Let’s get this Party started
This interesting segment from ABC News discusses the unwillingness of all of this campaign’s major presidential candidates — from both parties — to release their tax information.
All but one, that is. Have a look:
One particularly interesting and provocative moment from Sen. Obama’s This Week interview came when he was asked about affirmative action. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson describes his answer:
Obama waded into the central issue of the affirmative action debate: race vs. class.
…George Stephanopoulos asked Obama whether his daughters should be able to benefit from affirmative action when the time comes for them to go to college. The girls “should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged,” Obama said.
Stephanopoulos was driving at the question of whether race-based affirmative action programs are still needed. Another way to frame the issue is whether race or class is the more important factor in our society. Are minorities who are raised in middle-class or wealthy homes still held back by racism? Or should we now focus on socioeconomic status as the principal barrier keeping people from reaching their potential?
Obama’s answer, basically, was yes. To both questions.
Robinson went on to note that “Obama has repeatedly gone on record as a supporter of affirmative action,” but added that “He seemed to side with those who think class predominates when he said, ‘I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed.’”
In other words, an acknowledgment that racial prejudice remains a major obstacle to educational ascendancy in this country, but an affirmation that it is increasingly the economic hurdles of college applicants that make the most sense for admissions officers to consider.
It is not something that is often discussed aloud, it is quite simply not every day that an African American politician suggests shifting affirmative action from a race-based to a class-based system. This is precisely the sort of chutzpah and commitment to ideas — as opposed to ideologies — that has propelled Sen. Obama to the front of this race.
We’ve done bluster and bravado. The 2008 campaign will be about pragmatism, reason and results. Sen. Obama understands this, perhaps better than anyone.
For those who missed it, Sen. Obama had a great discussion with George Stephanopoulos yesterday on ABC’s This Week. Here’s the video, in three installments courtesy of YouTuber lovingj1:
Sen. Obama crashes a certain Woman of the Year event in this ridiculous MadTV clip:
As is so consistently their custom, conservative blogs picked up and ran with a report claiming that Sen. Obama made a mistake — in this case, that he misstated the fuel economy of Japanese-made cars — without checking to see if he was actually wrong.
Newsflash: he wasn’t.
As Media Matters for America documents, the hubbub began when a Chicago Tribune columnist “wrote that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) ‘has more homework to do’ and ’should [hire] a fact-checker’ because Obama stated that ‘Japanese cars [are] now getting an average of 45 miles to the gallon.’” The article quoted a Toyota rep saying “I’m not sure where he got that figure…No carmaker gets 45 m.p.g.”
Instantly, rightwing blogs picked this up and ran with it like a fat kid with a piece of cake. As Hotline On Call points out, the rightwing media site Newsbusters used it as an excuse to launch one more liberal bias jihad against the media:
Obama makes another mistake, will media report it? –The junior senator and god-in-the-making bungles the facts on the fuel efficiency of American and Japanese cars. Will the media report this “lie?”
As of this posting, Newsbusters has yet to wipe the egg off their face. But the facts are undeniable, as the Hotline and Media Matters also note. From the Hotline:
Obama was right. In the US, Japanese-made cars would get 45 m.p.g. assuming they were subjected to the US fuel economy test cycle. Here’s the wonky paper he based his claim on.
And MMFA:
The report also stated that, according to the Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association, the 2002 average fleet fuel economy value in Japan was 46.3 miles per gallon. More recently, on March 21, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) asked former Vice President Al Gore at a House hearing if he supported an “increase [in fuel-economy standards] like they have in Japan, that’s over 45 miles per gallon?”
Media Matters goes on helpfully to chart the uncorrected, mindless repetition of this falsehood through the conservative blogosphere. I’m beginning to understand why unaccountability is so rampant among Republican politicians, who apparently take the cue from their supporters…
- In a May 10 blog post, National Review Online contributor Jim Geraghty wrote that Obama “Botched the Facts” and that the column was a “good catch.”
- In a May 10 post, Power Line blogger Paul Mirengoff uncritically wrote that “Jim Geraghty reports that Obama botched his facts.” Fellow Power Line blogger John Hinderaker added that “Obama is showing a disconcerting tendency to make things up, as well as a lack of common sense” because “it should be obvious that no company’s entire fleet of automobiles — let alone a country’s — averages 45 mpg.”
- In a May 11 post, Jim Addison of Wizbang Politics uncritically cited Mirengoff’s post, writing that Obama “misstated fuel economy statistics, according to Paul Mirengoff of Power Line.” Addison added that “Obama’s youth and inexperience is [sic] beginning to show.”
- A May 11 post on Human Events Online’s Rightometer blog linked to the Tribune column under the headline “Obama Must be Tired Again.” The post also quoted “The Whistler” of the blog Say Anything, who wrote in a May 11 post about the Tribune column that Obama is “a fool” who is “willing to make up anything he has to” and suggested that Obama has no “grip on reality.”
Memo to conservative bloggers: it’s called research. Give it a try sometime.
In this spooky loony fringe video, which falsely suggests that Sen. Obama was “raised as a Muslim” and then follows up with the non-sequitor rhetorical question “Can we trust him?,” a close-up on Sen. Obama’s eyes during his exploratory announcement video is apparently an acceptable stand-in for any sort of substance whatsoever.
Bask, friends, in the ignorance of Sen. Obama’s rightwing detractors:
For an explanation of why hateful videos about Sen. Obama are screening on this site, please see this post.
You can view all “Expose the Hate” posts here.
I received an email tonight from a staff member at ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, where Sen. Obama will be appearing this Sunday. She made a very interesting pitch that is unprecedented among the Sunday shows, as far as I know. Have a look — I think you’ll be impressed:
[Y]our readers may be interested in a new feature for This Week - “Be Seen, Be Heard” We’ve set it up so people can submit video questions to our guests (with chosen ones featured on This Week). They can submit videos to Senator Obama at this link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/BeSeenBeHeard/story?id=3078388, or they can email questions to thisweek@abc.com.
This strikes me as an excellent opportunity to ask any questions you may have for Sen. Obama in a public forum — and a valuable chance for him to address the concerns of real people, in real time.
What are the best questions we can pose? Questions that give him a chance to talk about his plan to end the war in Iraq? His thoughts on the administration’s lack of accountability? His top priorities for his first term? It would be great to read your thoughts on this and any ideas for questions in the comments section.
And here’s the video promo for this week’s This Week:
Much is being made in some quarters over Sen. Obama’s comment in Iowa that there’s “at least one senator in Iowa who could be helpful” in overriding President Bush’s veto of Congress’s Iraq funding bill. In response, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley — the subject of Sen. Obama’s remark — called the comment “not senatorial,” adding that “when you’re in another state, you don’t take pokes at a fellow senator.”
Boo freaking hoo. According to the Chicago Tribune, Grassley went on to assert that “he would never go into Illinois and tell Obama’s constituents to ‘get on him about something.’” “You know what really makes it less presidential,” Grassley said, is “I’m not running for president. I’m not one of his opponents.”
Except that, on the issue of the war, you are.
Inexplicably, the Trib titles their report on the exchange “Obama’s Faux Pas,” as if encouraging people to encourage their representatives to override the veto is somehow a “mistake” — as if adhering to the “gentlemanly” senatorial protocol is somehow more important than the moral imperative of ending an immoral war.
Sorry Chuck, but it looks like the U.S. Senate is no longer a safe haven for thin-skinned whiners. To reappropriate a favorite old phrase, You’re ass is Grassley, and Sen. Obama’s the lawnmower.
UPDATE: This evening’s Post headline: “Obama Renews Pressing Grassley on Iraq.”
Most presidential candidates would rather eat their own shoe than confront an interest group with an uncomfortable truth. Not so for Sen. Obama.
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois delivered a stern message to Detroit auto companies on Monday, saying they had done little to lessen the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and needed to improve the fuel efficiency of their vehicles.
Sounding at times like a teacher scolding a lazy but promising student, Mr. Obama at the same time proposed incentives to help General Motors, Ford and Chrysler out of a lingering slump that has resulted in dozens of plant closings and the elimination of tens of thousands of jobs this decade.
…Mr. Obama, making his first campaign visit to Michigan, said he wanted to be blunt with Detroit auto companies on their home turf.
…“I’m making this proposal here today because I don’t believe in making proposals in California and giving a different speech in Michigan,” he said. His goal “is not to destroy the industry, but to help bring it into the 21st century,” he said.
The article notes that Sen. Obama’s plan would mandate “a 4 percent a year increase in fuel economy standards beginning in 2009, or the equivalent of about one mile per gallon per year.” The result would be conservation of 2.5 million barrels daily. Sen. Obama also plans to assist automakers in updating their plants and “in dealing with their burden of paying for current and retired workers’ health care expenses.”
He also plans to “Expand the tax breaks for buying hybrids and ultra-efficient vehicles that use biofuels,” according to a Chicago Sun-Times report.
Perhaps most telling in the Times article, though, are the remarks of folks who attended the speech, and who were impressed by Sen. Obama’s substance and the details of his plan:
“I think it took a lot of courage to come to Detroit and lay it on the line,” said Peter Eckstein, a retired labor union economist from Ann Arbor, Mich.
Leonard Mungo, a Detroit lawyer, said he was surprised to hear specific proposals for addressing the industry’s problems. “He’s saying, ‘You got yourselves into this mess, but now this is how we get out,’” Mr. Mungo said.
Here’s the headline of an AP story out today:
“Obama’s Wife Says Supporters to Bring Energy to Presidential Campaign.”
And another, from the Post:
“Wife Touts Obama’s ‘Moral Compass.’“
And how about one more, from the Nashua Telegraph:
“Michelle Obama says husband has experience that counts.”
Media coverage in the run-up to the campaign suggested that it was Michelle Obama, the professional, intelligent and classy wife of Sen. Barack Obama, who harbored the most qualms about her husband’s potential run. But now that he’s in, he couldn’t hope for a more ardent, devoted and compelling advocate.
Michelle Obama has been on the campaign trail since February, and everywhere she goes she draws large, interested crowds, engaging them with funny anecdotes about her husband and ultimately inspiring them with testimony about his commitment to justice and public service. Once the campaign skeptic, Michelle Obama is quickly becoming one of its biggest assets.
I’ve long believed that as the public comes to know Michelle Obama, they will see in her the sort of strong, independent but deeply supportive woman they want standing alongside their president. To help in that process, here is a great video of her speech to the Women for Obama group, where she discusses balancing her different roles during the campaign:
And here is another short video that profiles Michelle Obama’s life:
Oliver Willis highlights the recent pro-Obama sartorial stylings of stunning actresses Jessica Biel and Halle Berry.
Will they bring millions of voters with them? Perhaps not. But they do represent something even more important: the draw many previously unaffiliated voters feel toward the Obama camp.
And how strong is that draw? According to this article, strong enough to lure “disillusioned supporters of President George W. Bush” into the fold. The article reports that former Bush donors, friends, and even staffers “are defecting to Barack Obama, the Democratic senator for Illinois, as the White House candidate with the best chance of uniting a divided nation.”
Click below for more from the article (which is very much worth a read).
The big campaign news late last week was that Sen. Obama was placed under Secret Service protection, the first presidential candidate ever to be guarded so early in a campaign. The reason has not been made public by the Secret Service or the Obama campaign, but Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff signed off on it “after consultations with House and Senate leaders in both parties,” according to the Post.
There should be no doubt that credible threats to Sen. Obama’s safety prompted this decision.
Should we really be surprised? We’ve documented here the sort of fanatical rage that many on the right feel toward Sen. Obama in our “Expose the Hate” feature. In many cases, his skin color is a major factor in their disparagement — as it was for Rush Limbaugh, whose racist “Barack the Magic Negro” song (posted here last week) is now making headlines.
One journalist tracked the fixation some white supremacist groups have on Sen. Obama, and made an important point about how deeply un-American these attacks on Sen. Obama actually are, especially in the context of the struggle against terrorism:
[T]here is no telling how many potential black candidates–for the presidency, or for lower office–have been dissuaded by white supremacist groups. If we are serious about fighting terrorists who threaten U.S. interests, we should be equally serious about making sure that homegrown terrorists do not get to decide who runs for president.
A witty take-off on the Mac/PC ad campaign…
Apparently Sen. Obama is coming to the aid of netizens interested in posting video segments of the presidential debates online, something they are currently technically forbidden to do (though we did it here). From the AP:
In a letter to Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, the Illinois senator said he supports an effort by a bipartisan coalition of academics, bloggers and Internet activists who have asked the Democratic and Republican parties to make the video available.
…”I am a strong believer in the importance of copyright, especially in the digital age,” Obama wrote. “But there is no reason that this particular class of content needs the protection. We have incentive enough to debate. The networks have incentive enough to broadcast those debates.
“Rather than restricting the product of those debates, we should instead make sure that our democracy and citizens have the chance to benefit from them in all the ways that technology makes possible.”
I’ll be away from computers for much of the weekend, but look forward to resuming normal posting next week (starting with Absurd Obama Video Sunday, of course).
In the meantime, check out these great Obama blogs for news about all things Obama:
The Official Obama Campaign blog
Have a great weekend!
