From Mr. Obama’s LGBT Leadership Council Member – Full email:
Hillary Clinton is a disaster for the democratic party. Now she prefers McCain to Obama. Now we know it was SHE who told the Canadian government that her railings against NAFTA were political posturing. It was not Barack’s campaign!We cannot tolerate her lies and stolen election.Time for all of us democratics to wake up to this disgusting turn. As democratics this should affirm the end of her campaign.At 3am, Hillary said she and Bill were in bed and she knows of all the calls a President gets at different times of the day and night. Really? So much involvement – so much togetherness. Where was she when Monica was having sex with Bill? 35 years of experience? When he was intimidating Katherine Wiley and Paula Jones? Where was the judgment on the cattle futures and white water. Do we forget Mark and Denise Rich? This was an impeached President who lost his licence to practice law. He committed perjury. They settled with Paula Jones for the full amount of her lawsuit. I haven’t forgotten and none of us should.I remember the scandal when the Clintons’ bags were searched when they left the White House and they had to return historic artifacts and gifts.When Bin Laden was building Al Qaeda, Bill and she were fighting impeachment, fighting Paula Jones, fighting Katherine Wiley.Please, we are going down a nasty road with a nasty, secretive and proven lying Clinton. We should all want to see her tax returns, I want to see her White House emails. Let really send this candidate what she deserves: the spotlight on her vetting. She says she’s been vetted. Partly true and it’s not pretty what came out.What still has to be vetted are her tax returns, her White House performance (we already know her disasterous failure on healthcare), her WH emails, the donations to the Clinton Foundation and library etc.Time to moveon again. Obama is the only credible candidate who can move on beyond this continuing nasty dynasty of Clinton and Bushes.
HillBuzz is aware of only one poll for Mississippi: a Real Clear Politics poll conducted on March 7, 2008:
HillBuzz has been running phone banks for Clinton the last few days and has had resoundingly positive responses. This could be interesting if the Undecideds break for Clinton, the way they have been in other states.
Also, Clinton leads Obama in white voters in the state, AND she leads in independents and Republicans, who are allowed to vote in the Democratic primary (and why not, since McCain secured the Republican nomination this week).
HillBuzz has no idea what’s going to happen, but if Obama loses Mississippi, a state he is heavily favored to win demographically, then this race is pretty much over. There won’t be a plausible argument the media can make for Obama, despite its endless cheerleading, if he loses the batteground state of Ohio, the big Democratic states like NY and CA, and loses Mississippi, a state he should win.
We’ll all find out what happens tomorrow.
* Every time a public opinion becomes almost unanimous it’s almost always wrong…only yesterday Obama was practicing his acceptance speech; his wife Michelle was mentally measuring the windows of her new home for replacement draperies, so that for the first time in her life, she could be proud of the White House.
* Instead, we’ve got a whole new story line — the gift of the older women of America, women “of a certain age” who turned out in enormous numbers to give Hillary a new life…Barack Obama is merely the latest new thing in town, something for the culture to chase and adore at the expense of the tried, the true and the unappreciated.
* Barack Obama, as the Democratic nominee, will feel the likeliest and longest-lasting effects of Hillary’s triumphs in Ohio and Texas. The licking he took in the latest primaries followed a week in which considerable damage was done to his halo. The “golden boy” may yet turn out to be a man not of gold, but of sounding brass. Questions grow louder about his connections to Tony Rezko, his accommodating friend and fundraiser, on trial now in Chicago for trying to shake down businessmen attempting to do business with the state of Illinois.
* But the worst of it may be questions about his truth-telling. When an Obama emissary was caught telling Canadian officials not to worry about the senator’s scorn for NAFTA because it was only campaign fibs and stretchers, the senator insisted nothing like that happened. When a Canadian diplomat confirmed yes it had, the senator conceded that yes, well, maybe something like that had happened after all. Then, he declined to take any more questions and stalked out of a press conference, saying he had said enough. Suddenly “the new thing,” the object of adulation and adoration, was beginning to look pretty much like “the old thing.” Hillary’s older women could have told you so.
Close Down the Caucuses
By Froma Harrop
One can assume that the people brawling into the late hours of a weekday night are not representative of your broad electorate, even in Texas. Compare the orderly primary vote in Ohio — where the results were known by bedtime — to the weird “Texas Two-Step,” which pasted a caucus onto a primary.
Actually, the primary part of the Texas process went smoothly. It was the caucus that led to the unseemly spectacle of pushing and shoving in overcrowded rooms. More worrisome, some caucus leaders apparently didn’t understand all the caucus rules.
Down with caucuses. They are not only chaotic, they are undemocratic.
Some decades ago, Democrats decided they didn’t want their presidential nominees picked in a smoked-filled room of old party dons. Open the windows, they said. Let the people decide. They even rejected winner-take-all state primaries, which award all the convention delegates to the candidate who scores a majority of votes. Candidates now receive convention delegates relative to their primary vote.
Proportional primaries and the caucus system have both worked against Hillary Clinton and for Barack Obama. Clinton consistently won the majority in the big-state primaries in California, New York and now Texas — but couldn’t walk off with all the delegates. With his core of impassioned supporters, Obama has been able to dominate the caucuses.
But this isn’t about what helps one candidate or another. It’s about whether the Democrats will complete the journey to empowering a broad range of their voters.
In primaries, a voter can show up at the polls anytime between, say, 8 a.m. and 9 p.m., cast a secret ballot and go home or to work. Caucuses are run at a set hour. If you couldn’t show up at an Iowa caucus precinct at 7 p.m. on Jan. 3 (a Thursday), you couldn’t participate in the nation’s first presidential contest. Only 227,000 people attended the Iowa Democratic caucuses, a population smaller than that of Norfolk, Va. Yet Obama’s strong showing there provided him with powerful “momentum” — at least according to the herd analysis.
Caucus rules are often complicated. That, too, turns off many people who will vote in November but don’t care enough to go through the caucus hassle. The deliberations are public, and that lets activists bully shy participants into supporting their candidate.
Any event that takes place at a specific hour — no matter what the hour — can’t be democratic. Nevada Democrats contended that their caucuses were easy to attend because they were held on a Saturday afternoon. The Texan caucuses were scheduled to start after dinner.
But the notion that these caucuses were held outside of normal working hours is a relic of the time when there were normal working hours. Midday or 7 p.m. can be peak times for employees at McDonald’s. Wal-Marts may be open from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., even on Sundays. And workers in 24-7 industries (finance, cyber-retailing, call centers) toil at 3 a.m.
And for those home by 7 p.m., how many are in any mood to drive to a caucus for an evening of strife? After a hard day’s work, one might rather see the kids or collapse on the couch. Any event limited to a few hours is impossible for the mother who can’t find childcare covering that particular time slot.
We can thank the Texas Two-Step for clearly showing how the caucus method of allotting delegates is cracked. The caucuses favored one candidate (Obama) mere moments after the wider electorate chose the other (Clinton). Democrats cannot truly open the process of choosing a candidate until they close down the caucuses
The media is covering up something that should terrify Democrats: if Obama is the nominee, 20% of Hillary Clinton’s supporters will vote for John McCain.
Clinton’s supporters tend to be blue collar, working class Democrats, immune to Obamania. They resolutely stand with Clinton, but will abandon Obama in a minute.
Obama’s strongest supporters come from African Americans, whites making over $100,000, and young Democratic voters. These people will vote Democratic no matter whom the party nominates in the fall. Yes, Obama has attracted more people in these groups into the process, but if anyone disappears back into the woodwork with Clinton as the nominee, these blocks of people will not vanish completely. They will just readjust down to pre-Obamania numbers. But, they will not go over to McCain. They may sit out the election, but they will not defect.
20% of Clinton’s supporters will, in fact, become Democrats for McCain, the way Reagan Democrats emerged in 1980. These people are “moderate Democrats” whose chief concerns are bread and butter issues. They are not impressed by razzle-dazzle and Oprahbamapalooza.
This particular article notes that while Obama held enormous rallies with 10,000 screaming young people in Rhode Island, he lost the state by 59-40. Oprahbamapalooza does not translate into primary state wins where blue collar workers are the deciding factor (as they are in most high-electoral college vote states). All of Obama’s red-state caucus wins will be moot in a general election against McCain, since those Obama wins came in 10 of the 11 most solidly Republican states.
To date, Obama has done nothing to prove he will re-write the electoral map and carry those red states in the fall. So, handing him the nomination because of delegates he racked up in caucus states will, in effect, hand the presidency to John McCain.
WALL STREET JOURNAL
Obama Pastors’ Sermons May Violate Tax Laws
Famous Parishioner Disavows Himself From Partisan Tilt
By SUZANNE SATALINE
March 10, 2008; Page A1
On Christmas morning, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. compared presidential candidate Barack Obama’s impoverished childhood to Jesus Christ’s. “Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people,” he then trumpeted. “Hillary [Clinton] can never know that.”
Mr. Wright wasn’t at a convention or a campaign stop. He was standing at the pulpit before the mostly African-American congregation of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, where Sen. Obama has worshiped for more than 20 years.
Mr. Wright, who will be ending his 36-year tenure as the church’s senior pastor in June, has previously been criticized for comments deriding President George Bush and lauding Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam. Now Mr. Wright’s and his successor’s repeated enthusiastic promotion of their famous parishioner may be running afoul of federal tax law, which says churches can endanger their tax-exempt status by endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.
Sen. Obama’s campaign issued a statement saying that he has repeatedly stressed that personal attacks “have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they’re offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church.” The statement also said he “does not think of the pastor of his church in political terms. Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Senator Obama deeply disagrees.” Mr. Wright declined to comment.
Trinity’s national parent, the United Church of Christ, recently disclosed that it’s being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service for a speech Sen. Obama gave to 10,000 people at a church conference in June in Hartford, Conn., in which he mentioned his candidacy and parts of his platform, namely health-care reform.
Scholars and attorneys say that a growing number of congregations are delving into issue advocacy and partisan politics, a trend dating back to the 1980s, when the religious right enlisted churches to fight abortion. An increasing number of complaints to the IRS over church politicking have triggered agency probes into both liberal and conservative religious groups. A Baptist church in California has acknowledged it’s under IRS scrutiny after a watchdog group complained that the church backed Republican Mike Huckabee in his recently ended bid for the White House.
“There have never been more audits than in the last three or four years” involving churches, says Marcus Owens, an attorney who represents some congregations and is a former director of the IRS’s exempt-organizations division. But while the agency has issued dozens of warning letters aimed at halting advocacy for political candidates, it has only twice revoked a church’s tax-exempt status since the tax law was amended in 1954, a spokeswoman said.
Under the law that governs tax-exempt organizations, churches are allowed to support causes or ballot initiatives such as laws to ban same-sex marriage. They also can hold a candidates’ night for all office-seekers in a race. But according to guidance provided on the IRS’s Web site, churches are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”
The prohibition is aimed at preventing government subsidies — in the form of tax breaks — from going to organizations that support political parties. Other types of nonprofits are permitted to engage in partisan political activity but have more limited tax protections. For instance, their financial supporters aren’t allowed to claim tax deductions for their donations.
With 6,000 members, Trinity is the largest United Church of Christ congregation. The church is centered in a poor Chicago neighborhood, near public housing and down the road from Cut Rate Food & Liquors, which posts a sign reading “No drug dealing.” A review by The Wall Street Journal of 13 sermons at Trinity seen live or through church-recorded DVDs since late December found nine instances of ministers at Trinity appearing to promote Sen. Obama’s candidacy.
From the Pulpit
Some of the sermons mentioned Sen. Clinton or her husband in unflattering ways. During that Christmas morning sermon, Mr. Wright declared that Hillary Clinton “ain’t had to work twice as hard just to get accepted by the rich white folk who run everything or to get a passing grade when you know you are smarter than that ‘C’ student sitting in the White House.” On Jan. 13, Mr. Wright told the Trinity congregation that some people say, “‘Hillary is married to Bill and Bill [has] been good to us.’” Mr. Wright continued, “No, he ain’t!” Sen. Clinton’s campaign didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Ellen Aprill, an associate dean at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a former adviser to the Treasury Department on matters including nonprofit tax law, says she believes those sermons are “clearly a violation. They’re naming names.”
Donald Tobin, an associate dean at Ohio State University law school, who formerly worked for the Justice Department on nonprofit tax matters, adds that nonprofits cannot make endorsements or engage in a “pattern and practice that is designed to support one candidate over another.” After being read sections of the Trinity sermons by the Journal, he said, “There does seem to be a pattern of attempting to tip the scales in a way for Barack Obama. And churches shouldn’t be doing that.”
Allusions to Candidate
In some instances, the church’s ministers alluded to Sen. Obama without naming him. During a Trinity sermon observed by a Journal reporter on March 2, the Rev. Otis Moss III, the pastor, preached, “There was a non-Babylonian, a young man who heard the word of God and said, ‘I have the audacity to hope!’ Now the whole nation says, ‘Yes, we can! Yes, we can! Yes, we can!’”
“Because that phrase is so identified with Barack Obama and because he is a member of the congregation, it’s possible that it could be interpreted as an implicit endorsement,” Ms. Aprill says. Mr. Moss didn’t return calls seeking comment.
Congregants are hearing more about politics during worship services than they did decades ago, scholars say. A 2006 poll of 3,000 churchgoers found that about a third of Roman Catholics and white evangelicals and 42% of black Protestants said politics and social issues had been discussed from the pulpit at least “once every month or two,” according to David Campbell, a political science professor at the University of Notre Dame, who commissioned the survey for a book he is helping to write on churches’ civic life.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit, says it has filed 13 complaints with the IRS in the past year over alleged church politicking. They include allegations that churches made endorsements from the pulpit or on church stationery for Sen. Obama or Mr. Huckabee, says Rob Boston, a spokesman. One of those complaints involves First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif., which has acknowledged that it’s under federal investigation. The ministry endorsed Mr. Huckabee on its stationery and its Internet radio program, Americans United said.
The IRS won’t disclose how many congregations it is currently investigating. Last July, the agency reported that it was reviewing complaints involving 44 churches and 56 other nonprofits related to the 2006 election cycle and had, at that point, found 26 cases of improper political activity. The agency examined 110
cases during the 2004 elections, issuing 69 advisories, akin to warning letters, and revoked the tax-exempt status of five nonprofits, none of them churches.
Since Congress amended the tax law in 1954 to restrict campaign activity by nonprofits, only two churches have had their tax-exemptions revoked, according to the IRS. The most recent case involved Branch Ministries Inc., which ran a church in Binghamton, N.Y., and placed full-page ads in two newspapers in 1992 urging Christians not to vote for then-candidate Bill Clinton. The IRS decision was upheld on appeal.
Losing tax-exempt status would be a serious blow to any church. It likely would be subject to income taxes and not be able to solicit tax-deductible contributions. Any IRS investigation — even if it doesn’t lead to any action — can embroil a church in months, sometimes years, of costly legal battles.
Obama has repeatedly said two things throughout this campaign:
(1) That he was engaged in a new kind of politics, “The Politics of Hope”, which centers around “new rules” and “change”.
(2) That his inexperience as a candidate is mitigated by the coterie of advisors surrounding him, culled largely from Harvard, University of Chicago, and academia at large: no Washington “insiders” here, all “outsiders” bringing “change”.
Well, HillBuzz wonders how Obama maintains a “new kind of politics” when his advisors engage in backhanded shennanigans like the scandals that broke this week: NAFTAgate and Monstergate. Two different senior advisors (Goolsbee and Power), one economic and one foreign policy, said, within the span of a week, that Obama is only “playing politics” and telling voters what they want to hear now (about NAFTA and troop withdrawels in Afghanistan and Iraq), but intending to dishonor those promises if the Obama Nation makes it to Washington. He has no intention to keep his campaign promises for change, they insisted.
His senior advisors’ total and complete lack of judgement also makes HillBuzz wonder whose hands our government would fall into should the Obama Nation occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. One of the greatest shortcomings of the Bush Administration was the hubris of Rumsfeld, Rice, and Cheney, key advisors to George Dubya, who came to Washington promising change and a different kind of politics (in their case, “compassionate conservatism”, whatever that was supposed to be). Instead, Rumsfeld dusted off old war plans he dreamed of using for 8 years, Rice wholly ignored warnings of Al Queda plans because she knew better and wanted to focus on Russia, and Cheney channeled Burgess Meredith, channeling The Penguin, and apparently has plotted to take over Gotham City ever since. When your advisors have no idea how Washington works, and you have no idea how Washington works, and no one seems really concerned about the realities of governing, enormous mistakes are made.
Will America repeat all this? Fool us once, shame on Bush. Fool us twice, shame on us.
In the cases of Goolsbee and Power, the comments carried serious weight. Obama was trying to argue before the Ohio contest that he was more trustworthy than Clinton on fixing the flaws in NAFTA — and more trustworthy in general. Power’s “monster” comment cast doubt on his campaign’s contention that Clinton has been running the more personally negative campaign. Furthermore, steadfast opposition to the presence of American troops in Iraq is one of the chief points of contrast that has benefited Obama in his fight against Clinton. In recent days, news organizations for the first time have stepped up their scrutiny of Obama’s campaign, and the Goolsbee and Power flaps have provided plenty of fodder for this new attention.