No doubt, even if you are not from Pennsylvania, you have probably heard the names Jerome Bettis and Franco Harris. Two of the all-time greats in pro football, both members of Super Bowl winning Pittsburgh Steelers teams. But what does that have to do with presidential politics? In western Pennsylvania it means a whole lot.

Senator Bob Casey's endorsement of Obama yesterday brought a big boost to the Obama campaign's attempts to attract the white male vote in Pennsylvania. Casey has a big appeal in rural Pennsylvania, especially in the northeastern part of the state where Casey's hometown of Scranton is located.

Yesterday's endorsement of Obama by Jerome "The Bus" Bettis (yes folks, get ready for a whole new round of "bus" euphemisms) and Hall of Fame great Franco Harris now gives Obama a huge boost in western Pennsylvania. Bettis, a native of Detroit, is a local hero there as well, and I'm sure that his Michigan fan base is also paying attention (and we could add his fan base of Notre Dame, IN into the mix as well, but I digress).

In western PA, Steelers football is king, and where many may point to racial divides as being a problem for Obama, football has been the great eraser of those divisions. If you want any evidence of that, just walk into any Pittsburgh bar on game day.

Whatever benefit Casey may have brought in attracting the white male catholic vote, multiply that by ten if you want to gauge the impact of having the endorsement of two Pittsburgh Steeler Super Bowl champions on your side. The white male football fan demographic has just been added to the Pennsylvania primary mix.  

Keep in mind that western Pennsylvania is a dreary, depressing place for six months out of the year, that it's still 30 degrees, and that the northeast part of the state still has snow on the ground. Any opportunity to break the tedium and to have something new to discuss concerning Steelers football is always welcome.

For those of you who are political junkies who have no interest in sports, this may seem like a pointless discussion. But if you are a blue collar worker from western PA, your team has just been put into play in the off-season. If Obama was looking for someway to connect to the average working-class Joe in Pennsylvania, he has just succeeded in a huge way. Politicians may come around every few years making promises and then heading back to Washington, but around here Steelers football is a year-round way of life, and for many people, two of their gods have just spoken.

"In the tradition of Slate's Saddameter (gauging the likelihood of invading Iraq), the Clintometer (measuring the chances of a Lewinsky-related ousting), and the Gonzo-meter (charting the attorney general's demise), we bring you the Hillary Deathwatch, a daily update on Hillary Clinton's dwindling chances of winning the Democratic nomination."

http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/

From Slate.com:

"Hillary Clinton is as good as dead. This became the consensus over the past week, when the media awoke en masse to the dual reality that 1) Clinton can't close the pledged-delegate gap and 2) Obama has her beat in the popular vote. But the Clinton campaign shows no signs of slowing—she said herself she's prepared to compete for at least three more months. So the question now is not just "How dead is she?" but "When will she realize it?"

"Actually Mrs. Clinton was too modest. I was there and saw it all. When Mrs. Clinton got off the plane the tarmac came under mortar and machine gun fire. I was blown off my tank and exposed to enemy fire. Mrs. Clinton without regard to her own safety dragged me to safety, jumped on the tank and opened fire, killing 50 of the enemy." Soon a suicide bomber appeared, but Mrs. Clinton stopped the guards from opening fire. "She talked to the man in his own language and got him [to] surrender. She found that he had suffered terribly as a result of policies of George Bush. She defused the bomb vest herself." Then she turned to his wounds. "She stopped my bleeding and saved my life. Chelsea donated the blood."

As a native Pennsylvanian who has watched state politics here for a long time, I have to say that Casey's endorsement of Obama is huge. Casey is seen by many in PA as the new face of the PA Dem party.

There is no one that doesn't recognize how huge his victory over Rick Santorum was in 2006. For many of us, Rendell represents the entrenched, corrupt Harrisburg political machine that has lost focus on the problems that face the largely rural population and farming families of Pennsylvania.

Obama has been seen as having strong support in the Philly and Pittsburgh corners of the state, but lacking in recognition in the "T". Casey brings his huge rural appeal and moderate/conservative credentials to Obama.

From Wikipedia: "Casey faced former Philadelphia mayor Ed Rendell in the Democratic primary election. Casey performed well in the rural areas of the state, and won a majority of Pennsylvania's counties. However, he lost to Rendell by 12 points, after Rendell was victorious in the state's major population centers. Rendell went on to win the general election."

The key here, again, is that the primary is not a winner-take-all kind of election. Each county awards delegates, and with Casey's connections to those rural counties that helped him beat Santorum, Obama will be able to increase his delegate count.

This also is a big boost for Obama in the northeast corner of the state. His connections to Scranton run a lot deeper than Hillary's. The Casey been been active on behalf of Pennsylvanians for decades, that fact that Hillary's grandfather lived in Scranton doesn't really count for much.

All said and done, Casey represents another surprising and highly influential endorsment for Obama. It's grey, cold, 30 degrees, and it snowed again last night in northwest PA, but it sure has turned out to be a nice day.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/the-casey-endorsement/index.html?hp

The University of Chicago Law School issued a statement today that clarifies the fact the Obama was a professor while employed there:

"The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx

There's a great article in today's Washington Post on the current fundraising numbers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032702968.html?nav=hcmodule

"Obama has received contributions from more than 1 million donors. He raised $91 million in the first two months of 2008 alone, most of it in small amounts over the Internet."

"Obama's online investment has not come cheap. In January, he spent $768,000 on Web ads, while Clinton spent $171,000 and McCain spent $151,000, campaign finance records show. In February, when Obama spent $2.6 million on ads, Clinton spent $198,000 and McCain spent $111,000."

"Obama's take via the Internet in January and February has dwarfed those of his rivals. Clinton raised $37 million online; McCain raised $22 million overall but has not said how much of that came in online."

There is nothing better than a first-person account to attest to the character of an individual. This is from Marc Andreessen, one of the inventors of the Netscape browser. Thanks to laurajordan for the link! 
An hour and a half with Barack Obama

• Mar 3, 2008
  

I've tried very hard to keep politics out of this blog -- despite nearly overpowering impulses to the contrary -- for two reasons: one, there's no reason to alienate people who don't share my political views, as wrong-headed as those people may clearly be; two, there's no reason to expect my opinion on political issues should be any more valid than any other reader of what, these days, passes for the New York Times.

That said, in light of the extraordinary events playing out around us right now in the runup to the presidential election, I would like to share with you a personal experience that I was lucky enough to have early last year.

Early in 2007, a friend of mine who is active in both high-tech and politics called me up and said, let's go see this first-term Senator, Barack Obama, who's ramping up to run for President.

And so we did -- my friend, my wife Laura, and me -- and we were able to meet privately with Senator Obama for an hour and a half.

The reason I think you may find this interesting is that our meeting in early 2007 was probably one of the last times Senator Obama was able to spend an hour and a half sitting down and talking with just about anyone -- so I think we got a solid look at what he's like up close, right before he entered the "bubble" within which all major presidential candidates, and presidents, must exist.

Let me get disclaimers out of the way: my only involvement with the Democratic presidential campaigns is as an individual donor -- after meeting with the Senator, my wife and I both contributed the maximum amount of "hard money" we could to the Obama campaign, less than $10,000 total for both the primary and the general election. On the other hand, we also donated to Mitt Romney's Republican primary effort -- conclude from that what you will.

I carried four distinct impressions away from our meeting with Senator Obama.

First, this is a normal guy.

I've spent time with a lot of politicians in the last 15 years. Most of them talk at you. Listening is not their strong suit -- in fact, many of them aren't even very good at faking it.

Senator Obama, in contrast, comes across as a normal human being, with a normal interaction style, and a normal level of interest in the people he's with and the world around him.

We were able to have an actual, honest-to-God conversation, back and forth, on a number of topics. In particular, the Senator was personally interested in the rise of social networking, Facebook, Youtube, and user-generated content, and casually but persistently grilled us on what we thought the next generation of social media would be and how social networking might affect politics -- with no staff present, no prepared materials, no notes. He already knew a fair amount about the topic but was very curious to actually learn more. We also talked about a pretty wide range of other issues, including Silicon Valley and various political topics.

With most politicians, their curiosity ends once they find out how much money you can raise for them. Not so with Senator Obama -- this is a normal guy.

Second, this is a smart guy.

I bring this up for two reasons. One, Senator Obama's political opponents tend to try to paint him as some kind of lightweight, which he most definitely is not. Two, I think he's at or near the top of the scale of intelligence of anyone in political life today.

You can see how smart he is in his background -- for example, lecturer in constitutional law at University of Chicago; before that, president of the Harvard Law Review.

But it's also apparent when you interact with him that you're dealing with one of the intellectually smartest national politicians in recent times, at least since Bill Clinton. He's crisp, lucid, analytical, and clearly assimilates and synthesizes a very large amount of information -- smart.

Third, this is not a radical.

This is not some kind of liberal revolutionary who is intent on throwing everything up in the air and starting over.

Put the primary campaign speeches aside; take a look at his policy positions on any number of issues and what strikes you is how reasonable, moderate, and thoughtful they are.

And in person, that's exactly what he's like. There's no fire in the eyes to realize some utopian or revolutionary dream. Instead, what comes across -- in both his questions and his answers -- is calmness, reason, and judgment.

Fourth, this is the first credible post-Baby Boomer presidential candidate.

The Baby Boomers are best defined as the generation that came of age during the 1960's -- whose worldview and outlook was shaped by Vietnam plus the widespread social unrest and change that peaked in the late 1960's.

Post-Boomers are those of us, like me, who came of age in the 1970's or 1980's -- after Vietnam, after Nixon, after the "sexual revolution" and the cultural wars of the 1960's.

One of the reasons Senator Obama comes across as so fresh and different is that he's the first serious presidential candidate who isn't either from the World War II era (Reagan, Bush Sr, Dole, and even McCain, who was born in 1936) or from the Baby Boomer generation (Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, and George W. Bush).

He's a post-Boomer.

Most of the Boomers I know are still fixated on the 1960's in one way or another -- generally in how they think about social change, politics, and the government.

It's very clear when interacting with Senator Obama that he's totally focused on the world as it has existed since after the 1960's -- as am I, and as is practically everyone I know who's younger than 50.

What's the picture that emerges from these four impressions?

Smart, normal, curious, not radical, and post-Boomer.

If you were asking me to write a capsule description of what I would look for in the next President of the United States, that would be it.

Having met him and then having watched him for the last 12 months run one of the best-executed and cleanest major presidential campaigns in recent memory, I have no doubt that Senator Obama has the judgment, bearing, intellect, and high ethical standards to be an outstanding president -- completely aside from the movement that has formed around him, and in complete contradition to the silly assertions by both the Clinton and McCain campaigns that he's somehow not ready.

Before I close, let me share two specific things he said at the time -- early 2007 -- on the topic of whether he's ready.

We asked him directly, how concerned should we be that you haven't had meaningful experience as an executive -- as a manager and leader of people?

He said, watch how I run my campaign -- you'll see my leadership skills in action.

At the time, I wasn't sure what to make of his answer -- political campaigns are often very messy and chaotic, with a lot of turnover and flux; what conclusions could we possibly draw from one of those?

Well, as any political expert will tell you, it turns out that the Obama campaign has been one of the best organized and executed presidential campaigns in memory. Even Obama's opponents concede that his campaign has been disciplined, methodical, and effective across the full spectrum of activities required to win -- and with a minimum of the negative campaigning and attack ads that normally characterize a race like this, and with almost no staff turnover. By almost any measure, the Obama campaign has simply out-executed both the Clinton and McCain campaigns.

This speaks well to the Senator's ability to run a campaign, but speaks even more to his ability to recruit and manage a top-notch group of campaign professionals and volunteers -- another key leadership characteristic. When you compare this to the awe-inspiring discord, infighting, and staff turnover within both the Clinton and McCain campaigns up to this point -- well, let's just say it's a very interesting data point.

We then asked, well, what about foreign policy -- should we be concerned that you just don't have much experience there?

He said, directly, two things.

First, he said, I'm on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where I serve with a number of Senators who are widely regarded as leading experts on foreign policy -- and I can tell you that I know as much about foreign policy at this point as most of them.

Being a fan of blunt answers, I liked that one.

But then he made what I think is the really good point.

He said -- and I'm going to paraphrase a little here: think about who I am -- my father was Kenyan; I have close relatives in a small rural village in Kenya to this day; and I spent several years of my childhood living in Jakarta, Indonesia. Think about what it's going to mean in many parts of the world -- parts of the world that we really care about -- when I show up as the President of the United States. I'll be fundamentally changing the world's perception of what the United States is all about.

He's got my vote.

Just in from the masters of running a debt-ridden campaign:

"The Obama campaign is trying to persuade everybody that this is over. I hope they don't get their hands on the federal budget because they surely can't count," said Clinton adviser Harold Ickes.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2633098420080327?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10112

While the Clinton campaign pores over 20 years worth of church newsletters in their continuing campaign to prove to the world that not everyone agrees on religion, actual events continue to take place in the real world.

George "The Surge is Working" Bush and his pinch-hitter John "I agree with everything Bush stands for unless Lieberman tells me otherwise" McCain have a wee bit of a preacher problem  themselves:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/world/middleeast/28iraq.html?hp

Unfortunately, the Iraqi Civilian Spokesman for Baghdad Security could not be reached for comment:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/03/iraqi_spokesman_kidnapped_in_b.php

Here are some of the big DNC donors from the Pelosi letter. I should have edited out the Wiki citation numbers and cleaned it up a bit, but I think it's more important just to get this posted. I'm not posting this as a slam or hit-list, I was just interested in seeing who these people are, they are, after all Democrats who contribute a lot to the party, and that's better than having them give it to the GOP. For example, JB Prtizker is #143 on Forbes 2007 list of the 400 wealthiest people - worth $2.7 billion. And while he is behind Hillary, his sister is a big Obama supporter. And in no particular order, here are some of Hillary's friends:

From Wikipedia:

Haim Saban (Hebrew: חיים סבן; born 15 October 1944 in Alexandria, Egypt) is a television and media proprietor. With an estimated current net worth of around $3.4 billion, he is ranked by Forbes as the 102nd richest person in America.

Saban summarized his politics in a 2004 New York Times interview with the statement, "I'm a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel."

Saban has donated to the US Democratic Party and the Israeli Labor Party, he has also donated to Republicans including George W. Bush, and has business affiliations with Rupert Murdoch. In the 2001-2002 election cycle, his Saban Capital group donated over $10 million to the Democratic National Committee[3], the largest donation from a single source up to that time.

From Wikipedia:

Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Lady de Rothschild (born July 2, 1954 in Oradell, New Jersey) is an England-based American entrepreneur. She heads the Luxembourg-based wireless broadband company FirstMark Communications Europe, launched in 1998 which raised $1 billion in funding, and has board members including former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Washington power-broker Vernon Jordan as board members.

Aged 16, Forester went on holiday to Israel and stuffed her suitcase with jeans, which she sold when she returned home. In 1984, she realised that communications was the next big industry and quit her corporate law firm for a job in mobile phones. Five years later, she persuaded Motorola to buy her a stake in a small Puerto Rican company, which she later sold back for £50m. She then used this seed money to secure licenses for broadband radio in the US in the 1980s.

From Wikipedia:

Susie Tompkins Buell is a United States former entrepreneur and a liberal political donor associated with the Democracy Alliance.

Buell is often described as Hillary Clinton's best friend.[Buell is leading Clinton's fundraising efforts for 2008 in the San Francisco Bay area.[

Buell has been described as "one of the most successful women entrepreneurs of all time."[6]

[edit] From "Plain Jane" to Esprit
In 1967, Tompkins Buell and Jane Tise co-founded the Plain Jane clothing label. Plain Jane was making $2 million/year by 1970. Tompkin Buell's new husband Douglas Tompkins recommended changing the name to Esprit. Clashes with the existing partners of Esprit led to a buyout in 1975. By 1986, the global clothing brand had reached $800 million in sales. The Tompkinses divorced in 1988.[7],[8]

The early sensibility of Esprit was seen as flowing from the personalities and interests of its founders. They were once described as "a pair of San Francisco hippie merchants who sold clothing over a North Beach massage parlor"

[edit] National Labor Relations Board
Esprit de Corp. was found by the National Labor Relations Board to have illegally interrogated and intimidated $2-an-hour Chinese workers, and then to have shut down a factory to keep them from unionizing.[9] The Department of Labor found that an Esprit contractor doctored payroll records and refused to pay overtime.[10]

[edit] Leveraged buyout benefits Buell
After the 1989 divorce, Tompkins Buell led a 1990 leveraged buyout that allowed her to gain control of Esprit, and also earned her a profit of about $150 million. The buyout left Esprit deeply in debt. In two years it went into technical default on its outstanding loans and in 1997, Tompkins Buell relinguished all ownership of and involvement in the company to a consortium of investors.

In March 1997, Tompkins Buell sued the new owners of Esprit for $3 million she said they owed her in reimbursement for tax payments. Her ex-husband declined to file a similar lawsuit, saying he thought the legal basis for such a suit was thin. In response to the lawsuit, Jay Margolis, the new CEO of Esprit, barred Buell and all members of her family from entering Esprit headquarters

From Wikipedia:

Hassan Nemazee is a multimillionaire Iranian-American investment banker. Nemazee was born in Washington, D.C. on January 27, 1950 and attended Landon School, graduating in 1968. He received his AB degree with Honors from Harvard University in 1972.[1]

Nemazee has not returned to Iran since the Iranian revolution. Most of his family's property was seized by the new Iranian government

Nemazee was highly successful in business, and has become one of the top political donors in New York. During the 2004 US Presidential Elections, Nemazee was a supporter of John Kerry and a major contributor to his campaign. He was the New York Finance Chair for the Kerry campaign and has been named the "top fundraiser and donor to the Democratic National Committee for the past 10 years." Nemazee is the national finance chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.[2] With Nemazee as the national finance chair, Chuck Schumer's DSCC in 2006 raised $115 million, outpacing the NRSC by substantial sums and thus helping Dems take control of the Senate.[3]

During his presidency, Bill Clinton attempted to name Nemazee U.S. Ambassador to Argentina. Attempts to block Mr. Nemazee's nomination were led by a former business partner calling for an investigation of Mr. Nemazee's business record. Forbes magazine published an article based on the former business partners complaint. Two years prior, Mr. Nemazee had won a $4.5 million settlement in the New York Supreme Court against the same former business partner.[4] Mr. Nemazee would eventually withdraw his nomination.[5]

Mr. Nemazee is also associated with the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC). According to the organization, he is listed on the Board of Directors

In 2004 Nemazee filed a ten-million-dollar damage claim against the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran (SMCCDI) and its coordinator, Aryo B. Pirouznia for accusations by the group that Nemazee is an agent of the Islamic Republic of Iran.[8] Under oath he testified that he raised more than $500,000 for the Kerry campaign, but that he also disagreed with Kerry pursuing nuclear negotiations with Iran were he to become president. He also stated that he welcomed regime change in Iran. After the 2004 elections, Pirouznia ceded to Nemazee's demands and the lawsuit was subsequently settled.[citation needed]

Nemazee believes that he was targeted by some Republicans because of his association with the Democratic Party. "If I hadn't been Kerry's finance chair, I wouldn't have been a target. I left Iran in 1978 and haven't been back. Everything my family had was taken by the mullahs. To take someone who's suffered at the hands of that regime and turn it on its head and say that he's in bed with that regime is absolutely fucking incredible," said Nemazee in an interview with New York Magazine

From Wikipedia:

Bernard Leon Schwartz (born December 12, 1926, Brooklyn, New York) was the Chairman of the Board and CEO of Loral Space & Communications, Chairman and CEO of K&F Industries, Inc., Chairman and CEO of Loral Corp., and president and CEO of Globalstar. During his time at Loral, he was instrumental in helping the Chinese military to acquire weapons techonology[citation needed]. He retired from Loral and his positions at its various subsidiaries and affiliates as of March 1, 2006. He is currently the Chairman and CEO of BLS Investments, his own investment firm located in Manhattan.

Schwartz grew up in the Bensonhurst neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York. He is a World War II veteran and life-long Democrat. According to NBC News, from 1992 to 1996 he was the single largest contributor to the Democratic Party. In 1997 he celebrated his 71st birthday with Bill and Hillary Clinton at the White House. Schwartz became embroiled in a controversial transfer of missile technology to the People's Republic of China.

From Wikipedia:

The Pritzker family is one of America's wealthiest, and has been near the top of Forbes magazine's "America's Richest Families" list since the magazine began in 1982.

The family is most famous for owning the Hyatt hotel chain, but also controls the TransUnion Credit Bureau and the Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines. (so they're going to be for corporate tax breaks, and against consumer privacy.)

Members of the Pritzker Family:

* Abram Nicholas Pritzker, Jewish-Ukrainian American immigrant and father of the family of Pritzker
* Jay Pritzker, founder of Hyatt & philanthropist
* J.B. Pritzker, member of New World Ventures
* Penny Pritzker, member of The Real Estate Roundtable
* Nicholas J. Pritzker, Chairman of the Board and CEO of the Hyatt Development Corporation

From Wikipedia:

Robert L. Johnson (born April 8, 1946) is an American businessman and the founder of Black Entertainment Television (BET), and is its former chairman and chief executive officer. Johnson is currently the chairman of RLJ Development which he is also founder. He is also the owner of the Charlotte Bobcats, a National Basketball Association franchise.

He became the first black billionaire in America in 2001.[1][2] As of the end of 2007, he is one of two African American billionaires (The other being Oprah Winfrey) in The US, according to Forbes magazine. Forbes in 2007 estimated his wealth at $1.1 billion, not enough to make the Forbes 400 that year. (The minimum amount to be on the list in 2007 is $1.3 billion.).[

Controversy
In January, 2008, Johnson became the target of criticism for remarks he made to supporters of Hillary Clinton about Barack Obama. Johnson taunted Obama about his self-confessed past cocaine use. The Clinton campaign denied this, submitting that the comments were referring to Obama's work as a community organizer.[1] In subsequent days, Johnson was roundly criticized for his comments as hypocritical given the prodigious glorification of drug use and sale by artists prominently featured on BET[2].

On January 17, 2008, Johnson sent Obama the following apology: "I'm writing to apologize to you and your family personally for the un-called-for comments I made at a recent Clinton event. In my zeal to support Senator Clinton, I made some very inappropriate remarks for which I am truly sorry. I hope that you will accept this apology. Good luck on the campaign trail."

Nice article from HuffPo:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/dnc-paging-steve-rattner_b_27484.html

"Steve Rattner is a big money guy. When I use "big money" for White and Rattner, I'm talking about huge piles of it. Here's what Rattner's bio says: Steven Rattner is a Managing Principal of Quadrangle Group LLC focused on the firm's $2.9 billion media and communications private equity business. Prior to the formation of Quadrangle Group in March 2000, Mr. Rattner was Deputy Chairman and Deputy Chief Executive Officer of Lazard Frères & Co. LLC. Mr. Rattner founded Lazard's Media and Communications Group and has been involved in many of the largest and most important transactions in these industries."

Rattner was one of the many last minute primary donors Lieberman had at the end of the primary campaign. Check out this post from Matt Stoller on August 7th, which outlines the last minute money that came in from Mark Ratner (one t) for Joe Lieberman. The New York Times article below came out on August 10th, clearly stating that Steve Rattner (2 ts) was giving money to Lieberman, a significant sum, in the final days of the campaign.

"Indeed, several prominent Democratic donors said Wednesday that regardless of their party allegiances, they would support Mr. Lieberman this fall.

"Part of the political process includes being willing to evaluate candidates on the merits," said Steven Rattner, a prominent party donor who gave Mr. Lieberman $4,000 in the final days of the primary. "I don't agree with Joe about everything, but on balance he's been a terrific senator and he has stood up for the kind of principles that we Democrats stand for."


Yup, them's some deep pockets....

Congressman Lipinski backs Obama for president

WASHINGTON - Congressman Dan Lipinski is backing U.S. Senator Barack Obama's presidential bid.

Lipinski had been one of the two remaining holdouts among Democratic superdelegates in Illinois' congressional delegation. He says he's endorsed Obama because of the candidate's emphasis on overcoming partisanship and uniting the country.

Lipinski's district in southwest Chicago and its southwest suburbs narrowly voted in favor of Obama over New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Illinois' presidential primary last month.

Representative Rahm Emanuel of Chicago is a former White House aide to President Clinton and now the chairman of the House Democratic Conference, and he remains neutral in the presidential race.

The rest of the Democrats in the delegation support Obama.

A service of the Associated Press(AP)

MSNBC 1:30pm March 26, 2008

Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC News Live just apologized for announcing yesterday that Kwame Kilpatrick, the embattled mayor of Detroit who is fighting perjury charges over the sex scandal that he is embroiled in, had officially endorsed Barack Obama. It turns out that she can not tie the corrupt mayor of Detroit to Obama, and she is very sorry about that.

How a candidate campaigns is a good indication of how they would govern. I find this incident of Carville "branding" Richardson as a disloyal traitor to be telling. If the goal is a president who is inclusive and bipartisan, I don't see any evidence of it here.

I saw this clip replayed on CNN or MSNBC yesterday. It turns out to have originated on ABC's Good Morning America in an interview with Diane Sawyer, about two minutes into the clip:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4518706

In politics, it's all about how one uses language to suggest an image without saying it directly, leaving that wiggle room that maintains deniability if someone tries to call you on it. You can read the transcript below, but the essential line here is Carville saying that because of Richardson's "act of betrayal":

"A cattle rancher...would agree that proper branding is important"..."I wanted to be sure that Richardson's act was branded properly".

To put this in very simple terms, the act of branding as a form of punishment, does not draw it's origins from cattle ranching (obviously the cattle aren't guilty of anything), but rather can be traced directly to slave ownership in the pre-Civil War South, whose history and imagery Carville knows all too well.

The mastery of Carville's "Judas" statement, and his further unapologetic boasting today, is that he is able to suggest to anyone who understands the symbolism of this language that Richardson has been singled out for his act of betrayal, and has been branded with this mark of disloyalty, just like a runaway slave would be punished.

To me it is as amazing as it is apalling. I'm surprised that no one has picked up on this yet, although I'm sure it has resonated with the wavering allies of the Clinton camp. As Carville says:

"I think when people look at him they'll remember the quote, and that's what it was intended to do. ... I wanted his act to be remembered for what it was."

Here are two images of slaves being branded:
http://hitchcock.itc.virginia.edu/SlaveTrade/collection/large/Blake1.JPG
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experience/legal/history.html

I was able to find a transcript at The Raw Story:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Carville_Bill_Richardson_properly_branded_as_0325.html

transcript:
On Monday, Carville refused to apologize for his words, telling CNN, "I wanted to use a very strong metaphor to make my point. ... I doubt if Governor Richardson and I will be particularly close in the future."
Questions about his statements continued to follow Carville when he appeared the next day with ABC's Diane Sawyer, who wanted to know, "Is this morning the time to take that back?"
"A cattle rancher in eastern New Mexico or an advertising executive on the East Side of Manhattan would agree that proper branding is important," Carville replied harshly.
"Branding?" asks Sawyer.
"I wanted to be sure that Richardson's act was branded properly."
"But Judas?" asked Sawyer. "What are you saying? ... Are you saying that he made a deal of some kind when you talk about 30 shekels?"
"I thought this one was special and it needed to be properly branded," Carville repeated, pointing out that he hasn't condemned other friends of his who now support Obama.
"I don't regret it," Carville stated. "I was quoted accurately. ... I think when people look at him they'll remember the quote, and that's what it was intended to do. ... I wanted his act to be remembered for what it was."

I saw this clip replayed on CNN or MSNBC this morning. It turns out to have originated on ABC's Good Morning America in an interview with Diane Sawyer, about two minutes into the clip:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4518706

In politics, it's all about how one uses language to suggest an image without saying it directly, leaving that wiggle room that maintains deniability if someone tries to call you on it. You can read the transcript below, but the essential line here is Carville saying that because of Richardson's "act of betrayal":

"A cattle rancher...would agree that proper branding is important"..."I wanted to be sure that Richardson's act was branded properly".

To put this in very simple terms, the act of branding as a form of punishment, does not draw it's origins from cattle ranching (obviously the cattle aren't guilty of anything), but rather can be traced directly to slave ownership in the pre-Civil War South, whose history and imagery Carville knows all too well.

The mastery of Carville's "Judas" statement, and his further unapologetic boasting today, is that he is able to suggest to anyone who understands the symbolism of this language that Richardson has been singled out for his act of betrayal, and has been branded with this mark of disloyalty, just like a runaway slave would be punished.

To me it is as amazing as it is apalling. I'm surprised that no one has picked up on this yet, although I'm sure it has resonated with the wavering allies of the Clinton camp. As Carville says:

"I think when people look at him they'll remember the quote, and that's what it was intended to do. ... I wanted his act to be remembered for what it was."

Here are two images of slaves being branded:
http://hitchcock.itc.virginia.edu/SlaveTrade/collection/large/Blake1.JPG
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experience/legal/history.html

I was able to find a transcript at The Raw Story:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Carville_Bill_Richardson_properly_branded_as_0325.html

On Monday, Carville refused to apologize for his words, telling CNN, "I wanted to use a very strong metaphor to make my point. ... I doubt if Governor Richardson and I will be particularly close in the future."

Questions about his statements continued to follow Carville when he appeared the next day with ABC's Diane Sawyer, who wanted to know, "Is this morning the time to take that back?"

"A cattle rancher in eastern New Mexico or an advertising executive on the East Side of Manhattan would agree that proper branding is important," Carville replied harshly.

"Branding?" asks Sawyer.

"I wanted to be sure that Richardson's act was branded properly."

"But Judas?" asked Sawyer. "What are you saying? ... Are you saying that he made a deal of some kind when you talk about 30 shekels?"

"I thought this one was special and it needed to be properly branded," Carville repeated, pointing out that he hasn't condemned other friends of his who now support Obama.

"I don't regret it," Carville stated. "I was quoted accurately. ... I think when people look at him they'll remember the quote, and that's what it was intended to do. ... I wanted his act to be remembered for what it was."

I'm sorry, but this is HUGE!!!

Did anyone catch the James Carville interview on either CNN or MSNBC this morning? I can't find the clip and would like to get his exact quote. Basically he said he was unapologetic about the Judas comment in reference to Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama and said something to the effect of, "You know how ranchers brand their cattle? I wanted to brand Bill Richardson as a Judas." There was such an underlying sense of seething hatred in the remark that I was really taken aback by it. Does the Clinton camp think that they own Richardson's body like one would own cattle?

Check out the image of "Branding Slaves" on this PBS website page:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experience/legal/history.html

The real issue here, though, is ranchers don't brand their cattle as a form of punishment. No, that is what slave owners did to punish runaway slaves.

Do you still think there is not an inherent racism underlying the Clinton attacks on Obama and his supporters?

I've spent the past few days marvelling at the Bosnia Sniper Fire story that Hillary is now embroiled in, as have many others. It is incomprehensible to most as to why she would make up such a ridiculous story when there are so many people and so much video that contradicts her.

This whole episode reminded me of a few compulsive liars I have had the displeasure to know through school and work. The common element is that they all seemed to be unable to tell the truth, even when it was about trivial matters. Lying to cover their decisions and behavior had become a way of life, as if that by admitting the truth on some occasions meant recognizing some fundamental flaw in their personalities.

I did a Google search on "compulsive lying" and turned up a few interesting sites, including this info from www.truthaboutdeception.com :

"A compulsive liar will resort to telling lies, regardless of the situation. Again, everyone lies from time to time (see, when lovers lie), but for a compulsive liar, telling lies is routine; it becomes a habit and a way of life.

Simply put, for a compulsive liar, lying becomes second nature.

Not only do compulsive liars bend the truth about issues large and small, but they take comfort in it. Lying feels right to a compulsive liar. Telling the truth, on the other hand, is difficult and uncomfortable for a compulsive liar to do.

And like any other behavior which provides comfort and an escape from discomfort (i.e., alcohol, drugs, sex), lying can become addictive and hard to stop. For the compulsive liar, lying feels safe and this fuels the desire to lie even more.

Making matters even more complicated, compulsive lying is often a symptom of a much larger personality disorder, which only makes the problem more difficult to resolve (see, narcissistic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder).

Unfortunately, compulsive lying is hard for the person involved to see, but it hurts those who are around it. Compulsive lying, if not addressed, can easily destroy a relationship (for example, see why does he need to lie).

Compulsive lying can be dealt with through counseling or therapy. But, like many addictive behaviors (and/or personality disorders), getting someone to admit they have a problem with lying is the difficult part. Sadly enough, getting someone to recognize that he or she has a problem usually requires hitting rock bottom first."

There is a lot more to read on this topic, but I found this to be a good summary of the disorder. In the end, it all brings to mind one of my favorite quotes from Mark Twain:

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything."

John "I don't know anything about the economy" McCain just gave his attempt at a speech addressing the housing crisis and other economic woes.

Playing to his base he called for an end to the alternative minimum tax on the middle class, and stated his opposition to having the federal government step in to bail out banks or private individuals who speculated on real estate.

He went into some detail about the "shadow banking system" that underlies a lot of these problems. A lot of this portion of his speech sounded like it was taken directly from yesterday's NYT article on the same topic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/business/23how.html?em&ex=1206590400&en=1917af0e41e51f62&ei=5087%0A

The article itself, "Who Created This Monster" is well worth a look, if you want to understand just what it is that's going on with the current global banking woes that are rocking the financial markets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=1

I guess that even though Obama had thought he had sufficiently rejected and denounced and moved away from this, some people refuse to let it go.

One thing I've noticed in the MSM coverage of the Wright issue, is that they have realized that they can't just keep playing the same clips over and over without coming up with some new spin. This has forced them to dig deeper and actually analyze the statements, and slowly, the truth and the context appear to be coming out.

Olberman played the Bosnia Speech clips on Countdown tonight. Beautiful!

Hillary knows what it's like to be on the front lines! Hillary knows what it's like to have to duck your head and run through sniper fire! Just like John McCain!

What great experience will Hillary proclaim next?

"I remember when I was in Vietnam and was captured by enemy troops. We were hit with napalm, and I remember what it was like to be confined in a bamboo cage and poked with pointed sticks."

Reporter: "Um, Mrs. Clinton, weren't you the head of the Young Republicans at your college during the Vietnam War?"

"Oh wait, I misspoke. It was a Vietnamese restaurant. The food was very spicy. Bill was teasing me and poking me with a chopstick. But what's important is that I understand the pain of the people who work in a hot kitchen and are afraid of losing their homes."

I was interested to see how NOW is promoting Hillary and her campaign to be the first woman president.

http://www.now.org/

Surprisingly, there is not a single photo of her on the website home page, and their coverage of her campaign hasn't been updated since March 5th's "NOW PAC Applauds Clinton's Triumph in Key States." Hillary's camapign isn't buying any ad space on NOW's home page either. If you click on their PAC link it takes you to some of their coverage of her campaign, but doesn't she deserve a little more front page coverage? A least one photo?

I was interested to see how NOW is promoting Hillary and her campaign to be the first woman president.

http://www.now.org/

Surprisingly, there is not a single photo of her on the website home page, and their coverage of her campaign hasn't been updated since March 5th's "NOW PAC Applauds Clinton's Triumph in Key States." Hillary's camapign isn't buying any ad space on NOW's home page either.

Is NOW snubbing Hillary?

Just posted on the front page. Can't discuss it there, but we can here. Who is this Republican, and why is he endorsing Obama?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/23/endorsing-obama.aspx

Douglas W. Kmiec is Caruso Family Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law, Pepperdine University. He served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel (U.S. Assistant Attorney General) for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Former Dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America, Professor Kmiec was a member of the law faculty for nearly two decades at the University of Notre Dame.

Frank Rich of the New York Times savages Lady Clinton's war record and divisiveness in the Democratic Party:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/opinion/23rich.html?hp

For me, the choice is a simple one: the one candidate whose hands are still clean. One shining example of judgement, when the popular pressure was for putting a flag pin on one's lapel and rushing headlong into a war of distastrous proportions, the greatest blunder in American history.

I really hope that I don't have to choose between the lesser of two evils, a choice between two candidates whose hands are stained with the blood of over 100,000 innocent men, women and children. 

The war in Iraq has been dead wrong since day one. I really hope that the candidate who has taken a stand, since the beginning, for what is right and not for what was  politically convenient, is the one for whom I'll be able to cast my vote. I would like to keep my hands clean, too.