O’Donnell:76PercentOfAmericans‘WantACandidateWhoHasPoliciesDifferentThanPresidentBush’»OnNBC’sTheChrisMatthewsShowyesterday,MatthewsandhisguestsdiscussedhowSen.JohnMcCain(R-AZ)sounds“anawfullotlikeGeorgeBush”whenhetalksaboutIraq.Atthebeginningoftheshow,Matthewspreviewedthesegmentbyasking,“Isitwisetotellvotershe’srunningforathirdtermofBush’swar?”Toillustratehispoint,Matthewsairedfoot...[
阅读全文]
McCainIsNowACampaignFinanceCriminal
By:JaneHamsherSundayMarch23,20084:00pm
AccordingtothelatestFederalElectionCommissionreport,JohnMcCainhasnowspent$58.4milliondollars.McCainappliedforpublicfinancing,andaccordingtoFECchairmanDavidMason(inalettertoMcCain),hecan'twithdrawwithoutpermissionoftheFEC.Soheisnowlegallyinviolationofcampaignfinancelaw.ButasMediaMatterspointsout,you'dneverkno...[
阅读全文]
 since he first ran for the Senate from Illinois in 2004. Obama has released all his returns since 2004. Obama's Senate financial disclosure records are available here. Critics, such as the Wall Street Journal editorial page, argue that disclosure of the tax returns could shed light on how Clinton was able to make a $5 million loan to her campaign last month. They also point out that Bill Clinton has refused to release a list of donors for the Clinton foundation, which funds his Presidential library and other charitable activities.The Clinton campaign now says that the Clintons will release all her post-White House tax returns "on or around April 15," a week before the potentially crucial Pennsylvania primary.<br>)
TaxingquestionsforClinton
TVdebatebetweenClintonandLazio,Sept.13,2000
I'malittlebusyrightnow;Ihardlyhavetimetosleep.ButIwillcertainlyworktowardreleasing[mytaxreturns],andwewillgetthatdoneandinthepublicdomain."
--HillaryClinton,MSNBCdebate,Cleveland,Ohio,Feb.26,2008.
TheClintoncamphasbeentryingtomakehayontheincometaxreturnsissueforweeks.DuringacampaignstopinIthacaonJuly7,th...[
阅读全文]
WhileinSalem,Oregon,BarackObamaanswersaquestionaboutwhyvotersshouldsupporthimoverHillaryClinton.HecomplimentsClintonbutnotesthathiscandidacywillchangethewaythatourcountryisrun.Moreengagementinforeignpolicy,moretransparencyingovernmentspendinganddecision-making,andmoreinclusivediscussions.[
阅读全文]
Hillary'sCampaign-endingLie(Updated)
bynitpicker
SatMar22,2008at01:58:10PMPDT
Look.
I'vesupportedBarackObamaforawhilenow,but,unlike
manyhereonthesite,Iwasn'tsosurethatthemathwasgoing
tobeenoughtogethimacrossthefinishline.Itwaspossible,
Ithought,thathecouldslipupandsaysomethingreallyfoolish
(which,ofcourse,wouldbeoutofcharacter)andfallhard.
Thiswas,it...[
阅读全文]
Comingsoontoasuperdelegatenearyou:HillaryClintoninTuzla,Bosnia.It\'sanunbelievabletaleofheroism,writtenanddirectedbyMarkJ.Penn.TheBaltimoreSuncallsitawhopper.FourPinnochios!saystheWashingtonPost.RequiresenormoussuspensionofdisbeliefravestheHuffingtonPost.[
阅读全文]
, and a 122,000-square-foot Ministry Activity Center. That day, a week <br>before the Ohio primary, Parsley praised the Republican presidential front-runner <br>as a "strong, true, consistent conservative." The endorsement was important for <br>McCain, who at the time was trying to put an end to the lingering challenge from <br>former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a favorite among Christian evangelicals. <br>A politically influential figure in Ohio, Parsley could also play a key role in <br>McCain's effort to win this bellwether state in the general election. McCain, with <br>Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a "spiritual <br>guide." <br>The leader of a 12,000-member congregation, Parsley has written several books <br>outlining his fundamentalist religious outlook, including the 2005 Silent No <br>More. In this work, Parsley decries the "spiritual desperation" of the United <br>States, and he blasts away at the usual suspects: activist judges, civil libertarians <br>who advocate the separation of church and state, the homosexual "culture" ("homosexuals <br>are anything but happy and carefree"), the "abortion industry," and the crass and <br>profane entertainment industry. And Parsley targets another profound threat to the <br>United States: the religion of Islam. <br>In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Parsley warns there is a <br>"war between Islam and Christian civilization." He continues: <br><br><br> I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of <br> Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: <br> I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand <br> our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, <br> but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, <br> in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe <br> September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.<br>Parsley is not shy about his desire to obliterate Islam. In Silent No More, <br>he notes—approvingly—that Christopher Columbus shared the same goal: "It was to <br>defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World <br>in 1492…Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe <br>made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began <br>America." He urges his readers to realize that a confrontation between Christianity <br>and Islam is unavoidable: "We find now we have no choice. The time has come." And <br>he has bad news: "We may already be losing the battle. As I scan the world, I find <br>that Islam is responsible for more pain, more bloodshed, and more devastation than <br>nearly any other force on earth at this moment." <br>Parsley claims that Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" predicated on "deception." <br>The Muslim prophet Muhammad, he writes, "received revelations from demons and not <br>from the true God." And he emphasizes this point: "Allah was a demon spirit." Parsley <br>does not differentiate between violent Islamic extremists and other followers of <br>the religion: <br><br><br> There are some, of course, who will say that the violence I cite is the exception <br> and not the rule. I beg to differ. I will counter, respectfully, that what some <br> call "extremists" are instead mainstream believers who are drawing from the <br> well at the very heart of Islam.<br>The spirit of Islam, he maintains, is one of hostility. He asserts that the religion <br>"inspired" the 9/11 attacks. He bemoans the fact that in the years after 9/11, 34,000 <br>Americans "have become Muslim" and that there are "some 1,209 mosques" in America. <br>Islam, he declares, is a "faith that fully intends to conquer the world" through <br>violence. The United States, he insists, "has historically understood herself as <br>a bastion against Islam," but "history is crashing in upon us." <br>At the end of his chapter on Islam, Parsley asks, "Are we a Christian nation? <br>I say yes." Without specifying what actions should be taken to eradicate <br>the religion, he essentially calls for a new crusade. <br>Parsley, who refers to himself as a "Christocrat," is no stranger to controversy. <br>In 2007, the grassroots organization he founded, the Center for Moral Clarity,<br><br>called for prosecuting people who commit adultery. In January, he<br><br>compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis. In the past Parsley's church has been <br>accused of engaging in pro-Republican partisan activities in violation of its tax-exempt <br>status. <br>Why would McCain court Parsley? He has long had trouble figuring out how to deal <br>with Christian fundamentalists, an important bloc for the Republican Party. During <br>his 2000 presidential bid, he referred to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "agents <br>of intolerance." But six years later, as he readied himself for another White House <br>run, McCain repudiated that remark. More recently, his campaign hit a rough patch <br>when he accepted the endorsement of the Reverend John Hagee, a Texas televangelist<br><br>who has called the Catholic Church "the great whore" and a "false cult system." <br>After the Catholic League protested and called on McCain to renounce Hagee's support, <br>the presumptive Republican presidential nominee<br><br>praised Hagee's spiritual leadership and support of Israel and said that "when <br>[Hagee] endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for <br>or believes in." After being further criticized for his Hagee connection, McCain <br>backed off slightly, saying, "I repudiate any comments that are made, including <br>Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics." But McCain <br>did not renounce Hagee's endorsement. <br>McCain's relationship with Parsley is politically significant. In 2004, Parsley's <br>church was credited with driving Christian fundamentalist voters to the polls for <br>George W. Bush. With Ohio expected to again be a decisive state in the presidential <br>contest, Parsley's World Harvest Church and an affiliated entity called Reformation <br>Ohio, which registers voters, could be important players within this battleground <br>state. Considering that the Ohio Republican Party has been decimated by various <br>political scandals and that a popular Democrat, Ted Strickland, is now the state's <br>governor, McCain and the Republicans will need all the help they can get in the <br>Buckeye State this fall. It's a real question: Can McCain win the presidency without <br>Parsley? <br>The McCain campaign did not respond to a request for comment regarding Parsley <br>and his anti-Islam writings. Parsley did not return a call seeking comment.<br>"The last thing I want to be is another screaming voice moving people to extremes <br>and provoking them to folly in the name of patriotism," Parsley writes in Silent <br>No More. Provoking people to holy war is another matter. About that, McCain <br>so far is silent.<br><br><br><br>David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington, D.C. bureau <br>chief.<br>)
McCain'sSpiritualGuide:DestroyIslam
WashingtonDispatch:TelevangelistRodParsley,akeyMcCainallyinOhio,hascalledforeradicatingthe"falsereligion."WilltheGOPpresidentialcandidaterenouncehim?
ByDavidCorn
March12,2008
SenatorJohnMcCainhailedasaspiritualadviseranOhiomegachurchpastorwho
hascalleduponChristianstowagea"war"againstthe"falsereligion"ofIslam...[
阅读全文]
 <br> these is exceptionally strong evidence that about one-quarter of her vote <br> yesterday came from Republicans were just trying to stick it to the <br> Democratic party.<br> (I've explained my methodology at the bottom of this page.)<br> ::<br> What impact does this have?<br> First, it has an impact on delegates.<br> Yesterday, Barack Obama won 60.6% and Clinton won 37.2%. If her <br> Republican voters hadn't shown up, she would have won about 28% and Obama <br> would have won about 68%.<br> The threshold for winning a larger share of statewide delegates is 62.5% <br> -- so the Republican voters definitely cost him delegates.<br> I don't know exactly how many and will update this blog entry when I've <br> got more numbers.<br> <br> Here's an update on the delegate totals from our very own wizard of <br> odds, poblano. According to poblano, net/net Obama might have been able <br> to do as well as 24-9 instead of 19-14. Put another way, he could have <br> netted +15 instead of +5 delegates -- a ten delegate swing. Anyway, here <br> is poblano's<br> <br> comment (and while I'm at it, let me plug poblano's brand new blog,<br> fivethirtyeight.com):<br> <br> He was very close to the 62.5% threshold to gain 3 out of 4 <br> pledged PLEOs. <br> He was also close to the threshold for getting 5 out of 7 <br> at-large delegates (he needed 64.3% of the two-way vote to do this).<br> AND he was close to getting the 70% he needed to win a 4-1 split <br> in CD-3 (he got 66.8%).<br> AND he was close to getting a 6-1 split in CD-2; he needed 78.6% <br> of the vote to do that, and got 76.3%.<br> AND he was close to winning CD-1 outright, which would have <br> netted him an extra delegate (he got 48.3% instead of the required <br> 50.000001%).<br> If Obama had an extra 4% of the vote statewide, he would have <br> surpassed each of these thresholds, and the delegate split would <br> have been 24-9 rather than 19-14. <br> <br> <br> Second, it has an impact on media perception. One of the <br> key takeaways from the media yesterday was that Hillary Clinton's supporters <br> didn't like Barack Obama as much as Barack Obama's supporters like Hillary <br> Clinton.<br> They implied racial animus was at the root of this division, nicely <br> playing into the whole Geraldine Ferraro storyline.<br> They thing they left out was that a full quarter of Clinton's supporters <br> were Republicans! And the Republicans didn't like her either! Because they <br> were gaming the process!<br> It wasn't race! It was Rush!<br> Third, Republicans may -- and I qualify this because if <br> they did it was close -- they may have tilted (edit: the primary vote in) <br> Texas to Hillary Clinton. I estimated that she won at least 65,000 votes <br> from Republicans that she wouldn't have won had there not been an increase <br> in Republican cross-over voting. She won Texas by 100,000. Given the fact <br> that I think some Republicans who are tricky enough to game a primary will <br> lie to exit pollsters and say they are Democratic, I really wouldn't be <br> surprised if Republicans actually won Texas for Hillary Clinton.<br> ::<br> The bottom-line as far as I'm concerned is that this new trend is <br> symbolic of a Democratic primary that has gone completely haywire.<br> Not only is there division between the Clinton camps and the Obama camps, <br> but now Republicans are actively intervening in our primaries and caucues to <br> screw with our process.<br> It's only going to get worse -- Republicans will change parties when <br> there is closed primaries and in open primaries, they will cross-over and <br> vote for Hillary Clinton in increasing numbers.<br> Effectively, this emerging pattern calls into question the validity <br> of any voting from here on out, even in closed primaries. There's just <br> so much lead time before the next contests that Republicans have plenty of <br> time to register as Democrats and monkey with our primary.<br> Imagine just how effin' hard it will be to make sure revotes in <br> Florida and Michigan don't end becoming a huge clusterf**k.<br> ::<br> Ironically, this is exactly the kind of scenario that super <br> delegates can be useful in.<br> How?<br> The ones that are on the sidelines who clearly support Barack Obama but <br> have not committed to him -- superdelegates like Nancy Pelosi and others -- <br> can publicly declare their support for Barack Obama.<br> <br> <img src=http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z142/jedreport/oiw-clintonsdelegatemath-small.png?t=1205326235 align=right />As <br> you can see from this chart, the fact is that in an ungamed primary,<br> there's <br> absolutely no way Hillary Clinton is going to take over the pledged delegate <br> lead. It's just absolutely not going to happen. Nobody thinks <br> it will -- not even the Clinton campaign.<br> There's also just about no chance she's going to win enough <br> superdelegates to get the nomination.<br> The problem is that Republicans whose only goal is sabotage our <br> nomination process are going to make this seem closer than it really is. And <br> that's going to embolden Hillary Clinton to continue to make more attacks on <br> our eventual nominee. And it's going to further divide the party. And maybe <br> even cost us the election.<br> But if enough super delegates step up now, and declare that they will <br> support Barack Obama it will become clear that Hillary Clinton has no path <br> to the nomination -- and even if she does not withdraw from the race, her <br> support will evaporate, and we can begin the process of uniting this divided <br> party so that we can take back the White House in November.<br> Barack Obama has all but won the nomination. It's time to make it <br> official.<br> The Republicans are having a party at our expense. It's time to shut it <br> down.<br> ::<br> <br> A note on the methodology (skip this if it bores you!):<br> The exit poll data was taken from MSNBC. You can get it<br> here.<br> You will notice that none of the numbers I cite in this entry seem to <br> be in the exit poll.<br> Let me explain why. The exit poll reports the percentage of people <br> overall who agree with each answer to each question. The poll then <br> breaks down how each answer was distributed amongst the candidates. So <br> for example, on the trustworthy question: his Hillary Clinton <br> trustworthy, you learn that overall, 49% say she is and 50% say she <br> isn't. 23% of the people who say she isn't are Clinton backers and 73% <br> are Obama backers. Meanwhile, 52% of the people who say she she IS <br> trustworthy are Clinton backers and 46% are Obama backers. To determine <br> the percentage of Clinton voters who think she is NOT trustworthy, you <br> multiply the number of people who think she isn't trustworthy by the <br> percentage of those people who are Clinton voters, and then divide that <br> by the sum of the same number plus the number of people who think she is <br> trustworthy multiplied by the share of those people who are Clinton <br> supporters. And then you got the numbers. Hopefully that makes sense!<br> <br> <br> ::<br> Late addition: Here is Rush Limbaugh <br /><br> kicking off his dirty tricks campaign. <br /><br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br><br>)
TheGOPisnowgamingourprimaryforClinton.
It'stimetoendit.
byJedReport
WedMar12,2008at06:15:58AMPDT
Now
thatJohnMcCainhaswontheGOPnomination,Republicansarevotingin
theDemocraticprimaryinincreasingnumbers,hopingtopicktheir
opponentfortheNovemberelection,oratleastcausemoreturmoilin
ouralreadydivisivenominationbattle.
Theirchoice?HillaryClinton.
Yesterday...[
阅读全文]