Category: Blogroll

Zogby: Obama Ahead in Electoral Votes; Four States Change Color

Buck Banks

zogbymap.jpg
Pollster John Zogby’s new Electoral College analysis gives Barack Obama 273 EC votes to John McCain’s 146. Zogby says 119 votes are too close to call at this point in the election cycle.

Here are the latest changes and Zogby’s analysis on the Zogby Electoral College map:

Arkansas changes from purple to red: “It may look like a toss-up, but the conservative base is probably too solid for Obama to crack.”

Arizona changes from purple to red: “The state may be changing, but it is still home turf for McCain. Look for conservatives to come back to McCain.”

Florida changes from red to purple: “Seniors and whites provide McCain a cushion over Obama. However, no one should count votes here too soon.”

South Dakota changes from red to purple: “A tough call here, so we’ll shade it purple for now.”

Obama to Sponsor the Olympics with $5 Million in Ads

Trish

If you thought you could escape political ads by watching the Olympics, we have some bad news. A presidential candidate has bought $5 million in ads. The good news is, it’s Barack Obama!

Will this make him the Official Presidential Candidate of the U.S. Olympics?

Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign will be among the TV sponsors of NBC Universal’s Olympics coverage. In the first significant network-TV buy of any presidential candidate in at least 16 years, the Obama campaign has taken a $5 million package of Olympics spots that includes network TV as well as cable ads.

According to NBC’s political file, the campaign had initially requested information about 500,000, $2 million and $4 million package of Olympics spots. The network also offered the candidate a $10 million package.

So will this make him the Official Presidential Candidate of the U.S. Olympics? Maybe not officially.

The Obama campaign will join major advertisers including McDonald’s and Anheuser-Busch. The Beijing games begin with opening ceremonies Aug. 8.

If you’re wondering, the last person to buy time during the Olympics was Bob Dole. Hopefully Obama knows what he’s doing. And let’s face it, he hasn’t screwed up yet.

The buy comes as the Obama campaign continues to set fundraising records. Its decision not to accept federal matching money leaves it able to spend as much money as it can raise. The campaign reported it raised $52 million in June, compared with the nearly $21.5 million raised by his challenger, Sen. John McCain.

Oil Spill Comes as Floridians are Told Drilling is Safe

Trish

Is this the future for Florida?

A chemical tanker collided today with a fuel barge from one of three nearby refineries in the Mississippi River near New Orleans, causing the barge to split in half and spill 420,000 gallons of oil into the waterways.

A sheen at least 12 miles long spread down river, and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality said efforts were being made to minimize the impact on air and water quality and wildlife.

Drinking water intakes were diverted or closed in the area and citizens were asked to conserve water use to maximize supplies on hand pending resumption of water treatment operations, the New Orleans water department said.

Floridians have been told that Louisiana and Alabama allow drilling off their coasts and nothing bad ever happens to them. Right.

The Coast Guard has deployed 45,000 feet of inflatable booms to contain the spill and is lining up another 29,000 feet, but it could be days before the river is reopened, she said.

The accident left a sheen over 90 percent of the area, she said.

However, the spill is much smaller than the ones that followed Hurricane Katrina in 2005, when the Coast Guard estimated that more than 7 million gallons of oil were dumped into the Mississippi and nearby waterways.

While the accident is still under investigation, you can’t help but wonder if rough seas in the wake of Hurricane Dolly are partly to blame. But then again, Floridians been assured that oil operations always stand up to any weather challenge.

Adviser: As President, Obama Would Only Prosecute ‘Egregious’ Bush Crimes

Jon Ponder

Presidencies are about looking forward, not backwards, so it was predictable that Barack Obama would signal that, if elected, he would have little interest in prosecuting the criminal acts of the current administration.
If Nixon had been imprisoned, it’s doubtful that 30 years later Dick Cheney would have opted to exchange his seat as the head of Halliburton, where he was free to rape and pillage the world with impunity, for the vice presidency, where his power would have been constrained by the U.S. Constitution.
As predictable as Obama’s position is — John Kerry would likely have held the same view under similar circumstances, and certainly John McCain supports it — it is deeply troubling because of the seriousness of the crimes in question, which include lying to Congress about the rationale for war, authorizing torture, betraying a covert CIA agent, criminal negligence in the response to Hurricane Katrina, spying on Americans without warrants, using the Justice Department as the political enforcement arm of the Republican National Committee, election fraud and consorting with corrupt lobbyists, just for starters.

At the Netroots Nation meeting in Austin last weekend, Chicago Law School professor Cass Sunstein, an informal adviser to Obama, warned liberal activists not to expect Barack Obama, if he is elected, to prosecute Bush crimes unless the crimes are what Sunstein described as “egregious”:

[Sunstein] urged caution in prosecuting criminal conduct from the current administration, while also noting that egregious crimes should not be ignored. Prosecuting government officials risks a “cycle” of criminalizing public service, he argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton — or even the “slight appearance” of it.

The fatal flaw in Sunstein’s formulation is that, in fact, there has not been a “cycle of criminalizing public service.” There has been one system of high accountability for Democrats and another system that allows Republican White House officials to escape any sort of accountability whatsoever.

While dozens of Clinton White House officials were dragged before Republican-controlled congressional committees hundreds of times for matters as petty as an investigation into the Clintons’ cat, none of which resulted in a charge of wrongdoing — and Clinton himself was more than held accountable for the crime of lying about an extramarital affair in a deposition for a civil lawsuit — Bush, Cheney and their associates have not been held accountable for a whole host of deliberate criminal acts, especially including lying to Congress and the American people about their reasons for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which was by all measures an “egregious” abuse of power that has resulted in the deaths of over 4,000 U.S. troops and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

[…]

Obama’s New Plane: The Real Straight Talk Express

Trish

The Obama Campaign Plane (PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images)

Pretty sharp.

The repainted plane is likely to become a familiar backdrop for the remainder of the campaign. Previously, the campaign plane did not have a distinctive paint scheme.

The front cabin, where Obama travels, has been fitted out with luxury recliner seating. Obama 08 is embroidered on one seat, presumably to be normally occupied by the candidate.

The press cabin is still the normal 3-seats-to-a-row economy class seating.

Oh boo-hoo, you members of the press assigned to the Obama campaign. I suppose you’d rather be with John McCain, eating barbecue, attending meaningless closed “town hall” pep rallies, and taking weekends off. Wait, don’t answer that.

Predictably, Obama is already getting flack over the paint job, which uses his logo and no American flag. It’s like not wearing a lapel pin, critics say.

Except that if he did paint an American flag on his plane, these same idiots would accuse him of undermining the Current Occupant, something he’s quite rightly refused to do in meeting with foreign leaders.

“I think it is very important to recognize that I’m going over there as a U.S. senator. We have one president at a time…” Obama said.

No doubt Obama will remind us of that when he’s in the Oval Office.

Poll: Obama Leads McCain by 24 Points in California – And By a Whopping 46 Points among Independents

Jon Ponder

Polling before Labor Day in the presidential race is all but useless, still — this is amazing:
These numbers bode well for the defeat of Proposition 8, the homophobe lobby’s attempt to amend the California Constitution to revoke the right to marry for gay couples.

The latest statewide poll, conducted by the Field organization, shows Democrat Barack Obama extending his lead in the state and now trouncing Republican John McCain by 24 points, 54 percent to 30percent. In May, Obama’s lead was a smaller 17 points, and in January, an even slighter 7 points.

The Field poll, conducted July 8-14, also demonstrated an enthusiasm gap in California: 51 percent of Obama’s supporters said they were very enthusiastic about him, whereas only 17 percent of McCain’s made the same claim…

[Among] the nonpartisan voters highly coveted by candidates, Obama led 64 percent to 18 percent.

That last number, Obama’s 46 point lead among independents, is significant. This is just a guess but much of the antipathy among independents toward McCain, the self-described “maverick,” likely can be traced to his position in favor of drilling off the coast.

Drilling for oil along the coast may not be the third rail in California politics but it is certainly, you’ll pardon the mangling of metaphors, one of them. There are already dozens of rigs visible along some of the state’s awe-inspiring coastal vistas, especially around Santa Barbara, where there was a catastrophic spill in January 1969.

One reason polling at this early stage is useless is because polls usually tighten closer to elections. But elections in California are decided by independents these days, and McCain’s 46 point deficit will be — I’ll say it — impossible to make up, barring some sort of “macaca” moment for Obama that hobbles his campaign.

If subsequent polls continue to show this sort of disparity in favor of Obama, it will save both campaigns tens of millions of dollars in costs of television advertising in California.

It also bodes well for the defeat of Proposition 8, the homophobe lobby’s attempt to amend the California Constitution to revoke the right to marry for gay couples.

Speaking of Obama, the fact that “only” 51 percent of Dems are enthusiastic about voting for him is interesting. This could be interpreted to mean that, although they plan to vote for him, as many as 49 percent of California Democrats wish the nominee were someone else.

Dear The New Yorker: WTF???

Trish

This shouldn’t even need explaining. But evidently, The New Yorker, which prides itself on its sophistication and wit, needs to have it broken down. Here goes: You idiots! What are you thinking?

Saying they are just illustrating ignorance doesn’t let them off. It’s actually the problem.

An illustration by Barry Blitt depicts Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and his wife Michelle in the Oval Office, revealing their “true” selves: Michelle is in full revolutionary garb, an enormous afro making her look like a millennial Angela Davis, holding an automatic weapon and wearing military pants.

In the cartoon Michelle is giving dap, or fist-bumping, with her husband who is wearing a turban and is dressed in garb perhaps more appropriate for a madrassa in Lahore than the Oval Office.

A painting of Osama bin Laden hangs above the fireplace, where the American flag is being burned.

Could John McCain have commissioned anything that would help him more? I don’t think so. And saying they are just illustrating ignorance doesn’t let them off. It’s actually the problem.

Intent factors into these matters, of course, but no Upper East Side liberal — no matter how superior they feel their intellect is — should assume that just because they’re mocking such ridiculousness, the illustration won’t feed into the same beast in emails and other media. It’s a recruitment poster for the right-wing…

But I would assume over at the Conde Nast building, they think it’s droll.

If this is what the so-called liberal media produces, God save us from the right-wing.

Update: Comment from my friend Cathy, who is a New Yorker subscriber: “Do they need to hype circulation that bad? It’s the worst possible taste…not satire. What about Michelle and Barack sitting by the side of the road in dew-rags eating watermelon….would that just be satire???”

Obama Votes for FISA and Immunity for Bush, Telecoms – Clinton Votes Against It

Jon Ponder

Inexplicable:

More than two and a half years after the disclosure of President’s Bush’s domestic eavesdropping program set off a furious national debate, the Senate gave final approval on Wednesday afternoon to broadening the government’s spy powers and providing legal immunity for the phone companies that took part in the wiretapping program.

The plan, approved by a vote of 69 to 28, marked one of Mr. Bush’s most hard-won legislative victories in a Democratic-led Congress where he has had little success of late. Both houses, controlled by Democrats, approved what amounted to the biggest restructuring of federal surveillance law in 30 years, giving the government more latitude to eavesdrop on targets abroad and at home who are suspected of links to terrorism.

The issue put Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic nominee, in a particularly precarious spot. After long opposing the idea of immunity for the phone companies in the wiretapping operation, he voted for the plan on Wednesday. His reversal last month angered many of his most ardent supporters, who organized an unsuccessful drive to get him to reverse his position once again. And it came to symbolize what civil liberties advocates saw as “capitulation” by Democratic leaders to political pressure from the White House in an election year.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who was Mr. Obama’s rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, voted against the bill.

Iraq’s Al Maliki Wants U.S. Forces to Leave Iraq

Jon Ponder

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki dropped a bombshell into the American presidential campaign yesterday when he stated publicly that it was time for U.S. troops to leave his country.

“The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to put a timetable on their withdrawal,” al Maliki said, while on an official visit to the United Arab Emirates.

The U.S. government is currently negotiating with the Iraqis on an agreement that would keep U.S. forces in the country on a long-term basis. But members of the parliament and the al Maliki government are said to be unhappy with the proposal because it would undermine Iraq’s sovereignty.

Al Maliki’s announcement can be seen as a direct challenge to the Iraq policy of George Bush and his presumptive heir, John McCain, both of whom insist that the U.S. cannot withdraw until Iraq is secure. McCain is on the record saying U.S. troops could remain in Iraq for a century or more, if conditions warrant.

Reacting to al Maliki’s announcement, Barack Obama said the Iraqi government is more in sync with his view of future U.S.-Iraq relations.

“I think that his statement is consistent with my view about how withdrawals should proceed,” Obama said to reporters on Monday. “I think it’s encouraging … that the prime minister himself now acknowledges that in cooperation with Iraq, it’s time for American forces to start sending out a timeframe for the withdrawal.

“I hope that this administration as well as John McCain is listening to what Prime Minister Al Maliki has to say.”

If the Iraqis take the next step and officially request a withdrawal, and Bush declines the request, it will shatter the myth that U.S. troops are not forces of occupation in Iraq.

It’s unclear whether the Iraqis will take that step, but no matter what happens, the Iraqi government’s position on withdrawal will make it harder as the fall campaign plays out for McCain and Bush to smear Obama and the Democrats as advocates of “surrendering” and “cutting and running” from the Iraq civil war.

2004 Redux: Republicans Try to Sell Flip-Flop Angle

Trish

Republicans, lacking any other strategy, are determined to recycle the one that might have won them the election in 2004.* Sen. Joe Lieberman led the charge on ABC’s This Week, calling Sen. Barack Obama a flip-flopper so many times I wanted to slap him on the back to make his needle jump forward.

Lieberman listed every position Obama has spoken about recently as ones where he flip-flopped in order to pander to voters, even his stand on the death penalty for child rapists. But as Andrew Sullivan and anyone who read The Audacity of Hope knows, Obama, the father of two young girls, has always favored the death penalty in such cases and said so clearly in that book.

“While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes–mass murder, the rape and murder of a child–so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment.”

Obama’s position on Iraq is not the same as McCain’s. It’s the same as Obama’s and it has been from the get-go.

But it was the attempt to hang the flip-flopper label on Obama about Iraq that really made Lieberman appear ridiculous. With former Army Ranger Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) calmly noting that Obama is departing not in the least from previous promises to end the American occupation of Iraq, wide shots showed Lieberman huffing and puffing and fairly rolling his eyes. When it was his turn to speak, he almost shouted his flip-flop rhubarb. Then George Stephanopoulos asked Lieberman a very good question. Why, if Obama’s position is now truly the same (and therefore correct) as McCain’s, as Lieberman insisted, should people vote for McCain? I thought Lieberman might lose it.

But Obama’s position is not the same as McCain’s. It’s the same as Obama’s and it has been from the get-go.

En route to a speech in St Louis…the Senator told reporters on his plane that the news cycle his comments caused was perplexing.

“I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement, which is that I am absolutely committed to ending the war,” he said.

Obama reiterated his commitment to his withdraw plan again. “I will call my joint chiefs of staff and give them an assignment and that is to end the war,” he said. “I think what’s important is to understand the difference between strategy and tactics. I have always believed that our invasion of Iraq was a strategic blunder.”

He continued, “The tactics of how we ensure our troops are safe as we pull out, how we execute the withdrawal. Those are things that are all based on facts and conditions, and you know I’m not somebody who, unlike George Bush, is willing to ignore facts on the basis of my preconceived notions…”

Sen. Obama — who plans a trip to Iraq this month — took issue with reporters who “finely calibrated” his statements, and specific words, on his Iraq War plan. “I wasn’t saying anything that I hadn’t said before,” Obama said.

“I don’t think in anyway it is inconsistent with prior statements and doesn’t change my strategic view that this war has to end and that I am going to end it as president,” he repeated again.

If only that would end the flip-flop charges. But the Republicans have nothing else — at least not yet — so they’re going to see if they can manipulate us again like they did last time. I’m tired of it already.

* If you believe they won in 2004 despite evidence to the contrary in Ohio.