DNC Files FOIA Request Over McCain's Latest Campaign Impropriety

Senator John McCain

20 Jun 2008 20:50 Africa/Lagos


DNC Files FOIA Request Over McCain's Latest Campaign Impropriety

McCain Campaign Event in Ottawa Runs Afoul of Hatch Act

WASHINGTON, June 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Democratic National Committee today filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the U.S. Department of State seeking information about possible violations of the Hatch Act in connection to John McCain's events in Ottawa today. The FOIA request follows reports that McCain campaign officials requested assistance in arranging a $100-a-plate luncheon speech from U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins.


(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20080519/DNCLOGO )


According to reports, Senator Lindsey Graham, a McCain campaign co-chair, asked Ambassador Wilkins "for advice about logistics, venues and cities" for the event. Ambassador Wilkins also reportedly contacted a Canadian business leader to help sell tickets to the event. McCain's appearance is a campaign event being paid for by his campaign. The Hatch Act forbids U.S. Ambassadors from engaging in any partisan activity whatsoever on foreign soil. The DNC today called on the State Department to turn over all records related to Senator McCain's visit.


Today's report follows news this week that Senator McCain has refused to reimburse a private company for the use of its corporate jet. Senator McCain is also skirting the law by unilaterally withdrawing from the primary funds program after using the promise of taxpayer money to secure a loan and gain free ballot access. Earlier this year, outside groups filed another FEC complaint related to Senator McCain's fundraiser in London's Spencer House in April.


"By apparently running afoul of the Hatch Act during his trip to Canada today, it appears that Senator McCain is once again putting his political aspirations ahead of following the law," said DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney. "Between his refusal to pay for his campaign's use of a corporate jet and his illegally attempting to withdraw from the primary funds program, this is becoming a disturbing pattern of impropriety on the part of Senator McCain and his campaign. How can the American people trust John McCain if he is unwilling to follow the law when it gets in the way of his political aspirations?"


For a copy of the FOIA Request, click here

MCCAIN AND THE LAW

SKIRTING THE HATCH ACT...

McCain Campaign Asked Ambassador to Skirt Hatch Act. "A Canadian newspaper reported Thursday that Friday's scheduled $100-a-plate luncheon speech by Sen. John McCain in Ottawa was organized in part by U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins, a former South Carolina lawmaker whom President Bush appointed in 2005... The article in the Edmonton Sun, and an earlier one in the Globe and Mail, says that Wilkins contacted Thomas d'Aquino, the president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, to help set up what they described as a fundraiser before McCain's visit. McCain is scheduled to give a speech at the Chateau Laurier Hotel and to meet with several Canadian officials... The Hatch Act circumscribes political activity for government employees. According to the American Foreign Service Association Web site, the State Department's ethics office prohibits fundraising activities for its presidential appointees."
The Trail blog, Washington Post, 6/19/08: The Trail Blog


McCain Campaign Approached Canadians Seeking Visit & CEO Reception Hosts. Two weeks ago, U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins telephoned big-business lobbyist Tom d'Aquino, head of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Wilkins had been contacted by the McCain campaign about a Canadian visit, and the ambassador wanted to know if some of d'Aquino's group of corporate chief executives might be interested in meeting the Republican presidential candidate. Almost instantly, d'Aquino jumped at the opportunity, and an additional $100-a-plate luncheon organized by the Economic Club of Canada sold out in 30 minutes with tickets now reselling at up to $1,000 a pop. Edmonton Sun, 6/19/08: Edmonton Sun


Coming to Canada McCain's Choice; Visit Arranged By Lindsey Graham Who Passed Word that McCain Was Interested in Coming to Canada. Mr. McCain's visit came together very quickly. About two weeks ago, his organization contacted the Economic Club of Canada, whose president, Mark Adler, has strong business connections. Coming to Ottawa was the McCain organization's choice, club spokeswoman Nicolee Tattersall says. As well, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, who is from South Carolina, is a close friend of South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, who is very close with Mr. McCain. According to the U.S. source, Mr. Graham called the ambassador to tell him that Mr. McCain was interested in coming to Canada. He asked for advice about logistics, venues and cities that would be appropriate for the presidential nominee.
Globe & Mail, 6/13/08: Globe & Mail.


MISUSE OF CORPORATE JETS...

Wall Street Journal: McCain Campaign Fails to Reimburse For Up To Four Campaign Flights. "She used the jet on several trips last year that included campaign-related activity but never got campaign reimbursement, according to flight-tracking records and campaign-finance reports verified by the McCain campaign. At the New York fund-raiser, she spoke on stage, warming up the audience for her husband. If the campaign had paid for Mrs. McCain's trip to New York and three others that appear to have included some campaign work, it would likely have cost a total of about $15,000, the equivalent of first-class fare for the trips combined."
Wall Street Journal, 6/18/08: Wall Street Journal.


Republican Expert: McCain Should Have Paid for the Flights. "Jan Baran, a Republican campaign lawyer, said the campaign should have paid. 'I don't know why they want to fight it,' he said. 'The chutzpah is not that they're not paying for this trip, it's that they're using a corporate airplane at a highly discounted rate.'" [Wall Street Journal, 6/18/08: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121374837867082729-lMyQjAxMDI4MTEzNzcxND c4Wj.html ]


New York Times: McCain Used Unresolved Loophole in His Own Reform Law to Get Discounted Flights. "Mr. McCain's campaign paid a total of $241,149 for the use of that plane from last August through February, records show. That amount is approximately the cost of chartering a similar jet for a month or two, according to industry estimates. The senator was able to fly so inexpensively because the law specifically exempts aircraft owned by a candidate or his family or by a privately held company they control. The Federal Election Commission adopted rules in December to close the loophole -- rules that would have required substantial payments by candidates using family-owned planes -- but the agency soon lost the requisite number of commissioners needed to complete the rule making. Because that exemption remains, Mr. McCain's campaign was able to use his wife's corporate plane like a charter jet while paying first-class rates, several campaign finance experts said. Several of those experts, however, added that his campaign's actions, while keeping with the letter of law, did not reflect its spirit." [New York Times, 4/27/08: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/us/politics/27plane.html?_r=1&oref=slogin]


SKIRTING THE FEC...

FEC Did Not Grant McCain Permission To Withdraw From Public Financing System in the Primary. According to the Washington Post, "The nation's top federal election official told Sen. John McCain yesterday that he cannot immediately withdraw from the presidential public financing system as he had requested, a decision that threatens to dramatically restrict his spending until the general election campaign begins in the fall... Mason notified McCain that the commission had not granted his Feb. 6 request to withdraw from the presidential public financing system." [Washington Post, 2/22/08]


FEC Raised Questions About A Loan the McCain Received. According to the Associated Press, "The government's top campaign finance regulator says John McCain can't drop out of the primary election's public financing system until he answers questions about a loan he obtained to kickstart his once faltering presidential campaign... Federal Election Commission Chairman David Mason, in a letter to McCain this week, said the all-but-certain Republican nominee needs to assure the commission that he did not use the promise of public money to help secure a $4 million line of credit he obtained in November." [AP/MSNBC, 2/21/08]


THE SPENCER HOUSE FUNDRAISER...

Judicial Watch Files Complaint Over London Fundraiser. "Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a formal complaint, dated April 22, 2008, with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) related to a fundraising luncheon held at London's Spencer House to benefit Senator John McCain's presidential campaign. The venue for the event was apparently donated to the campaign by foreign nationals, in violation of federal campaign finance laws." [Judicial Watch release, 4/24/08:
Judicial Watch release on Reuters


Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, www.democrats.org.


This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.


Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20080519/DNCLOGO
AP Archive: http://photoarchive.ap.org/
PRN Photo Desk photodesk@prnewswire.com
Source: Democratic National Committee

CONTACT: Damien LaVera of the Democratic National Committee,
+1-202-863-8148


Web Site: Democratic National Committee

NEWSWEEK Cover: Obama, Race And Us

25 May 2008 16:10 Africa/Lagos

NEWSWEEK Cover: Obama, Race And Us

Despite Decades of Progress, Race Is Still an Issue for Many White Americans as Well as Some Democrats

Newsweek Poll Shows Misconceptions About Obama May Be a Hindrance to His Campaign but There Are Ways He Can Overcome Challenges

NEW YORK, May 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Barack Obama's success on the campaign trail indicates that the United States may be ready to elect its first non- white president. A recent Newsweek poll, however, suggests that although he is poised to secure the Democratic nomination, Obama is still facing problems winning over white voters. In the June 2 Newsweek cover package "Obama, Race and Us" (on newsstands Monday, May 26) a team of Newsweek correspondents offer an open memo to Obama, with suggestions on how he can overcome race issues and convince doubters, of all skin colors or backgrounds, that they will be better off during an Obama presidency than a McCain presidency.

Newsweek pollsters recently created a "Racial Resentment Index" to measure the impact of race on the 2008 election. White voters were asked a series of 10 questions about a variety of race-related topics, including racial preferences in hiring, interracial marriage, and what they have "in common" with African-Americans. About a third of these voters scored "high" on this index; 29 percent of all white Democrats did. Overwhelmingly, these Democrats are the ones most likely to defect to John McCain in the fall. (Among "High RR" white Democratic voters, according to the new Newsweek Poll, Clinton leads McCain by 77 percent to 18 percent, while Obama only wins by 51 percent to 33 percent.) Many Democratic voters in West Virginia interviewed by a Newsweek reporter on primary night, May 13, did not hide their animus towards Obama as a kind of exotic alien. Menina Parsons, 45, said she will not vote for Obama in the general election because: "I don't think he's real. I don't think he's American."

The letter points out that some commentators have said that his problem is not with race but rather with geography. The Daily Kos Web site recently posted a map that makes the point: the majority of counties in which more than 65 percent of whites voted for Clinton closely track Appalachia-the mountainous region running from upstate New York into the Deep South, where voters tend to be somewhat less well-off and less well-educated than in other parts of the country. But Appalachia is a big place, encompassing 13 states and he cannot afford to lose all those states and still win in November. Dee Davis, president of a Kentucky-based advocacy group called the Center for Rural Strategies, points out in a recent article on Salon.com that in June 2004, John Kerry trailed George W. Bush by the same 9-point margin in the same rural battlegrounds. "Your mission," Newsweek's letter urges, "is to not wind up like Kerry, who ended up losing the rural vote by 20 points." According to Davis, the reality "is that when Democratic candidates run competitively in rural America, they win national elections. And when they get creamed in rural America, they lose."

For other issues such as the questions over his patriotism, the letter suggests Obama take the high road. "The Internet has been a sluice for lies and distortions about your religion and background. It is widely and falsely rumored that you are Muslim (in the Newsweek poll, 11 percent of voters believe you are); that you chose to be sworn into the Senate using a Qu'ran rather than a Bible; and that you refuse to place your hand over your heart for the singing of the national anthem because, you are imagined to have said, 'the anthem conveys a warlike message.' You must confront this slur, with more force than you have shown so far." While Newsweek sees Obama's recent wearing a flag lapel pin as wise, it also suggests it would be helpful to be seen venerating his white mother and grandparents as well as his black father. "Your mother is a sympathetic figure, fighting to raise a child out of poverty ... Voters need to know that you are definitely not John Kerry, who was raised to wealth and privilege, an Ivy Leaguer educated, for a time, at a French boarding school."

The cover package also includes essays on how the issue of race might play out in the election:
Contributing Editor Ellis Cose writes, "That Barack Obama seems poised to become the Democratic nominee is certainly evidence we've arrived at a redefining moment in this nation's evolution. But that's not to say race has ceased to be of consequence." He adds that, "for years, most Americans have told pollsters they were prepared to put race aside when voting for a president. Some 94 percent of Americans (up from 53 percent in 1967) tell Gallup they would vote for a black candidate. But it's impossible to know what to make of that, since respondents routinely lie to pollsters when asked any permutation of 'Are you racially biased?'"

Harold Ford Jr., Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, writes that concerns about race in this election are overstated. He writes. "Do many rural or working-class people have questions about Obama? Sure. But these are less about race than about culture ... In the weeks and months ahead, he just needs to show that he respects them and understands the issues that matter to them ... Obama has run a first-rate primary campaign, energizing countless new voters. Now he's got to get off the big stage more often and meet with people where they work, play and pray ... He needs to earn their trust."

Richard Rodriguez, the author of "Brown: The Last Discovery of America" writes that America has become a mixed society. "There are millions of us in America who similarly belong to more than one race. There are millions of us who belong to contending races or religions or tribes." In this world, "the political necessity is for someone who might help us imagine lives larger than racial designations. A politician might win the day, if he or she were able to speak of the ways our lives are mixed."

Marjorie Valbrun, a contributing writer for TheRoot.com, writes about the low-grade war of words between black women supporters of Barack Obama and white women supporters of Hillary Clinton. "Black women's support for Obama is not just about race, just as it's not solely about gender with Clinton supporters. The problem is that, as both camps have appealed to their most loyal supporters, the divide has broken down along racial lines: all too many progressive white women now say they will have a hard time voting for a black man in November."

(Read cover story at http://www.newsweek.com/.)
Cover: Obama, Race and Us. http://www.newsweek.com/id/138611
Harold Ford Jr. http://www.newsweek.com/id/138511
Ellis Cose http://www.newsweek.com/id/138512
Richard Rodriguez http://www.newsweek.com/id/138513
Marjorie Valbrun http://www.newsweek.com/id/138514
Source: Newsweek
CONTACT: Brenda Velez of Newsweek, +1-212-445-4078
Web site: http://www.newsweek.msnbc.com/

Democratic National Committee Must Read: McCain Vs. Lobbyists

18 May 2008 18:54 Africa/Lagos


Democratic National Committee Must Read: McCain Vs. Lobbyists

WASHINGTON, May 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Just days after at least four McCain campaign aides resigned, three of whom after news reports revealed that their lobbying groups had worked on behalf of the repressive regime in Myanmar and the energy lobby, a new report shows that McCain's problems with lobbyists are not over. According to Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, McCain's "finance co-chair Tom Loeffler['s] ... lobbying firm has collected nearly $15 million from Saudi Arabia since 2002 and millions more from other foreign and corporate interests." Another McCain aide, finance director Susan Nelson, was paid $ 15,000 a month by Loeffler's firm while she was on the campaign payroll even though "Federal election law prohibits any outside entity from subsidizing the income of campaign workers." Time and again, McCain demonstrates that his calls for higher ethical standards seem not to apply to him and his campaign. The following are excerpts of today's story:

McCain Vs. Lobbyists
Newsweek
By Michael Isikoff
May 26, 2008 Issue

"Stung by the news that two aides once lobbied for the Burmese junta, John McCain last week rolled out a sweeping new conflict-of-interest policy for his campaign, requiring all staffers to fill out questionnaires identifying past or current clients that "could be embarrassing for the senator." Aides say that McCain was furious over the Burma connection (which he learned from a Newsweek story) and was "adamant" about banning campaign workers from serving as foreign agents or getting paid for lobbying work.

"But the fallout may not be over. One top campaign official affected by the new policy is national finance co-chair Tom Loeffler, a former Texas congressman whose lobbying firm has collected nearly $15 million from Saudi Arabia since 2002 and millions more from other foreign and corporate interests, including a French aerospace firm seeking Pentagon contracts Loeffler last month told a reporter "at no time have I discussed my clients with John McCain." But lobbying disclosure records reviewed by Newsweek show that on May 17, 2006, Loeffler listed meeting McCain along with the Saudi ambassador to "discuss US-Kingdom of Saudi Arabia relations."
"Another potential problem: Loeffler's firm started paying $15,000 a month last summer to one of its lobbyists, Susan Nelson, after she left to become McCain's full-time finance director, said a source familiar with the arrangement (who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive matters). Campaign officials were told the payments were "severance" for Nelson and that they ended by November. But in "February or March," Loeffler rehired Nelson as a consultant to "help him with his clients" while she continued on the McCain payroll, according to a campaign official who asked not to be identified talking about personnel matters. Federal election law prohibits any outside entity from subsidizing the income of campaign workers. McCain's officials say they have been assured that Nelson did actual work for Loeffler's lobbying clients -- and that the payments were proper. But after Newsweek posed questions about the matter, they confirmed Loeffler's resignation and the termination of Nelson's consulting contract. (Loeffler and Nelson did not respond to requests for comment.) Also last week, energy adviser Eric Burgeson was ousted."

To read the entire article, click here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/137522

Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, www.democrats.org.

This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Source: Democratic National Committee
CONTACT: Stacie Paxton or Michael Czin,

+1-202-286-7654, both forDemocratic National Committee

Web site: http://www.democrats.org/

http://www.newsweek.com/id/137522

Video: John Edwards Endorses Barack Obama for President

Senator John Edwards' endorsement is like a pat on the back of Senator Barack Obama, because even heaven knows that Obama is winning the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party and does not need the help of John Edwards to get it.

The support of John Edwards will not do much for Barack Obama in the presidential election and Senator John McCain can even beat Barack Obama in North Carolina, the home state of John Edwards.

I am sure, Senator Hillary Clinton is not fazed by John Edwards' endorsement of Barack Obama. She is determined to continue her race for the Democratic nomination to the Convention. I believe the pledged delegates and super delegates will decide who is the better presidential candidate for the Democratic Party.

Reform Watchdog Group to McCain: Fire the Lobbyists

12 May 2008 17:20 Africa/Lagos


Reform Watchdog Group to McCain: Fire the Lobbyists

National campaign finance reform group calls on McCain to fire Charlie Black, Tom Loeffler and Peter Madigan, three top lobbyists connected to human rights abusers

WASHINGTON, May 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Campaign Money Watch called on Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today to fire three Washington lobbyists working on his campaign team whose lobbying clients include brutal foreign interests and big oil companies. The demand comes after a weekend that saw key figures in McCain's campaign resign for lobbying for Myanmar's military junta.


The two McCain lobbyists who resigned were just two of at least 10 top McCain aides or fundraisers who have lobbied for foreign governments, including at least 6 regimes or rulers with a history of human rights abuses, and at least one rebel leader with a history of human rights abuses.


"John McCain's campaign is overrun by lobbyists and the worst abusers of the pay-to-play campaign finance system," said David Donnelly, Campaign Money Watch's director. "McCain's reform credentials are gone. While two lobbyists have left, at least 112 lobbyists who are raising money for his campaign or staffing it remain. If he wants to restore his image he ought to take this initial step to fire these lobbyists today."


The lobbyists singled out by the reform group are:

-- Charlie Black, whose lobbying firm represented human rights abusers
like Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos, Zaire dictator Mobuto
Sese Seko, Somalia's Mohamed Siad Barre and Nigeria's Ibrahim
Babangida, as well as foreign oil interests like the Chinese
government's CNOOC. Black currently serves McCain as a spokesman and
senior counsel;
-- Tom Loeffler, whose firm has made more than $10 million since 2006 for
lobbying for the Saudi Arabian monarchy and oil interests. Loeffler
serves as McCain's national finance chairman; and
-- Peter Madigan, a lobbyist whose firm received $800,000 to represent
the United Arab Emirates in a class action suit over allegations that
boys are enslaved and forced to be camel jockeys. He is also is a
former lobbyist for Shell Oil. Madigan serves as a top fundraiser for
McCain.


The demand to fire the lobbyists comes as McCain gives a speech on environmental policy today. Oil and gas interests have donated $780,662 in campaign contributions to McCain's candidate and leadership committees over his career, according to a Campaign Money Watch analysis of campaign finance data provided by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.


"At a time when America needs to restore its image around the world, McCain's reliance on lobbyists who represent human rights abusers is unconscionable," continued Donnelly. "Adding insult to injury, while he makes an environmental speech today, voters ought to look at how he has been cozying up to big oil lobbyists and donors. That's why we are calling on McCain to fire lobbyists Black, Loeffler, and Madigan."


Campaign Money Watch is a national campaign finance watchdog that works to hold politicians accountable for opposing comprehensive reform and doing favors for big money contributors. Campaign Money Watch is a project of the nonpartisan Public Campaign Action Fund.


Source: Campaign Money Watch

CONTACT: David Miller, Communications Manager, Campaign Money Watch,
+1-202-448-6154

Young Voters to Have Unprecedented Impact on Presidential Election

6 May 2008 17:52 Africa/Lagos


Young Voters to Have Unprecedented Impact on Presidential Election

Reader's Digest Poll: Millennials are First Generation With Unique Political Identity; Will Match Seniors in Turnout

Obama Beats McCain by Whopping 22 Points Among 18-29 Year-Olds

PLEASANTVILLE, N.Y., May 6 /PRNewswire/ --

An exclusive new poll commissioned by Reader's Digest, the most widely-read magazine in the world, finds that voters under 30, or Millennials, are changing the landscape of American politics this year, and are likely to do so for years to come.


"They are the first generation of young voters that could determine the next president, and they are using technology to do it in this Facebook Election," said Reader's Digest Washington Bureau Chief Carl M. Cannon.


Millennials in unprecedented numbers are in search of an aspirational candidate who matches their commitment to giving back and they break heavily toward Barack Obama, says Cannon. But while Millennials are more liberal than their parents, they are not easy to typecast. They are more religious than the stereotype of young liberals, with a quarter saying that religion has become more important to them in the last few years; and when replaced with the word "spiritual" that percentage climbs to one third. Millennials eschew universal health coverage, agreeing with Obama's healthcare plan and placing more emphasis on reducing the cost of health care rather than expanding access to the uninsured.


As further defined in "The Facebook Election," the accompanying piece by Cannon in the upcoming June issue of Reader's Digest, the Millennials, which encompass 47 million young adults, constitute the first generation to come of age in the 21st century. This ambitious demographic are the most frequent users of popular social networking sites, such as Facebook and MySpace, and are heavily engaged in volunteerism. Combined, these factors could play a key role in finally allowing the young vote to determine the winner in November. Not only does this generation have the potential to shape the 2008 election, the poll findings indicate they will influence both major political parties for years to come.


Millennials have found their political voice, not only through these viral methods, but also by word of mouth. The Reader's Digest poll shows that 47 percent have tried to influence the vote of a friend, and 36% have tried to influence a parent.


According to the survey, Millennials favor Obama an eye-opening 55 percent to McCain's 33 percent in a head-to-head match-up. Clinton prevails against McCain with 49 percent to 39 percent.


"This is historically unprecedented generational appeal for a national candidate and shows that an aspirational campaign based on hope and a better future hits the Millennial's sweet spot," says Cannon.


If the candidate they support does not win the nomination, 59 percent of Millennial Democrats say they will support the nominee of the party regardless, while 16 percent will go with McCain, and 17 percent are unsure.


Bill Clinton is still admired by this generation, scoring higher approval ratings than his wife. The former president rated 57 favorable versus Sen. Clinton, who came in just under Al Gore (51) at 50. And Ralph Nader, once the standard bearer for young, socially conscious voters, has only a 17 favorable rating.


The survey was conducted for Reader's Digest by Massachusetts polling firm SocialSphere Strategies, founded by John Della Volpe, director of polling at Harvard University Institute of Politics. A total of 797 men and women between 18 and 29 years-old were surveyed online between March 10 and March 14.


The full article and more information about the poll can be found at The Facebook Election.


About Reader's Digest


Reader's Digest reaches nearly 40 million readers each month in the United States and twice as many worldwide. Its U.S. website is Reader's Digest. The magazine is published worldwide in 51 editions and 22 languages, and reaches readers in more than 60 countries. It is the flagship of The Reader's Digest Association, Inc., a global publisher and direct marketer of products that inform, entertain and inspire people of all ages and cultures around the world. Global headquarters are in Pleasantville, N.Y.


Source: Reader's Digest

CONTACT: Adam Schiff, Cassin Donn, Ann Hinshaw, Tonya Fleetwood, all of
Dan Klores Communications, +1-212-685-4300, for Reader's Digest


Web site: Reader's Digest
The Facebook Election

Poll: Clinton Leads Obama in Hoosier State

5 May 2008 07:57 Africa/Lagos


Poll: Clinton Leads Obama in Hoosier State

Suffolk University Survey Shows 38 percent Will Cast McCain Vote if their Preferred Candidate Loses Nomination

BOSTON, May 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

Hillary Clinton (49 percent) leads Barack Obama (43 percent) among likely Indiana Democratic voters, according to a poll released today by Suffolk University.


Six percent of Democratic voters were undecided, and 2 percent refused a response. However, 38 percent of these likely Democratic voters -- which include registered Democrats, Republicans, members of other political parties and independents -- said they would vote for John McCain in November if their Democratic choice does not win the party's nomination.


It's no slam-dunk, but Hillary Clinton is poised to win the Hoosier state, provided there aren't some critical turnovers late," said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center. "Although the margin appears to be single digits at this point, the outcome will hinge on high turnouts in Marion and Lake counties, which are crucial for Obama."


Despite Clinton's lead, Obama was seen as more popular (58 percent favorable - 29 percent unfavorable) than Clinton (53 percent favorable - 36 percent unfavorable). In addition, slightly more voters said that Obama (35 percent) would be the next President, compared to 28 percent for Clinton and 25 percent for McCain.


Only 44 percent of Indiana Democratic Primary voters said that, if their choice lost the Democratic nomination, they would still vote Democratic. A considerably high 38 percent indicated they would vote for McCain, while 6 percent said they would vote for independent Ralph Nader, and an additional 11 percent were undecided.


"This 38 percent is one of several statistical signs that Republicans are meddling in the Democratic fray, knowing full well they will vote Republican come November," said Paleologos.


A majority (54 percent) cited the economy as the most important issue facing the country, followed by the war in Iraq (21 percent) and health care (12 percent).


In other Suffolk University findings, a plurality of Democratic Primary voters (48 percent) said they favored making the President's tax cuts permanent, while only 33 percent opposed. Seventy percent of respondents rejected tax increases to help close the budget deficit gap, while 23 percent supported them.


In the race for the Democratic nomination for governor, Jill Long Thompson (35 percent) led Jim Schellinger (27 percent). Meanwhile, a whopping 36 percent still have not made a choice, suggesting that some of these undecided voters will vote Republican for governor come November.


The Suffolk University poll was conducted May 3 and May 4, 2008. The margin of error on the statewide survey of 600 is +/- 4 percent at a 95 percent level of confidence. All respondents from the statewide survey were likely Democratic Primary voters in the May 6 Indiana Democratic Presidential Primary. Marginals and cross-tabulation data will be posted on the Suffolk University Political Research Center Web site -- www.suffolk.edu/college/1450.html -- on May 5. For more information, contact David Paleologos at 781-290-9310.


Suffolk University has selected a bellwether area in Indiana to call on the evenings of May 4 and May 5 as an added predictor module for possible election outcomes. This data will be posted May 6.


Source: Suffolk University

CONTACT: Greg Gatlin, +1-617-435-3634, ggatlin@suffolk.edu, or
Mariellen Norris, +1-617-573-8450, mnorris@suffolk.edu


Web site: Suffolk University

Suffolk University Poll

Election 2008: The People's Choice?

28 Apr 2008 13:05 Africa/Lagos


Election 2008: The People's Choice?

Suspicious voting strategy, according to YourThreeCents.com

NEW YORK, April 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- There is evidence to suggest that during this election year, the Republicans are backing Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee in order to seal the Presidential spot for John McCain.


Tegan Miller: "It appears that the Republicans are creating a strong influence through a well-coordinated marketing media and financial support program. They are targeting these efforts to the Republican Right and Christian youth movements within the Republican Party. They are artfully using the Conservative press, media and youthful leadership to influence voters to cast their vote to elect Barack Obama in open Democratic primaries."


Christian Karnes: "Obama has had only 3 victories out of the 27 contests that have come from closed primaries. The other 24 victories were either open elections or caucuses. Obama may have won these states due to crossover voting from Republicans which would explain the victories of Clinton in closed primary states such as Pennsylvania, Arizona, and New Mexico."


Tegan Miller: "Millions of Republican voters have a chance to cast their vote for their choice of a Democratic contender with McCain as the presumptive Republican nominee."


Christian Karnes: "Why would the Republicans want Obama over Clinton? In big states that are almost always Democratic, Clinton has been consistently successful. In Pennsylvania where Obama outspent Clinton 3 to 1, Clinton still won a majority of the vote by a substantial and significant margin. According to the Pew Research Center, 1 in 5 white Democrats said that they will vote for McCain over Obama which is double the percentage who say they would switch sides in a Clinton-McCain matchup."


Morgan Kelly: "Is Barack Obama leading due to his platform, or is it a ploy by Republican support groups who will abandon him in the November election?"


For additional information, please call +1-646-315-2508 or email Laura Neroulias at Laura@yourthreecents.com


YourThreeCents.com -- A blogging community that carries the voices of America's youth.


SOURCE: http://www.YourThreeCents.com

Disclaimer: YourThreeCents.com does not endorse any candidate or party.

Contact:
Laura Neroulias
+1-646-315-2508



This release was issued through eReleases(TM). For more information, visit http://www.ereleases.com.


Source: YourThreeCents.com

CONTACT: Laura Neroulias of YourThreeCents.com, +1-646-315-2508,
Laura@yourthreecents.com


Web site: http://www.yourthreecents.com/

Obama's Sunday Waffles

27 Apr 2008 17:46 Africa/Lagos


Obama's Sunday Waffles

Why Can't Obama Keep His Story Straight On His Plans To Raise Taxes And Ignore Commanders On The Ground?

WASHINGTON, April 27 /PRNewswire/ -- OBAMA IS WAFFLING ON IRAQ AND GEN. PETRAEUS


Today, Obama Said That It Would Be "Stupid" Of Him To Ignore Gen. Petraeus' Recommendations On Iraq:


Obama: "I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he's accumulated over the last several years. It would be stupid of me to ignore what he has to say." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 4/27/08)


But Obama Previously Said The U.S. Should Begin To Withdraw From Iraq Immediately, Just One Day After Gen. Petraeus Warned Against A Premature Withdrawal:


Gen. Petraeus Testified Before The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Of Which Obama Is A Member, That A Premature Withdrawal From Iraq Would Have "Devastating Consequences." Gen. Petraeus: "In describing the recommendations I have made ... I believe Iraq's problems will require a long-term effort. ... Our assessments underscore, in fact, the importance of recognizing that a premature drawdown of our forces would likely have devastating consequences. That assessment is supported by the findings of a 16 August Defense Intelligence Agency report on the implications of a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Summarizing it in an unclassified fashion, it concludes that a rapid withdrawal would result in the further release of the strong centrifugal forces in Iraq and produce a number of dangerous results, including a high risk of disintegration of the Iraqi security forces, rapid deterioration of local security initiatives, al Qaeda-Iraq regaining lost ground and freedom of maneuver, a marked increase in violence, and further ethno-sectarian displacement and refugee flows, alliances of convenience by Iraqi groups with internal and external forces to gain advantages over their rivals, and exacerbation of already challenging regional dynamics, especially with respect to Iran. Lieutenant General Odierno and I share this assessment and believe that the best way to secure our national interests and avoid an unfavorable outcome in Iraq is to continue to focus our operations on securing the Iraqi people while targeting terrorist groups and militia extremists, and as quickly as conditions are met, transitioning security tasks to Iraqi elements." (Gen. David Petraeus, Committee On Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Testimony, 9/11/07)


The Day After Gen. Petraeus' Testimony, Obama Called For The U.S. To "Immediately Begin To Remove Our Combat Troops" From Iraq. Obama: "So let me be clear. There is no military solution in Iraq. There never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year, but now. To execute this, we should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should process at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Iraq, Clinton, IA, 9/12/07)


OBAMA IS WAFFLING ON HIS CAPITAL GAINS TAX HIKE


Today, Obama Claimed He Would Only Raise Capital Gains Taxes As High As 20 Percent:


Obama: "In terms of capital gains I've suggested we might go back up to 20 [percent]." (Fox News' "Fox New Sunday," 4/27/08)


But Only A Few Weeks Ago, Obama Said He Would Raise Them As High As 28 Percent:


On March 30, Obama Advocated Raising The Capital Gains Tax Potentially To 28 Percent. CNBC's Maria Bartiromo: "How do you plan to change the tax code when it comes to capital gains? How high will that 15 percent rate go?" Obama: "I haven't given a firm number. Here's my belief, that we can't go back to some of the, you know, confiscatory rates that existed in the past that distorted sound economics. And I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was the 28 percent. I would--and my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that. I think that we can have a capital gains rate that is higher than 15 percent." Bartiromo: "Well, let's hypothetically say the cap gains tax goes from 15 percent to 25 percent. You're impacting a lot of people. A hundred million Americans own stocks today." Obama: "Absolutely." Bartiromo: "So it's not just the rich." Obama: "No, no, no, absolutely. And that's why I think that it may be, for example, that you could structure something in which people of certain incomes were exempted from this increase and it would stay at 15. The broader principle that I'm interested in is just making sure that we've got a tax code that is fair for all Americans." (CNBC's "Closing Bell," 3/27/08)


Americans Of Every Background Benefit From Lower Capital Gains Tax Rates:


The Joint Committee On Taxation Reported Figures Demonstrating That Americans Earning Less Than $50,000 Benefitted From Lower Capital Gains And Dividends Tax Rates. "Figures from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) help support the idea that more middle class Americans benefit from this tax break. In 2005, about 20 percent of the taxpayers who were expected to report capital gains income -- and 24 percent of those expected to report dividend income -- earned less than $50,000 annually, the JCT data showed." (Joseph J. Schatz, "Tax Break Tries On 'Middle Class' Label," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 2/17/06)


The Wall Street Journal Noted That 52 Percent Of American Adults Own Stock In Some Form. "But it's not only the wealthy who will take a hit from higher capital gains taxes. Recent surveys indicate that roughly 52% of American adults own stock in some form, and last year 8.5 million of these investors paid a capital gains tax." (Editorial, "A Capital Gains Primer," The Wall Street Journal, 10/15/07)


In 2005, The Average Capital Gains And Dividend Income Reported Per Tax Return In The U.S. Was $5,840. On Average, It Accounted For 10.73 Percent Of Adjusted Gross Income. ("Dividends And Capital Gains Income Compared To Other Income, 2005," The Tax Foundation, taxfoundation.org, 7/16/07)


OBAMA BREAKS HIS TAX PLEDGE; WOULD TAX MIDDLE-INCOME FAMILIES AND SMALL BUSINESSES


Today, Obama Said He Would Raise Payroll Taxes On Americans And Small Businesses Earning Over $102,000:


Obama Is Comfortable Raising Payroll Taxes On Americans Earning $102,000 A Year. Obama: "And in terms of raising the payroll tax, raising the cap on the payroll tax, right now everybody who is making $102,000 or less pays 100 percent, payroll tax on 100 percent of their income. There are about 3 - 4 percent of Americans who are above $102,000 in income every year. So if you want to talk about who's middle class, me giving cuts to folks making $60,000, $70,000 and potentially asking more from friends of mine like Warren Buffet who I have no idea what he made last year, you know, that's a debate I'm happy to have with John McCain." (Fox News' "Fox New Sunday," 4/27/08)


But Only Two Weeks Ago, Obama Pledged He Wouldn't Raise Taxes On Americans Earning Less Than $200,000:


When Asked By ABC's George Stephanopoulos If He Would Pledge Not To Raise Taxes On The Middle Class, Obama Agreed. ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "Would you take the same pledge [that there will be no tax increases of any kind, for anyone earning under $200,000 a year]?" Obama: "Well, I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes." (ABC Democrat Candidates Presidential Debate, Philadelphia, PA, 4/16/08)


ABC's Charles Gibson: "Senator Obama, you both have now just taken this pledge on people under $250,000 -- and 200-and-what? $250,000?" Obama: "Well, it depends on how you calculate it, but it would be between $200,000 and $250,000." (ABC Democrat Candidates Presidential Debate, Philadelphia, PA, 4/16/08)


Obama's Payroll Tax Hike Would Burden Small Businesses And Self-Employed Americans:


Eliminating The Payroll Earnings Cap Would Burden Small Business Owners Who Create Two Of Every Three New Jobs. "Lost in Obama's calculations is that many of the people who would be affected by eliminating the earnings cap are small-business owners who employ more than half the non farm private-sector work force and create two of every three new jobs in this country." (Editorial, "Caps Off For Obama," Investor's Business Daily, 9/25/07)


Three Million Small Business Owners Would Have Their Taxes Raised. "Taxes would also be raised on 3 million small-business owners. By fiscal 2015, the number of job opportunities lost would exceed 865,000 and personal savings would decline by more than $55 billion."(Editorial, "Caps Off For Obama," Investor's Business Daily, 9/24/07)


The Nation's Self-Employed Would Be Hit Especially Hard Because They Would Be Subject To Both The Employee And Employer Portions Of The Payroll Tax. "The self-employed would be subject to a double whammy, since they pay both the employee and employer portion of the payroll tax." (Editorial, "Caps Off For Obama," Investor's Business Daily, 9/25/07)


In 2006, 16.1 Million Americans Were Self-Employed. "Self-employment (incorporated and unincorporated) totaled 16.1 million in 2006 [in the U.S.], an increase from 15.8 million in 2005."(Small Business Administration Office Of Advocacy, "2007 Small Business Profile: United States," www.sba.gov, Accessed 4/23/08)


OBAMA WILL NEED MORE TAX HIKES TO COVER HIS BILLIONS IN NEW SPENDING


Obama Has Been Criticized For Providing Insufficient Funding Sources To Pay For His Billions In New Spending:


If Obama Could Enact All Of His Campaign Proposals, Taxpayers Would Be Faced With Financing $662.549 Billion In New Spending Over One White House Term. (RNC Research)


"Many Critics Said Mr. Obama Was Playing Math Games When He Proposed Policies Without Identifying A Funding Source." (Brian DeBose, "Obama Revises Plan On Tax Cuts," The Washington Times, 10/1/07)


Obama's Funding Suggestions Are "Illustrative Rather Than Complete." "'Obama recognizes this is an arithmetic problem,' [liberal economist Bob McIntyre] said Tuesday, 'and offers suggestions that I assume are illustrative rather than complete.' That's hardly accounting for 'every single dollar' as Obama claims." (Calvin Woodward, "Dems' Accounting Falls Short," The Associated Press, 1/22/08)


Robert Bixby, Executive Director Of The Concord Coalition: "I couldn't help but think, 'Where is he [Obama] going to get the money to pay for these things?'" (Kevin G. Hall and Margaret Talev, "Clinton, Obama Ignore Budget Crisis, Promise Billions," McClatchy Newspapers, 2/22/08)


Media Sources Have Pointed Out That Obama Won't Be Able To Afford His Domestic Programs Without Breaking His Pledge Not To Tax The Middle Class:


The New York Times' David Brooks Said For Obama And Clinton To Fund Their Domestic Programs "They Will Have To Break Their Pledge" Not To Tax The Middle Class. "Both promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It's impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money. The consequences are clear: if elected they will have to break their pledge, and thus destroy their credibility, or run a minimalist administration." (David Brooks, Op-Ed, "No Whining About The Media," The New York Times, 4/16/08)


The New York Times: "In Effect, Mrs. Clinton And Mr. Obama Are Saying That They Can Pay For Their Promises Mainly By Raising Taxes On The Top 3 Percent Of Taxpayers. That's Neither Politically Nor Economically Plausible." (Editorial, "Empty Talk On Taxes," The New York Times, 4/24/08)


A Product Of The RNC Research Department


Paid for by the Republican National Committee.


310 First Street SE, Washington, D.C. 20003 -- (202) 863-8500 - www.gop.com


Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.


Source: Republican National Committee

CONTACT: Republican National Committee Press Office, +1-202-863-8614


Web site: GOP

NEWSWEEK: Cover: Obama's Bubba Gap

The May 5, 2008 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, April 28), "Obama's Bubba Gap," examines how Barack Obama's opponents are tapping into Americans' fear of the "other" and painting him as an out-of-touch elitist. The cover package also includes essays on how race and class are playing out on the campaign trail. Plus: Bill Clinton's gaffes; a Texas town's fight against the proposed border fence; how climate change may wreak havoc on agriculture and the Mother's Day gift guide. (PRNewsFoto/NEWSWEEK) NEW YORK, NY UNITED STATES 04/27/2008

27 Apr 2008 16:25 Africa/Lagos


NEWSWEEK: Cover: Obama's Bubba Gap

Deep Rooted Race and Class Issues are Changing the 'Hope' Election to a 'Fear' Election

Wary of His Wide Appeal, Opponents are Painting Obama as an Out-of-Touch 'Elitist'

NEW YORK, April 27 /PRNewswire/ --

There was a time, not so long ago, when the advisers to John McCain worried about running against Barack Obama, who seemed to have a kind of transcendent power, an ability to convince voters that he was not just another politician. In the May 5 Newsweek cover package "Obama's Bubba Gap" (on newsstands Monday, April 28), Editor-At-Large Evan Thomas, White House Correspondent Holly Bailey and Senior White House Correspondent Richard Wolffe report on why and how Obama's opponents are now tapping into American's fears of the "other" and painting Obama as an out-of- touch elitist, who nibbles daintily at designer salads while the working man, worried about layoffs at the plant, belts another shot.


Senator Barack Obama

(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20080427/NYSU004 )


Americans do not like to talk about class, and they want to believe racism is a thing of the past. We want our presidents to be everyman (or every woman), of the people for all the people. The most successful presidents have always been open and hopeful, sunny and optimistic about the promise of American equality and opportunity. But there has long been a dark side to democratic politics, a willingness to play on prejudice, to get men and women to vote their fears and not their hopes. Those prejudices fade and seem to die down, but they never quite go away. They remain embers for cunning political operatives to fan into flames.


In a new Newsweek Poll, 19 percent of American voters say that the country is not ready to elect an African-American president. Yet when asked if Barack Obama's race makes a difference, only 3 percent of whites say his race makes it less likely they would support him, while 5 percent of whites (and 16 percent of non-whites) say his race would make it more likely they would support him. In the Newsweek Poll, more than half the voters said they think "most" (12 percent) or "some" (41 percent) of the voters will "have reservations about voting for a black candidate that they are not willing to express." In close elections, decided on the margins, it is discouraging to think that a small minority of racists could make the difference.


To pockets of America, Obama still seems to be the "other." He seems a little strange, exotic; those cracked e-mails whispering about his middle name (Hussein) and declaring, fictitiously, that he is a Muslim who insisted on being sworn into office on the Qur'an rather than the Bible, keep buzzing around the Internet. To some, his manner is haughty; he is a bit of an egghead, one of those pointy-headed intellectuals whom George W. Bush liked to ridicule as a Deke brother at Yale and even later as president of the United States.


In the Newsweek Poll, 13 percent reported that Obama is Muslim. Newsweek reporters on the campaign trail could hear the wariness, even fearfulness, of voters as they spoke about Obama. Secretly taped by a "citizen journalist," then reported online, Obama's remarks to San Francisco fund-raisers-that some voters in economically depressed towns "cling" to religion and guns out of "bitterness" -- did not sit well, nor did the endlessly replayed YouTube videos of Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., ranting against America. Richard Vallejo, 65, of Bristol, Pa., a typical working-class town, has voted Democratic all his life. But of Obama, Vallejo says: "He's prejudiced against white people. I'm in a small town and if I own a gun, it's not because I'm bitter. It is because of the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms."


Hillary Clinton has described Obama's remarks about small-town bitterness as "elitist, out of touch and frankly patronizing." Clinton strategist Harold Ickes tells Newsweek "she clearly has established a connection with people who work hard for a living and are having difficulty making ends meet." One Clinton ad, featuring a waitress in a diner, says, "She's worked the night shift, too" (never mind that she is a graduate of Wellesley and Yale Law). McCain's advisers, meanwhile, have enjoyed watching Clinton attack Obama over his remarks. "Manna from heaven," said one McCain aide, who did not wish to be identified gloating. Come the fall campaign, GOP operatives can be counted on to caricature Obama as a gutter-ball-throwing populist phony who is far more at home in a sherry-sipping faculty club than at a bowling alley.


Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton


Senator John McCain

Also in the cover package:


Senior Editor and Columnist Jonathan Alter writes that a President Barack Hussein Obama would pose a shock to the country's system. "Opposition to him is not so much old-fashioned racism as fear of the 'other,' with the subtext not just our tortured racial history, but tangled views of class and patriotism ... Fortunately for him, different strains of the American character often work to ease our anxieties: openness, optimism, hope."


Contributing Editor Ellis Cose writes that the surprise in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary was that recent events had virtually no effect on the result. "Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could have stayed home for the past month and a half and the outcome would have been essentially the same. Women and older voters, for the most part, would have come out for Clinton; blacks, young people and the highly educated elite would have backed Obama." Cose adds that while this is good news for Obama in the short term, it "might be fatal later. Demographics don't necessarily favor him, or any Democrat, in the general election."


Associate Editor Raina Kelley writes that "the idea that the black candidate is successfully being portrayed as an elitist by the two white candidates is priceless, and may be the truest indicator of how far African- Americans have come since the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 40 years ago," she writes. "If Obama seems alien, it may not be simply because he's the African-American presidential front runner, but because he's an African-American politician who doesn't flaunt his scars...As he says again and again in speeches, only in this country would his story be possible."


(Read cover story at www.Newsweek.com)


Cover: Obama's Bubba Gap

Jonathan Alter: Hope vs. Fear

Ellis Cose: McCain's Hidden Advantage

Raina Kelley: An Unfamiliar Narrative


Photo: NewsCom: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20080427/NYSU004
AP Archive: http://photoarchive.ap.org/
AP PhotoExpress Network: PRN1
PRN Photo Desk, photodesk@prnewswire.com
Source: Newsweek

CONTACT: Brenda Velez of Newsweek, +1-212-445-4078


Web site: Newsweek

Why Does Barack Obama Continue To Distort His Own Record, As Well As John McCain's?

26 Apr 2008 01:19 Africa/Lagos


Liberal Distortion

Why Does Barack Obama Continue To Distort His Own Record, As Well As John McCain's?

Obama Distorts Own Record

WASHINGTON, April 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was issued today by the Republican National Committee:


Today, Obama Claimed That The National Journal's Rating System Inaccurately Labeled Him The Most Liberal Senator In 2007:


Obama: "[T]hey Selected 10 Votes Out Of The Many Hundreds That I've Cast." (Greg Sargent, "Obama: National Journal Rating Of Me As 'Number One Liberal' Is Bogus," Talking Points Memo's "Election Central" Blog, tpmelectioncentral.com (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/obama_national_journa l_rating.php), 4/25/08)


NOTE: "Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Was The Most Liberal Senator In 2007, According To National Journal's 27th Annual Vote Ratings." (National Journal Website, "National Journal's 2007 Vote Rankings," nj.nationaljournal.com (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/), 1/31/08)


Obama Tried To Distort The Ranking By Saying They Only Rated Him On Ten Senate Votes When They Actually Rated Him On Ninety-Nine:


"[I]n The 2007 Ratings, A Computer-Assisted Analysis... Used 99 Key Senate Votes, Selected By NJ [National Journal] Reporters And Editors, To Place Every Senator On A Liberal-To-Conservative Scale In Each Of Three Issue Categories." (National Journal Website, "National Journal's 2007 Vote Rankings," nj.nationaljournal.com (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/), 1/31/08)


Obama Also Distorts Sen. John McCain's Record and Words


Obama Claimed He Has Been Accurately Re-Stating Sen. John McCain's "100 Years" Comment:


Obama Told The Today Show's Meredith Vieira That He Has Not Distorted Sen. McCain's Comments. Vieira: "Senator, both you and Senator Clinton have said Senator McCain favors 100 more years of war in Iraq. Sunday in The New York Times Frank Rich wrote, really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain. He felt that the American troops should be a long-term presence, the way they were in Japan and South Korea. Are you willing to admit that you've distorted his statements?" Obama: "No. that's not accurate. We can pull up the quotes on You Tube." (NBC's "The Today Show," 4/8/08)


But Obama Has Repeatedly Charged That Sen. John McCain Wants 100-Year War In Iraq:


Obama: "[McCain] wants to continue this war in Iraq maybe for another 100 years." (Bonney Kapp, "Obama Campaign: 'McCain Is Not A Warmonger'," Fox News' "Embeds" Blog, www.foxnews.com (http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/05/obama-campaign-mccain-is-not-a-war monger/), 4/5/08)


Obama: "And when it comes to foreign policy, John McCain says he wants to fight a hundred year war, a hundred years he says, as long as it takes." (Mike Dorning, "Obama Fires Away At McCain," Chicago Tribune's "The Swamp" Blog, Chicago Tribune (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/obama_fires_away_at_m ccain.html), 2/9/08)


Obama: "[W]e are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years..." (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/08)


Obama: "[Sen. McCain] says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq..." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Primary Results, Houston, TX, 2/19/08)


Numerous Media Outlets Agreed That Obama Has Mischaracterized Sen. John McCain's Position On Iraq:


The New York Times' Frank Rich: "Really, Barack Obama And Hillary Clinton Should Be Ashamed Of Themselves For Libeling John McCain." "Really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain. As a growing chorus reiterates, their refrains that Mr. McCain is 'willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq' (as Mr. Obama said) or 'willing to keep this war going for 100 years' (per Mrs. Clinton) are flat-out wrong. What Mr. McCain actually said in a New Hampshire town-hall meeting was that he could imagine a 100-year-long American role in Iraq like our long-term presence in South Korea and Japan, where 'Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.' See for yourself on YouTube." (Frank Rich, Op-Ed, "Tet Happened, And No One Cared," The New York Times, 4/6/08)


Columbia Journalism Review's Zachary Roth: "[L]ately, Barack Obama in particular has stepped up his attacks on McCain's '100 years' notion. But in doing so, Obama is seriously misleading voters -- if not outright lying to them -- about exactly what McCain said." (Zachary Roth, "The U.S., Iraq, And 100 Years," Columbia Journalism Review, 4/1/08)


The [Manchester] Union Leader: "It Is Not Even Remotely True -- And They Know It." "You might have heard from the New Hampshire Democratic Party and Democratic Presidential candidates that Sen. John McCain wants 100 more years of war in Iraq. It is not even remotely true -- and they know it." (Editorial, "McCain's '100 Years': The Democrats' War On The Truth," The [Manchester] Union Leader, 4/6/08)


The New York Times Reports That Democrats "Mischaracterize And Distort" Sen. McCain's "100 Years" Comment. "But the timetables, flippantly tossed out, have been condensed into sound bites by his Democratic opponents, turned into fund-raising appeals and mashed into YouTube parodies. Many of the sound bites mischaracterize and distort what was said in Mr. McCain's six-minute exchange on Jan. 3..." (Kate Phillips, "McCain Said '100'; Opponents Latch On," The New York Times, 3/27/08)


Obama Selectively Quoted Sen. John McCain's Remarks On The Economy:


"Obama Picked Up Comments Senator McCain Made Yesterday On Bloomberg TV That Economic Progress Has Been Made Under George W. Bush." (Bonney Kapp, "Obama Says McCain Is 'Disconnected' On Economy," embeds.blogs.foxnews.com (http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/18/obama-says-mccain-is-disconnected- on-economy/), 4/18/08)


"'I Think If You Look At The Overall Record And Millions Of Jobs Have Been Created, Et Cetera, Et Cetera, You Could Make An Argument That There's Been Great Progress Economically Over That Period Of Time,' McCain Said." (Bonney Kapp, "Obama Says McCain Is 'Disconnected' On Economy," embeds.blogs.foxnews.com (http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/18/obama-says-mccain-is-disconnected- on-economy/), 4/18/08)


"The McCain Campaign Quickly Sent Out Their Candidate's Full Remarks On Bloomberg, Showing McCain Qualified His Statement. 'But That's No Comfort. That's No Comfort To Families Now That Are Facing These Tremendous Economic Challenges,' McCain Said." (Bonney Kapp, "Obama Says McCain Is 'Disconnected' On Economy," embeds.blogs.foxnews.com (http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/18/obama-says-mccain-is-disconnected- on-economy/), 4/18/08)


"Obama Did Not Quote McCain's Addendum, But Minutes Before Hitting The Republican For Saying There Was Economic Progress, Obama Himself Admitted, "Our Economy Actually Expanded Over The Last Seven Years, That's True." (Bonney Kapp, "Obama Says McCain Is 'Disconnected' On Economy," embeds.blogs.foxnews.com (http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/18/obama-says-mccain-is-disconnected- on-economy/), 4/18/08)


PDF Format (http://www.gop.com/images/research/042508Research4.pdf)


A Product Of The RNC Research Department


Source: Republican National Committee

CONTACT: Republican National Committee, +1-202-863-8614


Web Site: GOP

ENPR: Pa. Win Gives Hillary a Super-Delegate Wedge Outlook

ENPR: Pa. Win Gives Hillary a Super-Delegate Wedge Outlook
by Robert Novak and Timothy P. Carney

Posted: 04/23/2008


Outlook

Despite her impressive win in Pennsylvania, Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) still faces a very difficult path to the nomination. It is impossible for her to win more elected delegates than Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). It is possible that she could yet win a majority of the composite popular primary vote, but probably not without tallying the outlawed Michigan and Florida votes.


Clinton's more feasible path—though very difficult—is to convince the super-delegates, by winning the remaining primaries, that she has the momentum. The two most important future primaries are North Carolina and Indiana May 6, but North Carolina looks nearly impossible, considering that half of the state's 2.5 million registered voters are African-Americans.


That leaves Clinton with the hope that super-delegates will see Obama as a loser against Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). The attacks by her and husband Bill Clinton have been counterproductive, Obama's damage has been self-inflicted—especially the "bitter" speech in San Francisco.


To avoid such mistakes, Obama appears to be tamping down his rhetoric, as in his defeat statement from Evansville, Ind., that sounded like a victory statement. It also explains his backing out of a North Carolina debate. Obama would like to coast to the nomination.


Obama's difficulties and the prolongation of the Clinton-Obama confrontation have lifted Republicans from their slough of despondence to optimism about the presidential election. The transformation from deep pessimism to overriding optimism is such that McCain is privately warning supporters that once the nomination is decided and supporters of the losing Democratic candidate return to the fold, he will fall behind badly (though, McCain hopes, temporarily).


High-level Republican contributors and fund-raisers complain that the McCain campaign has not got its act in order and is still badly disorganized. This comes from very heavy GOP hitters.


Democratic Presidential

Pennsylvania Primary: Amid very high turnout, Clinton won the do-or-die Pennsylvania primary by a healthy 10-point margin.

Obama helped Hillary's margin of error with his comments about Pennsylvania's "bitter" voters. Exit polls say that 60% of late-deciders voted for Clinton.


She won in many of the Philadelphia suburbs, carrying Montgomery County, suggesting the endorsement and campaigning by Gov. Ed Rendell (D) was a real help. The former Philadelphia mayor is very popular among socially liberal upper-middle-class whites in these suburbs, and he was a key factor in bringing these voters into the Democratic party in his governor race in 2002.


In contrast, the endorsement of Obama by Sen. Bob Casey (D) seemed to carry little weight—typical of endorsements. Obama did terribly among Catholics, gun owners, and in the central parts of the state—where Casey was supposed to help.


Exit polls also suggest that Clinton won big among the groups Obama described as "bitter." She won around 56% of voters who attend church, including about 70% of Catholics and 58% of white Protestants. She also won 62% of gun owners. Obama's remarks that these "bitter" voters "cling" to their guns "to explain their frustrations" was both a result and a cause of his poor performance among this group.


The size of her victory—more than 200,000 votes—was crucial to her chances for the nomination. That knocks off more than a quarter of Obama's nation-wide popular-vote lead, leaving his edge at about 500,000. Big wins in Kentucky, Puerto Rico, and Indiana conceivably could make up that gap. If you count the Florida vote, Obama's lead is down to 200,000—a margin Clinton can easily overcome.


Clinton made a small gain in the delegate chase, picking up only a net of 12-14 delegates. Obama still leads by about 150 in the pledged delegates.
Super-Delegates: The super-delegates—the voters who really will decide the nomination—did not have their job made any easier.

From Super Tuesday until the first week of April—a span that included the Rev. Jeremiah Wright revelations—Obama gained super-delegate endorsements at a steady pace averaging almost two per day. Over this same period, Clinton averaged less than one new endorsement per day. This cut her super-delegate lead from 93 on February 3 down to 24 on April 6, according to "2008 Democratic Convention Watch" the website with the most thorough count of super-delegates.


Since early this month, however, the situation has stabilized with Obama's momentum halting. About 300 super-delegates remain undecided, and they will be the ones to determine the nomination. Will they take sides after yesterday's primary and the upcoming Indiana and North Carolina contests, or will most of them wait until after the voting is done in early June?


Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean went on television last week to call on super-delegates to make up their mind quickly. With Clinton's big win last night bringing the party no closer to resolution, Dean has possibly shone a light on his own impotence within the party.


Senate 2008

Overview: This will be another good year for Democratic Senatorial Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). Despite holding a razor-thin majority, Democrats have basically zero chance of losing control, and they are poised to make major gains.

Three GOP-held open seats (Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia) look ready to flip to the Democrats, and two Republican incumbents John Sununu (N.H.) and Norm Coleman (Minn.) are currently underdogs. Republicans have no good pickup opportunities. Democrats +5, 54-44 (2 I).

Competitive Senate Elections 2008
Likely Democratic Leaning Democratic Leaning Republican Likely Republican
Democrat-held Louisiana (Landrieu)

South Dakota (Johnson)
Republican-held Colorado (open) Alaska (Stevens) Kentucky (McConnell
Minnesota (Coleman) Idaho (open) Mississippi (Wicker)
New Hampshire (Sununu) Maine (Collins) Nebraska (open)
New Mexico (open) Wyoming (Barasso)
Virginia (open)

Minnesota: The matchup for November appears to be set, pitting freshman Sen. Norm Coleman (R) against liberal comedian Al Franken (D). Big-dollar trial lawyer Mike Ciresi (D) dropped out of the race last month, leaving Franken as the only top-tier candidate in a crowded Democratic field.

Minnesota is a swing state that Kerry and Gore barely won. Since 2000, the state has had six different senators: two Republicans, three Democrats, and one appointive independent. The late Sen. Paul Wellstone's (D) reelection in 1996 is the only time an incumbent has won a Senate seat here since 1988. Fifteen different men have held this seat since 1923, meaning each senator averaged less than one full term.

Republicans have to wonder, though, whether Minnesota is falling off the left side of the map. The 2006 elections proved to be a Democratic tsunami: in a Senate race that was supposed to be competitive, and in which she was outspent, Amy Klobuchar (D) won by 20 points, the largest margin of victory in a Senate election here since Hubert Humphrey (D). Meanwhile, Tim Walz (D) handily beat six-term incumbent Gil Gutknecht (R) despite Gutknecht's money edge. This is all reason for Coleman to worry.

Coleman originally won his seat in chaotic circumstance in 2002, when Wellstone died in a plane crash days before the election in which Wellstone was the slight favorite. Coleman bested the Democrats' replacement candidate, former Vice President Walter Mondale (D) in large part because of the party's tasteless transformation of the Wellstone memorial service into a Mondale pep rally.

Polls have generally shown a statistical tie, alternating between a slight Franken lead and a slight Coleman lead. Polling below 50% spells trouble for an incumbent.

Coleman, though, has been successful raising money. Also, Franken—whose schtick involves being obnoxious—has positives below 50% and higher negatives than Coleman.

This race, more than most, will come down to turnout. The two men who could drive turnout are Obama and Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R), who squeaked by to reelection in 2006. If Pawlenty is McCain's running mate, that might motivate otherwise depressed or apathetic Republicans. If Obama is the nominee, his huge bloc of support here (he beat Clinton 2-to-1 in the primary) could push Franken over the top. If Clinton is the nominee, however, it could have the opposite effect—energizing Republicans and depressing Obama's backers.

Assuming Obama is on the top of the ticket and Pawlenty is not, this looks like a Democratic pickup. Leaning Democratic Takeover.

House 2008

Kentucky-2: The retirement of Rep. Ron Lewis (R), announced at the last moment in an apparent attempt to hand the nomination to his former chief of staff, threatened to cost the GOP another seat, but this seat still leans Republican.

Former State Sen. Brett Guthrie (R), the pick of the National Republican Congressional Committee and state party boss, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R), has cleared the GOP field.

On the Democratic side, State Sen. David Boswell (D) faces Daviess County Judge Executive Reid Haire (D) in the primary. Haire is a strong fundraiser and holds a huge cash edge over Boswell, who has not faced a tough election recently. Boswell, however, has stronger name recognition and important union support. Both candidates had tried to talk the other out of the race, but now they face a contentious primary.

This is a Republican district, where Bush beat Kerry nearly two-to-one in 2004, though more conservative Democrats do better here. In last year's governor race, Democrat Steve Beshear carried every county in the district. McCain and McConnell should do well here, helping Guthrie, and there is no real Obama constituency here either, meaning the upticket races mainly benefit the GOP.

Guthrie is a veteran in a veteran-heavy district, and his cash advantage will be important because the rural district spans three media markets.

This should stay in the Republican column. Leaning Republican Retention.

Kentucky-3: Of the freshmen Democrats who won GOP-held seats in 2006, Rep. John Yarmuth (D) has one of the toughest opponents, but he also has played his hand well.

Former Rep. Anne Northup (R) won this seat in 1996 with 50% while Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole by 13 points. Al Gore and John Kerry also carried this district, but Northup kept on winning, often by narrow margins after spending huge sums. In 2006, the Democratic tidal wave nationwide combined with the state party's troubles stemming from Gov. Ernie Fletcher's indictment was enough to push this seat over to the Democrats. She is attempting a comeback in this Louisville-centered district.

Yarmuth has not upset his base or the swing voters who elected him, and he is a likable politician. While he won't have the same wind at his back he did in 2006, he will benefit from the presidential race if Obama is the nominee, driving the black turnout in the district and the liberal turnout at University of Louisville.

Northup, however, is a seasoned campaigner with very high name recognition. She has been raising money at a pace comparable to Yarmuth's. She challenged Fletcher in the governor primary last year, and so she may have some GOP enemies, which would be devastating in a close race. She faces no serious primary opposition.

If Hillary gets the nomination, Northup might have the upper hand. With Obama on the top of the ticket, Yarmuth should win. Leaning Democratic Retention.

Other Results Last Night

Mississippi-1: Republicans got something of shock yesterday when Prentiss County Clerk Travis Childers (D) nearly won outright the special election to fill the seat vacated by Roger Wicker (R), now an appointive senator. In the multi-party single-ballot primary, Childers finished with 49%, just 700 votes shy of the majority that would have given him the congressional seat without a runoff.

Southaven Mayor Greg Davis (R) finished second, a few points behind Childers, whom he will face in the May 13 runoff.

Davis and Childers on April 1 won their respective party primaries for the regular November election, but Davis's runoff win was particularly bruising.

By all rights, this is a Republican district: Bush won 62% here in 2004. Yesterday's results are a bad omen for Republicans wondering just how bad 2008 will be. If Childers wins the seat May 13, Democrats will be talking rout.

Pennsylvania-3: Pro-life arborist Kathy Dahlkemper (D) won the four-way primary with 45% in this northwestern Pennsylvania district, and she will face Phil English (R) in November. English generally has won reelection easily in the past, but in 2006, despite outspending his opponent 6 to 1, English was held to 54% here.

Districts like this one were at the heart of the Democrats' 2006 surge. This could be a tough retention for Republicans.

Pennsylvania-5: Retiring Rep. John Peterson (R) got his way, as his hand-picked successor won the GOP primary for this open seat. Centre Co. Republican Chairman Glenn Thompson (R) eked out a victory in a nine-way primary, while Club-for-Growth candidate, developer Matt Shaner (R) came in 1,400 votes behind Thompson in third place.

Democrats nominated Clearfield Co. Commissioner Mark McCracken (D). Thompson should win this race, but this year, it could get hairy.

Pennsylvania-10: Businessman Chris Hackett (R) defeated manufacturer Dan Meuser (R) 52% to 48% for the nomination in one of the most promising GOP pickup opportunities. Hackett faces Rep. Chris Carney (D) in this northeast Pennsylvania district with a heavy Republican bent. Carney won in 2006 thanks to the extra-marital affairs of Rep. Don Sherwood (R) and accusations that he strangled his mistress.