and the high price of gasoline. Public opinion polls have shown that among the top issues of concern to Americans, health care is languishing far behind the economy, the war and the price of gas. One CBS poll from July put voter interest in health care at just 3 percent. In August, it was at 8 percent.

Obama's spokesman Bill Burton counters, claiming the problem is the reluctance of the press to cover the issue, not that voters don't care about it. But if this is the case, as The New Republic's Jon Cohn blogs, it should be Obama pushing the agenda forward:

But candidates aren't exactly powerless to shape the agenda. If Obama wanted to shift the conversation back towards health care, all it would take would be a few advertisements, maybe a major policy speech, plus a little one-on-one promotion to reporters.

FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver agrees that Obama hasn't pushed as hard as he can on health care, a missed opportunity considering the gravity of the recession this election cycle and John McCain's decidedly weaker plan. Democrats generally run about 20 points better than the GOP on health care, jobs, and Social Security. A recent Rasmussen survey gives Obama just a five-point edge. Silver suspects the gap derives from Obama's relative silence on the issue -- the last time the Obama campaign highlighted universal health care in one of its press releases was in April. With roughly two-thirds of Americans favoring some form of insurance universality, now is the time to pounce.

If Obama does decide to push more forcefully, framing the issue will become crucial. He might want to tout his experience in Springfield, which resulted in some very meaningful legislation. Cohn chronicled this record for TNR earlier this year:

Time after time, Obama brought adversaries into the process early, heard out their concerns, then fashioned compromises many of them ultimately supported. In other words, he used the very strategy he's been describing on the campaign trail--the one giving people like me such angst. And yet, if you talk to liberals in Springfield, the ones who've spent decades fighting for universal health care, you don't hear a lot of disappointment with him. As far as they are concerned, Obama's signature inclusiveness was always a means to an end--a way to push the limits of reform rather than accept them. And, they say, it worked.

Image used under a Creative Commons license by Flickr user Deltasly.

Seven Houses (Or Is It Ten?)

Adam Doster — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:39:30 -0700

Now that's what I call a turn-around! In less than 12 hours, the Obama campaign has turned John McCain's "ranch house dilemma," which we highlighted in the Early Bird, into a damning attack ad. Check it out below:

UPDATE: Or is it ten houses? That's what Progressive Accountability is asserting. And they've got pretty good documentation to back it up.

UPDATE II (1:38 PM): Obama takes this message to the stump today in Virginia:

OBAMA: I guess if you think that being rich means you’ve got to make $5 million and if you don’t know how many houses you have, then it’s not surprising that you might think the economy was "fundamentally strong." But if you’re like me, and you’ve got one house, or you are like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so they don’t lose their home, you might have a different perspective… So there’s just a fundamental gap of understanding between John McCain’s world and what people are going through every single day here in America.

(H/T Carpetbagger Report)

Right Wing Fumes Over BAIPA

Adam Doster — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:24:41 -0700

Does Barack Obama support infanticide? That's the impression one might get reading right-wing blogs and magazines these days.

This mess began last Monday, when the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) published a statement entitled "Obama Cover-up Revealed On Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill." The report provides an "updated chronology" of Barack Obama's "no" votes in the Illinois State Senate on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA). Initially, Obama says he voted against the legislation because it lacked language "clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade," language a federal bill included. The NRLC disputes the point and have since tried to frame Obama as a pro-choice radical who has committed a "brazen factual misrepresentation."

This news has conservatives frothing at the mouth. The Weekly Standard printed a short encapsulation of the NRLC findings under the headline "Obama's Abortion Distortion," to which Illinois Review's Fran Eaton linked. The National Review joined the chorus. Pat Buchanan wrote a hysterical column in which he described his vision of the "partial birth abortion" procedure in gory detail. After the issue came up at Rick Warren's church this weekend, the issue catapulted into the mainstream media as well. Yesterday, the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune tried to pin down the chronology of the votes.

On his blog last night, Tribune columnist Eric Zorn dug through the legislative weeds and acknowledged that Obama appears to have committeed "a superficial misstatement of the facts" in describing the bill in question. But Zorn also found ample evidence that Obama's views on the legislation were perfectly in line with legislators from both sides of the aisle at the time:

The history makes it clear that Obama's role in delaying "born-alive" legislation was minor and based on very understandable reservations of many pro abortion rights legislators in Springfield. There is simply no way to paint him as an "extremist" when multiple versions of this same legislation failed in both chambers, often over bi-partisan concerns -- though Jill Stanek is apparently having some success pushing this angle with those who don't have the patience you've had to wade through all the bills and arguments.

As Zorn notes, the source of the "extremist" allegations is Illinois' own Jill Stanek, a conservative crackpot by even the toughest standards. Archpundit provides a greatest hits list of Stanek's follies, including her staunch belief that Terri Schiavo was conscious throughout the duration of her hospital stay. Politico's Ben Smith reported Tuesday that Stanek even opposes the use of condoms in Africa. You can't make this stuff up.

The recurring argument that Democrats support "partial-birth abortion" is nothing more than a red herring used to vilify doctors and women who support reproductive rights (Dana Goldstein's RH Reality Check column, which we excerpted in March, is instructive here). The right-wing's intense focus on this very rare procedure is disproportionate and blatantly political. Nothing more.

Back To Springfield

Josh Kalven — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:28:40 -0700

Barack's come a long way since that speech in front of the Old Capitol kicking off his presidential bid in February of last year. As you may have heard, he's going to back there on Saturday with his newly-minted running mate in tow.

Like everyone else, we have no idea who that person is going to be. But we do know this: it'll be a lot warmer this time around.

Image used under a Creative Commons license by Flickr user suttonhoo.