The Jung Jurks

The Collected Writings of David G

noreply@blogger.com (Homertojeebus) — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:43:00 +0000

Clinton Conference Call 3/27/08

noreply@blogger.com (Homertojeebus) — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:52:00 +0000

Conference Call with Howard Wolfson, Neera Tanden and Phil Singer
March 27th, 2008

WOLFSON:
Good afternoon, everyone.
It's Howard Wolfson at the <Clinton> campaign. I'm the communications director here. Joined with me today is our policy director, Neera Tanden, and Phil Singer, our deputy communications director.
I want to turn it over to Neera to talk a little bit about the proposal that Senator <Clinton> offered today and a little bit about what Senator Obama said today. And then we'll be happy to take your questions on these or any topics.
So, Neera, if you could begin.
TANDEN:
Thank you.
Yes, I wanted to just spell out a little bit of what <Hillary> announced today, building on her very aggressive policies to expand jobs in the United States.
Today she laid out a three-step plan to ensure that workers are prepared for the 21st-century economy with the resources and training that they need to get new jobs, to get higher-wage jobs that are so critical.
As she laid out today, in today's economy, what you earn depends more and more on what you learn. She has a long record of focus and attention on training for our workers. And today, she built upon that record by outlining three important proposals to address the needs of workers.
The most important, the first proposal, is ensuring that worker adjustment assistance is universally available. Today we have a Trade Adjustment Assistance program that provides assistance training and income support to a narrow set of workers who lose jobs because their plans to relocate to another country.
She believes that we need to expand that program to make it more universally available. She's investing $10 billion over five years to create a universal system where every dislocated worker is eligible for a basic set of training adjustment, job search benefits, you know, access to education for those people who lost their jobs due to trade, outsourcing, technological change or economic downturn.
She really believes that we need to ensure that these benefits that are so helpful are really available to more and more Americans.
She also would expand Pell Grants to make them more available to people who are working. Right now the program is very targeted, because of the income requirements, to students, young people.
TANDEN:
She wants to make Pell Grants more available to people who are -- could go to college at night, people who are trying to upgrade their skills who are already in the workforce.
She also has a variety of proposals. Her retirement savings accounts, American retirement accounts as we've laid them out, would allow for 401(k)s for education and training. That's a $1,000 matching tax cut that would be available to more workers.
And we have detailed press paper and I'm happy to answer questions on that topic.
I also wanted to respond to Senator Obama's speech today in New York City.
Most importantly, Senator Obama laid out a $30 billion stimulus plan, what he called a second stimulus.
Now, I think I would like to call people's attention to the fact that precisely one week ago today <Hillary> proposed a $30 billion second stimulus focused on housing. Literally a week later, Senator Obama came out with virtually the same proposal.
And our concern about that is simply that if Senator Obama can't come up with real proposals on his own to address people's problems on the campaign trail, how's he going to address people's problems if he were to be president?
And so we also are concerned that his speech this morning laid out a broad series of vague principles without laying out concrete proposals to address the housing crisis, as <Hillary> did earlier this week with a very aggressive four-step proposal to address the broad housing and credit crisis through government backing up of an auction system for buying up large numbers of mortgages to address the problems of underwater mortgages.
And with that, I'll turn it over to Howard. And if the people have specific questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
WOLFSON:
Great. Thank you, Neera.
Neera will be able to stay on for about 20, 30 minutes or so.
WOLFSON:
Phil and I will stay on longer.
So, if you have specific policy-related questions that would fly above my head and Phil's head but would be right in Neera's wheelhouse, please direct them to her earlier rather than later, because she'll be with us for about 20 minutes or so.
And with that, operator, if we could open up the line for questions.
QUESTION:
Other than conducting these conference calls, is there a strategy to address the growing belief by members of the mainstream media and the public that <Hillary> <Clinton>'s campaign is no longer statistically viable and is serving only to demonstrate her capacity for denial and determination to stay in the race, even at the expense of her party's chances in November?
WOLFSON:
Thank you for the question. I'd like to just get your name, it would be helpful.
QUESTION:
Oh, yes. Jeff Kramer, sorry.
WOLFSON:
Are you with a media organization or...
QUESTION:
Yes. The Post Standard Syracuse. I'm the freelance humor columnist for that organization.
WOLFSON:
Great. Thank you. I just didn't recognize your voice. Appreciate it.
QUESTION:
OK.
WOLFSON:
You know, I do think that we have seen an effort on the part of the Obama campaign to attempt to persuade as many people as possible that the race is essentially over and that they have the election in the bag.
And I had the opportunity yesterday to speak to some of our strong and committed donors in New York yesterday, and I'll tell you what I told them about this.
WOLFSON:
You know, in campaigns it is always better, in my opinion, if you're following what's going on, to watch what the campaigns do rather than what they say.
And what the Obama campaign says is that the race is over and that we have no chance to win.
But what they do belies that, because every day since Ohio and Texas, and lately with increasing ferocity, the Obama campaign engages in a systematic effort to attack Senator <Clinton>'s character, to attack her in personal terms. And they are doing it despite the fact that it undermines the central premise of Senator Obama's candidacy -- that is to say that he was going to change the tenor and tone of our politics -- and they do it despite the fact that they claim that the race is over.
So I can only conclude, not by what they say, but what they do, that they know the race is very much alive, they know that Senator <Clinton> can well be the nominee, and in order to address that reality they have chosen not to build up their own candidate, but to savage Senator <Clinton> on a daily basis.
So I guess I would direct you and others not to the Obama spin, but to the Obama action. And the action is a daily conference call on their part designed to attack Senator <Clinton>'s character in the most personal terms, even though they know that in doing so they risk undermining the central premise of Senator Obama's candidacy, because, of course, those kinds of attacks are directly at odds with how Senator Obama presents himself.
So if the Obama campaign is willing to take the risk of undermining the central premise of his candidacy on a daily basis by savaging Senator <Clinton> in personal terms, they are going to do that only if they believe it is necessary for their victory.
So that's what I would say to that.
QUESTION:
A question for Neera on a couple of the economic things.
Would you tell us what the tax breaks that are available to businesses who ship jobs overseas are, exactly (inaudible)?
WOLFSON:
Did you have another one?
QUESTION:
Yes, yes.
And also, on the oil companies, weren't some of those tax breaks in order to encourage them to drill in U.S. territory, so that the jobs would stay here and the energy would be in the continental United States?
WOLFSON:
Thanks. I appreciate the question. Neera actually had to jump off. But we have brought in her very able associate, Brian Deese, who will take those questions.
DEESE:
On the first one, the main provision that Senator <Clinton> is referring to is what is known as deferral, which currently companies with subsidiaries abroad are able to defer paying taxes on the active profit earned abroad, until or unless it's brought back into the United States.
And so she would reform and amend that provision so that it no longer provides an incentive for those companies to locate production and jobs overseas.
And on the second, I'd be happy to follow up and give you the details -- go through the details of the tax provisions that were in the 2006 bill. But I think, overall, the package of tax breaks in that bill was clearly designed to provide a windfall to oil companies.
And Senator <Clinton> opposed it and continues to oppose those because they are neither good economic policy, smart economic policy, nor are they fair in the context of the record profits that we're seeing.
QUESTION:
How can I reach you later on that?
DEESE:
You can just be directly in touch with Phil and Phil can connect you and I.
TANDEN:
And Neera's still on.
I would just add to that that...
WOLFSON:
Sorry, Neera.
(LAUGHTER)
TANDEN:
... Senator <Clinton> strongly believes and has laid out a detailed series of proposals to ensure that we are investing in creating alternative energy jobs in the United States.
TANDEN:
She proposed last fall an aggressive plan to create at least 5 million new jobs -- alternative energy jobs, high-wage jobs in the United States.
So, we appreciate some of the concern from the oil and gas industry, but we have a very aggressive jobs agenda related to agenda.
WOLFSON:
Next question.
Sorry, Neera, about that.
(LAUGHTER)
I apologize. I was told you were off.
Next question, if we could?
QUESTION:
Neera, if you're still on, with the $30 billion stimulus is -- you know, it's similar to what <Clinton> proposed.
But what about the financial regulatory piece of the Obama plan that he laid out today? Does she have anything like that in her proposal?
TANDEN:
Well, we've laid out -- and I'll let Brian also add in here -- we've laid out, actually, very detailed proposals around regulating the mortgage market. And I'm happy to e-mail those to you and send them around.
We believe very strongly that there is needed oversight. <Hillary> has talked about that -- these issues for over a year. She laid out a series of proposals to regulate the subprime mortgage market over a year ago, March 15th, 2007.
And her proposals have been specific rather than principles to -- broad principles, some of which Secretary Paulson enunciated yesterday. She's laid out and as she believes the job of the president is really to tell the American people what they would do, what proposals -- concrete proposals she would make. And she's done that throughout this campaign and we can send those to you.
Brian, if you want to add?
QUESTION:
Just really quick -- thank you -- really quickly, what is the biggest difference, then, between what she's proposing and what he's proposing? Is it just that he's not specific?
TANDEN:
Well, she -- my concern about what Senator Obama enunciated today were that -- were just broad notions that there's very little to disagree with.
I mean, his broad idea is not specific proposals of what to do around subprime or the mortgage market or the housing crisis, or specific ideas on how we would conduct particular oversight of the new financial instruments like derivatives or anything like that, you know?
TANDEN:
I mean, <Hillary> spoke last December about derivatives and gave very specific proposals around that. Senator Obama today just laid out sort of broad language about these issues.
WOLFSON:
It's Howard. I'll let Brian step in, if you want to.
But, you know, from a political perspective, I think we all know what's going on here. There's been an awful lot written about the fact that Senator Obama has not been able to connect with voters expressing real concern about the economy, and so rather belatedly he has chosen to follow Senator <Clinton> into this arena and begin to offer some ideas.
And what is particularly striking about what he offered today is that in suggesting a second stimulus of $30 billion he's following our proposal by a week. I mean, that is not leadership. That's followership.
SINGER:
This is Phil.
Just to echo that point, I would just perhaps draw a quick comparison to Governor Patrick, who lent him some lines a few months ago, if you'll all recall when that little hubbub came about.
Well, suffice it to say, the Obama campaign didn't call over here looking to borrow some policy ideas.
DEESE:
This is Brian. Just one last point.
Specifically on the housing policy, I do think that there is an important distinction, which is that throughout this process Senator <Clinton> has been more aggressive and more proactive in putting forward ideas that she feels are important to get out in front of the housing crisis, which has now spilled over into a larger financial crisis.
So whether it be her proposal for a 90-day moratorium and voluntary five-year freeze on interest rates back in December or it be her proposal this Monday to be open to going beyond the Dodd-Frank framework and actually be open to having the FHA act as a purchaser of mortgages, an intermediary purchaser, you know, she has been out in front and be willing to be more proactive and say what she really thinks is necessary to solve the crisis.
QUESTION:
Thank you.
WOLFSON:
Next question?
QUESTION:
Hey, guys. Question on the latest Jeremiah Wright stuff -- apparent anti-Italian slur.
Is the campaign commenting on that?
WOLFSON:
I have not seen it. Can you give us the details?
QUESTION:
Yes. Basically, he was making a Biblical reference in Trumpet magazine. He said Jesus' crucifixion was "a public lynching Italian style" executed in "Apartheid Rome." He goes on to claim that, "White supremacists run the U.S. government." And he says, "The Italians, for the most part, looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans," among other stuff.
SINGER:
This is Phil. I think comments like that have no place in the public discourse.
QUESTION:
Do you expect Senator <Clinton> to comment further at all on it?
WOLFSON:
This is Howard.
I think what Phil said speaks for itself. Those kinds of comments obviously have no place in the public discourse and you'll have to ask Senator Obama about what his reaction is to them.
But they clearly have no place in the public discourse.
QUESTION:
OK.
QUESTION:
Shifting from macro to microeconomics, I've seen reports that Senator <Clinton> will be producing some kind of financial information next week, but the details have been a little vague.
Will Senator <Clinton> be producing her complete 2000 through 2006 tax returns, including all schedules, next week?
WOLFSON:
This is Howard.
Senator <Clinton> said, I believe, yesterday, right -- or the day before that she would be producing her tax returns within the week. And we are endeavoring to do just that.
I'm not fully conversant enough to know what the distinction is between schedules and other tax information, so I don't want to give you an answer to that that's incorrect.
But I am quite confident that all of the information that the public needs and that reporters need to make very, very informed judgments about their finances will be made available.
I would say that, just to make sure everybody knows, that over 20 years of the <Clinton>'s tax returns are already part of the public record. And, of course, they have filed annual financial disclosure forms while Senator <Clinton> was in the Senate that details the sources of their income.
WOLFSON:
And obviously, tax returns will provide additional information. And I am confident that you and others will have ample opportunity to look through them. And if you have follow-up questions, of course, we'll be available to answer them.
But I am quite confident that all information that is necessary to make very good judgments about their finances will be made available.
QUESTION:
A follow-up, then?
Scanning and posting tax returns is a fairly simple process. Why is there any delay, at all, in making her returns available?
(UNKNOWN)
You know, why was there delay in Senator Obama's making his returns available when we asked for them, despite the fact that he was asking for them on a daily basis?
You know, we'll have them within the week. You'll have the opportunity to look at them. You can turn a skeptical eye to them, as you may care to. And if you have follow-up questions about them, we'll be happy to answer them.
But they will be available online, as other tax returns of the Clintons' have been available online for some time. And people will be able to take a look at them.
QUESTION:
I'm shifting from domestic to foreign policy. I was struck that Senator <Clinton> said that there was much to praise in Senator McCain's speech yesterday.
Could you elaborate on that, a bit?
TANDEN:
You know, I think, overall, we've been -- she's been very critical of Senator McCain's positions vis a vis Iraq. Obviously, he made some broader statements about his foreign policy positions that, I think, he tried to differentiate himself from President Bush, on, sort of, a broad approach to foreign policy.
And any distinction is to be commended. But, obviously, she has a very sharp distinction with Senator McCain on a variety of foreign policy issues, but most importantly on Iraq, where he has said that he would be, you know, troops could be there 100 years and that would be fine by him.
So -- and as you know, <Hillary> wants to end the war and bring our troops home, and has a three-point plan to do so.
So, on the most important foreign policy issues we're addressing, obviously, there are very sharp distinctions between them.
QUESTION:
I have two questions, really. One of them's from earlier in the week, though. I asked, earlier in the week, about -- Senator <Clinton> had said that she believed she had passed the commander in chief threshold and that she was certain that John McCain had.
QUESTION:
And I asked what was the basis for saying that John McCain had passed that threshold. And your answer was something to the effect of he can be trusted to do the wrong thing in Iraq.
And what I really want to know is, what positive had McCain done to certainly have passed that threshold.
And my second question is, do you have any plans to keep this Bosnia sniper story from having the effect of that Michael Dukakis tank ad, particularly going forward as you press Senators Obama and McCain on national security?
WOLFSON:
Well, just to the second point, I think that that is rather overstated and I do not expect it will have that kind of impact.
And as to the first, you know, I think Senator <Clinton> was speaking about this in a political context in which candidates would offer their credentials and experience on foreign policy, and obviously Senator McCain does have credentials and experience on foreign policy. He is wrong on the most important foreign policy question of our time. And if Senator <Clinton> is going to be our nominee against him, which we expect, they will have a vigorous debate about the future of our effort in Iraq and...
QUESTION:
Howard? This is Howard?
WOLFSON:
Yes. Yes.
QUESTION:
OK.
So what you're saying then is that he passed the threshold by being wrong or are you saying that you're revising that statement that he did not pass...
WOLFSON:
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. And I appreciate the follow-up question, and I'd also appreciate being able to give you an answer without being interrupted.
What I'm saying is, she was saying in a political context in which candidates offer their experience and their credentials before voters, obviously Senator McCain, as someone who served in the armed services, as a POW, as somebody who has been in the Senate, has credentials and experience on the subject of war and peace. He is obviously very, very, very wrong on the most important issue facing our nation. Those are two different issues that you are attempting to conflate, in my opinion, erroneously.
So I appreciate you asking the question on several different occasions, and I'm glad to be able to answer it again. But there is a difference between somebody having credentials and experience, which Senator McCain clearly will offer in a political context, and somebody who is actually offering the right set of strategies to get us out of Iraq, which is what Senator <Clinton> will do, in addition to her experience and credentials.
QUESTION:
OK. Well, then, would it have been a fair contrast then to say that Senators <Clinton> and Obama are right on the issue and Senator McCain is wrong? I don't understand why you would lump her together with McCain positively rather than...
WOLFSON:
I think I just -- I think I've said many times on these calls that Senator <Clinton> and Senator Obama are considerably closer to one another as Democrats are on the subject of Iraq than John McCain is, and that either one of them, in terms of Iraq policy, would be an improvement on John McCain.
WOLFSON:
I'd have to go and look -- it wouldn't surprise me if Senator <Clinton> has said that as well at debates. I seem to remember her saying something along those lines very succinctly that all of the Democrats -- Phil, maybe you remember it -- but something about all the Democrats being right on the subject of Iraq and differing with the Republicans.
SINGER:
In fact, I believe the line she -- one of the lines she had at one of the debates, I think it was the New Hampshire debate in June, was the difference that she was speaking about the Democrats and the Republicans, and she said, "The differences between us are minor. The differences with the Republicans are major," and we believe that.
QUESTION:
On Iraq. On Iraq.
SINGER:
Iraq, yes.
WOLFSON:
Next question?
QUESTION:
Hi.
WOLFSON:
Hello.
QUESTION:
Hi. Jamie Rubin was on MSNBC yesterday and he was very critical of David Trimble, former Northern Ireland's first minister and a Noble Peace Prize winner, for questioning Senator Clinton's role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. He called him a crankpot. He said he was demeaning to women and he seemed to dismiss Trimble because he was a Protestant. I just want to ask you two things about that. First of all, do you stand by those comments? And, secondly, if you're attacking people who criticize you about the Irish issue, does that indicate that you've got a weakness in Senator <Clinton>'s arguments on her role in Ireland?
WOLFSON: I did not have the opportunity to see the interview that you are referencing, and so I'd be reluctant to comment specifically on it. I would certainly say that it is not the campaign's policy to attack leaders from other countries along the lines that you are suggesting. But I haven't seen the interview, so I don't want to comment on it specifically.
And, you know, with regard to her overall record, I think that there is ample voluminous support for the fact that she worked hard to help ensure peace in Northern Ireland, that she visited Northern Ireland many times, that she sat with women on different sides of the conflict and helped bring them together, that she is extremely knowledgeable about the issue, she has remained engaged in the issue. And there are many, many quotes from many leaders in Northern Ireland and elsewhere who would support the fact that she helped play a role in supporting the process. So there may be some who would disagree with that; I know that the gentleman in question that you cite was one of those.

But there are many, many others who have attested to the positive role that Senator Clinton played.
QUESTION: Can I just tell you, as a follow-up, the comments from January, just briefly? He said, "I've met David Trimble and he's pretty much the only one who's criticizing Clinton. He's a Protestant. They traditionally go with the conservatives."
And then he went on to say, "I've been living over there" -- in the U.K. -- "David Trimble is a crackpot and what he said was demeaning." Do you agree with that? Do you stand by those comments?
WOLFSON:
Well, I would, more or less, agree with the first sentence. I think that the preponderance of folks who have weighed in have been very, very positive. And I -- if you would be so good to e- mail me your e-mail, at hwolfson@hillaryclinton.com, I can provide you with a long list of citations and quotations from people who have been very, very positive about her role in the process. So I'd agree with the first sentence. I would not associate myself with the rest of it.
QUESTION:
I wanted to follow up on the letter that several of your financiers sent to Speaker Pelosi yesterday.
I have two questions. One is, did the campaign have prior knowledge that that letter was being sent?
And the second question is, the people who signed the letter offered, sort of, a subtle hint that they fund the DCCC. And the idea was that they might withhold funds if Speaker Pelosi went down this path.
Do you think that would be an appropriate course of action?
SINGER:
This is Phil. On the first point, I know that we got a heads-up that they were sending a letter.
On the second, look, I think that the letter speaks for itself. You know, there's clearly a broad feeling, among many Democrats, many people who are active in the party, that the role of superdelegates is to exercise independent judgment and make a decision based on what is best for the party and best for the country.
That is a sentiment that is echoed by Howard Dean, shared by the Obama campaign's David Axelrod, Jim Clyburn, and so many other neutral people in this campaign, as well as supporters of the Obama campaign.
QUESTION:
So the campaign approved the letter?
SINGER:
No, that's not what I said at all.
(UNKNOWN)
That's not what Phil said.
SINGER:
That's not what I said at all. I said that we got a heads-up that a letter was being sent, but we didn't know what was in it and we didn't know -- and that was it. Our supporters let us know that they were sending something over. So please don't misinterpret anything. I hope I'm clear.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION:
The other thing is -- sorry, a quick follow-up question. Obama this morning said that the economy was in a recession. I wanted to know if Senator <Clinton> would agree with that, the economy is, in fact, in a recession.
WOLFSON:
I'll take that, because Neera stepped off.
Let me just get back to your first question for a minute. As somebody who's a former executive director of the DCCC, who spent a lot of years working in the House, who has both friends and family working in the House, I feel, as do most of the people I know, absolutely committed to helping elect Democrats to the House in 2008, believe strongly in Nancy Pelosi's leadership.
Obviously, some of our donors had an issue that they wanted to put into writing. If you want to ask them about it, you can directly.
But Senator <Clinton> and Bill <Clinton> will not take a back seat to anyone when it comes to fighting to elect Democrats or helping to fund the various party committees. And the people here at every level are absolutely committed to large Democratic majorities in 2008 and doing what we can to help create large Democratic majorities in 2008.
So I don't want there to be any confusion about that.
QUESTION:
All right. Thanks, guys.
What about the recession stuff?
DEESE:
This is Brian.
What Senator <Clinton> has said is that of course economists have a technical definition of recession, which is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. And what she's been more focused on is how the economy is impacting typical families.
From the experts she's consulted with, it certainly appears that there are some regions and states of the country which are in a recessionary environment, and she is concerned, as she articulated on Monday in her economic speech, that we could be sliding into a painful and deep recession if we don't take action to address the housing crisis.
QUESTION:
So we're not in a recession right now, but we could be?
DEESE:
Well, no. What she's saying is she's going to leave the technical definitions of a recession to the experts that do the forecasting and the modelling.
Her focus is on addressing the fact that for typical families, this economy is not working and it certainly -- they have, for several months now, felt as if they were living in a recession.
WOLFSON:
Yes, look, I -- just to be clear, there is a technical definition for what a recession is, is what Brian is saying.
But, obviously, in terms of the economic pain people are feeling, the technical definition is not important and Senator <Clinton> has been focusing like a laser for the past year and a half on trying to do something to turn around the Bush economy. And when she's president, she will.
QUESTION:
OK, guys, thanks.
QUESTION:
The first part of the question is for Neera and Brian, and then the second part, if I could also hear from Howard and Phil.
The short version -- and I haven't read the opinion from the federal appeals court, but they seem to, on the New York Passenger Bill of Rights, address interstate flights rather than intrastate flights, and they seem to couch it on a financial burden. And I just wanted to know if the senator had any thoughts on that.
And then the last question would be, if it's the same Congress, does it influence or change or modify the current policy positions by Senator <Clinton>? And if it's a new Congress, same question, does it influence or change the current policy position?
Thanks.
WOLFSON:
On the issue of the -- on the first issue that you raised, I've not had an opportunity to talk with her. And Brian was shaking his head "no"; he has not had an opportunity to talk with her, so, perhaps we will make a -- we will certainly try to make an effort to get an answer for you on that.
As to the second -- look, I think our expectation is that the Democrats will retain and build upon their majorities in the House and the Senate and that, as our next president, <Hillary> <Clinton> will have a tremendous opportunity to put forth and enact a progressive agenda on issues like Iraq and health care and the economy that we'll be able to reverse so many of the failed Bush policies of the last eight years and really move this country in a different direction.
So, there is every reason to be very optimistic about the composition of both the House and the Senate in the next Congress, and that is certainly what we are expecting and what we're looking forward to.
Next question, please?
QUESTION:
Howard and Phil, thanks for taking the question.
WOLFSON:
Oh, thank you.
QUESTION:
Senator <Clinton>'s win in Ohio and her polling leads in Pennsylvania seem to be heavily attributable to her economic message, this appeal to blue collar workers, those concerned about losing their jobs, about higher energy prices, other economic worries.
Concurrently, there has been a dramatic shift, if you look at the polls, from the war in Iraq to the economy as the preeminent concern of voters.
My question is about timing. Do you think if this shift -- this economic shift had happened earlier it would have been better for her chances in the Democratic primaries? Would you be in a different reality today vis-a-vis your delegate deficit to Senator Obama?
And then just following on that -- Howard, you claim that Obama has not connected on economic issues.
Are you then saying that if he is the nominee, the Democrats would be choosing the wrong candidate for this ascending issue of this campaign?
WOLFSON:
Well, look -- and I think Phil has some thoughts, too -- I would say to your last question that I obviously think Senator <Clinton> is the right candidate on these issues.
I do believe that she has the right policies, the right leadership, the right experience to reverse our current economic mess and move us in a different direction.
I do not believe, as I've said many times, that Senator Obama has yet passed the critical commander-in-chief and steward-of-the-economy test, and those are, certainly, as you suggest, one of the reasons we believe that she was able to win in Ohio and Texas despite the negative attacks from Senator Obama and despite being outspent by him.
In terms of whether or not Senator <Clinton> would have been helped by more of a focus on the economy earlier, that's a hard thing to say.
WOLFSON:
You know, that's a hard thing to say. I mean, I think the economy was always an issue. It is, I guess, polling suggests, more of an issue now than it was at the beginning of this contest.
But, you know, it's very hard to, sort of, know that.
SINGER:
This is Phil. I also think that one thing that's been a constant is that <Hillary>'s viewed as strong on both, foreign policy issues and economic issues.
If you'll recall, some of the data -- if you want to go by polling data, a lot of the polling data back six, seven, eight months ago, found that voters believed that <Hillary> was the stronger candidate on the war, just as many voters are demonstrating faith and confidence in her ability to be a steward of the economy now.
So I think that, for the Obama campaign, they've got a real problem on their hands, in the sense that they are struggling to convince voters that Senator Obama is ready to be the commander in chief and is ready to be a steward of the economy.
At the end of the day, the central tenet of the presidency is who could handle those two jobs, who can protect our national security and who can run our economy.
And the Obama campaign is clearly having trouble making that argument. And I think that's part of the reason why they are constantly attacking <Hillary> and increasing the tone and tenor of the attacks that they are advancing against <Hillary>, and really embarking on a very personal, character-based strategy of trying to go after Senator <Clinton>.
SINGER:
They have had a hard time derailing her candidacy by making policy contrasts, and so now they had -- they are continuing, as they have been doing for some time, but they are ratcheting up their efforts to go after her on character issues.
And I think for the Obama campaign that's another question that they are going to have to answer: How does embarking on a significant character assassination effort jibe with the politics of hope message that has fueled their candidate's ascent?
QUESTION:
Just the daily Michigan/Florida question.
In Michigan, yesterday the chair of the state party said he considered a do-over all but dead. The state director of elections says there's no way for the state to organize any kind of revote at this point. Is the campaign ready yet, based on the experts saying they can't do it, to say that it can't be done?
SINGER:
This is Phil. How are you.
QUESTION:
Good. How are you?
SINGER:
I'm OK. I'm a little hoarse.
This is Phil.
We remain optimistic that we will be able to get a party-run primary. We are hopeful that the Obama campaign will stop standing in the way and stop saying no at every turn and join us in our efforts to ensure that the exercise of democracy is carried out in Michigan.
Look, if the Obama campaign refuses -- continues to refuse to allow the people of Michigan and Florida to make their voices heard, then we would call on them to ask that the votes in these states be honored and that the nearly 2.5 million people who participated in primary elections in these states back in January are heard and counted.
We think it's unfortunate that Senator Obama is standing in the way of letting that happen. We have a very difficult time seeing how he will be a viable and strong general election nominee if he is effectively ceding the states of Florida and Michigan.
And we also find it disappointing that, given the number of speeches and press releases and comments that he has made about the need to ensure that every vote is counted, about the need to -- about the beauty of our democracy and how Americans can have faith in their ability to make their voices heard at the polling places, that he is standing in the way of a significant number of Americans from doing so.
And so...
(CROSSTALK)
SINGER:
Sorry. Go on.
QUESTION:
No. If I could just follow up on that. This is not the Obama campaign saying it can't be done, it's the state director of elections and the chairman of the state Democratic Party saying that it would be difficult, if not impossible to pull it off at this point.
SINGER:
Well, I think we've got to look at -- I think a reality of American -- of politics is that where there's a will there's a way. And I think what we are not seeing right now is a will from the Obama campaign. And I feel fairly confident that if the Obama campaign were to come out and forcefully say that they wanted to see a new vote in both Michigan and Florida, there would be a way to make it happen.
WOLFSON:
And there's a reason that the Obama people aren't doing that; it's because they -- I mean, in my view, clearly don't think that letting people participate in our democracy is in their political interests.
And, to me, that means -- that suggests that the Obama campaign is pursuing a strategy aimed at trying to get the nomination for the candidate, but in the process, jeopardizing general election prospects for Democrats.
We think that there is too much at stake. You know, we're talking a lot about the economy today. Clearly, there is a need to fix the economy, there's a need to get the economy back on track, we need to end the war in Iraq, we need to address the health care challenges that so many Americans are grappling with, and that means taking back the White House and making sure that a Democrat is the next president.
By refusing to honor the votes of the people of Florida and Michigan, by refusing to embrace efforts to allow them to vote again so that their votes can be counted, Senator Obama is jeopardizing our collective ability to make those types of changes, deliver the solutions to those problems, and we think that's unfortunate.
Next question?
QUESTION:
Back to the economic speech, I was wondering if there is -- I know you're saying that Senator Obama said some of the -- basically, some of the same things that Senator <Clinton> did.
But I was wondering if there is anything that Senator <Clinton> would do or focus on that Senator Obama isn't focusing on or anything that Senator Obama is focusing on that you policy folks think is kind of the wrong kind of thing to focus on.
DEESE:
Yes. When it comes to addressing the housing crisis, Senator <Clinton>, on Monday, outlined a very detailed four-part plan that she would take and implement immediately.
And there are a number of important components to that plan that Senator Obama either has not supported or has explicitly criticized.
The first is being willing to actually go beyond the existing legislation that both Senator Obama and Senator <Clinton> support that Representative Frank and Senator Dodd are pushing.
And what Senator <Clinton> said on Monday was, we need to put ideology and the fear of demagoguery aside and be willing to say that we may have to have the Federal Housing Administration step in and act as a purchaser, temporarily, for some of these at-risk mortgages.
And that is a step beyond the legislation, it's a step beyond where Senator Obama has been willing to go, and she thought it was very important, given the depth of the crisis right now, to take that step.
In addition, she has, for several months now, been urging the administration to work with all of the parties involved and establish a 90-day moratorium on all subprime owner-occupied foreclosures, and, as well, institute a freeze on all subprime interest rates for at least five years.
She first called on the administration to pursue that policy back in December.
DEESE:
She has been actively pushing for it. And what we've seen, over time, is that the administration, after initially criticizing it, has actually come on to recognize that some sort of moratorium and freeze are both important and necessary.
Now, the administration has not gone nearly as far as Senator <Clinton> has called for and we would like to see.
But Senator Obama has continued to criticize that approach, which actually puts him, now, to the right of even the Bush administration on this issue.
So I think there are important distinctions on housing. And what they underscore is that, for a long time now, Senator <Clinton> has been proactive and aggressive in saying that we need to get out in front of this crisis.
WOLFSON:
That was Brian Deese speaking just now.
You know, I also recall, myself, being in some debates with -- or at least one debate with David Axelrod, on the topic of housing, in which the Obama campaign had a rather severe criticism of the plan that Brian just outlined with regard to the freezing of the subprime rates and the foreclosures.
And so there is a significant policy difference between the two campaigns on that topic.
QUESTION:
I had just a quick follow-up to the question asked earlier about the letter that went to Nancy Pelosi about the superdelegate position.
I just want to, kind of, make sure I have everything completely clear. You guys are saying, definitively, that nobody on the campaign was informed about the substance of the letter beforehand; nobody other than the people actually on the letter was involved in writing it, offered any input, had no...
SINGER:
This is Phil. We got a heads-up that it was being sent, and that was it.
So, you know, we've gone through this already, and I'm not sure there's much else to add, you know, other than the fact that, look, we have been vocal in stating that superdelegates should exercise independent judgment about who would be best for the party and who would be the best president for the country, and that that is a key factor to consider in deciding who should be the standard-bearer for the party.
SINGER:
We also fervently believe that the process needs to play itself out, that every vote, including those in Michigan and Florida, need to be counted.
And we would renew our call on Senator Obama to embrace efforts to hold new votes in Florida and Michigan. We don't think disenfranchising 2.5 million Americans is a way to -- an effective way to make the case for why one should be president. We think including as many people in our process and in our party as possible is the way to make the best case for why we should become -- for why somebody should be entrusted with the presidency. And we are disappointed that the Obama campaign is continuing to refuse to do that.
QUESTION:
And just to kind of follow up on that, I was wondering if you had any reaction to the news that representatives from the Obama campaign have reached out to the Michigan and Florida Democrats to begin a dialogue about how to seat the delegation.
SINGER:
Yes. I think that there is a very easy reaction: Let's either honor the votes that took place there already or make sure that democracy can be exercised as well.
I mean, the things that the Obama campaign is floating -- are floating -- are basically ideas to essentially completely abrogate and dismiss the voices of the voters that have already participated.
And in fact I find it to be very curious. The Obama campaign, on one hand, makes a very loud argument about the need to honor the will of the people.
When it comes to a superdelegate who has endorsed Senator <Clinton> but represents constituents that might have voted for Senator Obama, the Obama campaign is very loud and very emphatic about the need for that superdelegate to endorse him and not endorse us.
However, when they are endorsed by a superdelegate who represents an area that we won, they have no problem accepting that endorsement.
Similarly, when it comes to Florida and Michigan, they apparently have no problems dismissing the idea of voting because it's not in their interest and suggesting that there should be some sort of negotiation.
I mean, I almost feel like we should send over a box of cigars so that they can fill a back room with smoke.
You know, we're in a real -- we're in la la land here. The last time I checked, this was the United States of America and all 50 states get a chance to vote and get their votes counted. And it's unfortunate that the Obama campaign continues its refusal to embrace efforts to allow people to vote.
It is beyond -- I just do not get it. It is perplexing and rather disappointing.
WOLFSON:
It's Howard. Let me just follow up real quickly. You know, the way you described the process that the Obama campaign is attempting to engage in, and it is news to me that they're doing that, but assuming that your description is accurate, which I'm sure it is, it really sums up the entire campaign in a nutshell because the <Clinton> campaign wants to act.
We want to have people seated in the manner in which they voted or we want to have revotes. The Obama campaign wants to talk, apparently, about doing this with no real end goal in sight other than continue talking. That is the difference between these two campaigns.
Senator <Clinton> is somebody who is ready to act; Senator Obama is somebody who is ready to talk. What we need is somebody who is ready to act and deliver.
SINGER:
And this is Phil. I would just add one quick thing.
I mean, this fits a larger patterns of what has been going on during the course of this campaign, where Senator Obama stands up and says, "We must embrace the politics of hope; we must end these divisive political tactics that have characterized our campaigns; we must all come together in unity."
And he says that out of one side of his mouth. Out of the other, he and his campaign embark on a very personal, very character-based attack strategy of tearing Senator <Clinton> down.
That's after David Axelrod stands up about 13 or 14 months ago and says, "Do we have a strategy for tearing anyone down? No."
Apparently the Obama campaign believes that it can set standards for everyone else that it doesn't have to follow for itself. And we think that is inappropriate, we think that is disappointing, and, frankly, it's somewhat surprising that they've been allowed to get away with doing that for as long as they have.
There needs to be some accountability here. Senator Obama constantly talks about the need for unity. Just yesterday I saw that he was on his campaign plane talking about the politics of personal destruction.
I thought it was the height of hypocrisy given the fact that his campaign has called Senator <Clinton> a monster, disingenuous; their campaign manager was on a telephone call with many of you, I believe, last week, going so far as -- basically calling Senator <Clinton> a liar; they have a surrogate, General McPeak, who's going around calling Senator <Clinton>'s husband of practicing McCarthyism. That is horribly in keeping with the politics of hope rhetoric that has helped fuel Senator Obama's ascent during the course of this campaign.
And, yet, for some reason, many of our friends in the media seem to look the other way at that inconsistency. We think that's unfortunate. And we would hope that Senator Obama starts getting held a little bit more accountable for the actions of his campaign.
There have been a handful of instances where that has happened. But just over the last week, it has been striking to see the body language coming out of that campaign and how dissonant it is with the mission statement that is characterized throughout this process.
So, anyway...
QUESTION:
All right. Well, thanks guys.
WOLFSON:
All right. We'll take two more questions and then we'll call it a day and appreciate your being on.
Yes, we'll take two more. Any others? Hello?
QUESTION:
I'm wondering -- I know you might have talked about this yesterday, or previously, about the reaction to the recent polling numbers that suggest that, if it were McCain-Obama, 28 percent of <Clinton> supporters now would support John McCain.
Are any statements that <Hillary> <Clinton> has made about comparing her credentials, for example, with John McCain's, contributing to that factor?
WOLFSON:
You know, the percentage of Obama supporters who would support McCain is 19 percent, so I don't think, given the possibility of margin of error in a poll like that, there's a statistical difference between our supporters and his supporters.
I will say that I have absolutely no doubt that, at the conclusion of this contest, that Democrats will rally around the nominee, whoever he or she is.
We believe it will be a she, but if it is a he, in either regard, Democrats will rally around that person because the differences, obviously, between the two parties are so significant and there is too much at stake for Democrats to sit this out, in any way, shape, or form.
So you know, we're in the middle of a spirited primary. You have Senator Obama attacking Senator <Clinton>'s character, now, on a daily basis. I can't imagine that our supporters appreciate that. I know that they don't.
But I am confident that, regardless of who the nominee is, we will have a united party against John McCain.
QUESTION:
I wanted to follow up on the Bosnia statement, in light of what this pilot said yesterday, the C-17 pilot.
QUESTION:
He said that there wasn't even a corkscrew landing, he doesn't recall anyone sitting on flak jackets.
And so my question is, when Senator <Clinton> says she misspoke, is she referring to the entire incident, meaning the whole thing was made up, or is she just saying that had thought -- she had been told something about snipers and she misremembered the sniper aspect?
(UNKNOWN)
I appreciate the question. And when you -- just so we are on common vocabulary terms -- when you say made the entire thing up, you mean she didn't go to Tuzla at all?
QUESTION:
Well, I guess what I mean is, it's now -- it appears that there was no sniper fire, there was no running, there wasn't corkscrew landing, and there was no sitting on flak jackets. So I know she went, but did she make up every aspect of danger?
(UNKNOWN)
No, absolutely not. And I don't know if you were on a call earlier in which I read the contemporaneous news accounts that were written by reporters either about the trip or people who were there the day or the day after, who made it quite clear that there was sniper fire in the hills, that she was going into a dangerous area, that it was the first time since Eleanor Roosevelt that a first lady had been to an area like that.
So I would invite you to go back and look at the contemporaneously reporting about the trip, and you can see what your colleagues said about it and how they characterized it to know that the answer to your question is no, that they were clearly flying into an area that had certainly recently seen combat, that there was -- they flew over burned-out buildings, there was sniper fire reported in the hills.
And so, no. You know, look, she has -- she had said that she misspoke. She made it clear that she did that. I know that there is considerable interest on the part of some of continuing to drive this story. And I think it's a very sort of illustrative moment in the campaign -- hey, can you put your phone on mute? Do you mind.
QUESTION:
Yes. Sorry about that. My fault.
WOLFSON:
Sorry about that.
I think it's a very illustrative moment in the campaign because there was an article on Monday in The Washington Post, on the front page, that basically detailed that Senator Obama had significantly embellished his role in the immigration reform bill that he takes credit for and in a housing bill that he talks about. And he did this, I believe, because he has no legislative accomplishments to run. And so, therefore, it's not surprising that he would attempt to inflate his involvement in these legislative accomplishments and pump up his resume. There are other example of him doing this, as well.
And my assumption was that this would begin some line of inquiry in the part of the press to examine his claims in the legislative arena because here were a couple of examples in which he, clearly, was overstating his role in certain areas.
Another example that was not cited in the Washington Post piece but that the New York Times talked about was his claiming credit for a bill to protect homeowners from nuclear power plants that didn't do what he said it did.
And so, there are plenty of examples of Senator Obama, who has no legislative -- who has no significant legislative accomplishments, over overstating his role in order to puff up a resume in the context of running for president.
And yet, there's been no follow up about this, no interest in it, we get no questions about, presumably -- apparently because there is just no interest in it. And yet, Senator <Clinton>'s comments about Bosnia have been running non-stop on cable for, you know, 24 hours or so -- it seems to have diminished somewhat today.
And I wonder why there is a distinction when you have somebody running for president with no significant legislative accomplishments inventing legislative accomplishments that, clearly, don't exist, puffing up his resume in that regard, why that gets no commentary and why Senator <Clinton>'s comments get so much. It just strikes me as sort of a clarifying moment in the campaign about what priorities are.
And, you know, I appreciate the question. We've answered a lot of questions about this. My suggestion is, people could ask Senator Obama about why he overstated his role in the immigration bill, why he overstates his role in the housing legislation, why he overstates his role in the bill that was designed to protect homeowners from nuclear power plants, and let me know what he says.
QUESTION:
I'll try. Just to -- one final follow-up. I think, maybe, that perhaps one difference that overstating or augmenting or puffing up is fairly par for the course in politics.
And what I'm wondering about, with this particular statement, was it, in fact, invented as opposed to enhanced?
In other words, did these things happen or did they not happen?
(CROSSTALK)
SINGER:
Sorry, Howard. Do you want to...
WOLFSON:
Yes.
And by the way, that wasn't directed at you, per se. And I appreciate your tone and your willingness to engage on it with me. And what I would say, before Phil jumps in, is that you asked a fair question and the answer to your question is no.
And I will send you the examples of what people wrote, at the time, so that you will confidence that my answer to you is accurate.
SINGER:
This is Phil. Let me just give you a couple of other examples. Senator Obama has often referred to himself as a constitutional law professor, out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title.
And I think anyone -- if you ask anyone in academia if there's a distinction between a professor, who has tenure, and an instructor, that does not, you will find that there is -- you'll get quite an emotional response.
So Senator Obama's gone around; he's called himself a constitutional law professor; he never held any such title.
He's touted legislation that he -- dealing with nuclear leak disclosure that he says became law, that never passed out of committee.
There have been a number of reports looking at his record. The L.A. Times has found that some of his fellow community organizers that he worked with in Chicago felt that he exaggerated his role on some of the projects that they worked on together.
You know, you'll have to ask him why so many independent entities, including factcheck.org, had found that, when he cuts advertisements that claim to provide universal health care, he's not being accurate.
So, you know, several examples where you see Senator Obama, both with regard to his record, as well as with regard to the policies that he's advancing, making claims that are not supported by fact.
And yet, there seems to be some sort of bizarre reluctance to examine those claims and to hold Senator Obama accountable, in many instances, for those types of situations.
And I think it's perplexing and I think, frankly, it's a disservice to the voters.
WOLFSON:
And let me just say, in conclusion -- and I appreciate everybody getting on the call and staying on for so long -- that the Obama campaign is beginning a six-day bus trip in Pennsylvania.
This is an interesting development on the part of the Obama campaign. Most folks on this call know that, initially, Senator Obama and his campaign were trying to downplay, were trying to write off Pennsylvania, suggesting that it wasn't a state of any particular importance in the process of our nomination.
And I think they have decided -- or they may have clear, with this six-day bus trip, that they are going to do what they can to contest the state vigorously. And that makes sense to me, frankly, because Pennsylvania ought to be a fair fight between the two campaigns.
Senator Obama should have just as much of a chance there as Senator <Clinton>. It's a diverse state, geographically, ethnically, racially, and in many different other respects.
Both candidates enter, I think, with roughly an equal chance. We feel good about our prospects there. We feel good about our campaign. So I am glad to see that Senator Obama is now throwing himself and his campaign fully into Pennsylvania.
He is clearly making Pennsylvania a key test for him and his campaign. And that's a good thing. Because we need to have our nominee be able to compete in Pennsylvania. It was disappointing when Senator Obama started off by dismissing the state. And so we are pleased that he has decided to compete vigorously there and recognize that it is important to do so.
So, we look forward to continuing to compete with him on an even, level playing field in Pennsylvania. And I say that, except for the fact that he's going to outspend us there two or three to one.
But in terms of the actual demographic terrain, it is an even, level playing field.
And with that, I will thank you all, and look forward to talking to you in the coming days.

Clinton Conference Call 3/25/08

noreply@blogger.com (Homertojeebus) — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:48:00 +0000

“State of the Race” Conference Call
Phil Singer and Harold Ickes
March 25th, 2008

Phil: Good morning everybody, this is Phil Singer at the Clinton campaign. I’m sitting here with Harold Ickes and we’re going to talk today about Michigan and Florida and about Senator Obama’s commitment to voting. I’ll open it up and get underway here and then we’ll turn it over the Harold and then take your questions.

I think it’s interesting that the Obama campaign often gets its back up when we say that their campaign is really just words; there’s no action to back up the words that Senator Obama uses when he is out on the campaign trail. But I think a few things illustrate this point better than what Senator Obama is doing with regard to Florida and Michigan. On one hand you see Senator Obama putting out press releases where he says, “One of our most sacred rights as Americans is the right to make our voices heard at the polls,” but then he pursues a strategy aimed at silencing the voices of Florida and Michigan.

He puts up ads where he touts how he worked as a Civil Rights attorney to make sure that everybody’s voice counted. Now he only wants to count some of the votes. At his events he talks about how he worked at voter registration drives at the law school, 150,000 new voters in 1992. Now he wants to pretend that the record turnout that took place in Florida and Michigan didn’t happen. When it comes to protecting the votes, he likes to say, “This is something that I know something about.” Well, soon he’ll be able to say that he knows something about disenfranchising voters, too.

About fourteen months ago in January, Obama went up on the Senate floor and he delivered remarks where he said, “There are some issues in this country that are inherently difficult and political.” Making sure that every American can cast a ballot shouldn’t be one of them. There is no place for politics in this debate, no room for those who feel that they can gain a partisan advantage by keeping people away from the polls. Apparently he has had a change of heart because his opposition to new votes in Florida and Michigan is keeping the people in those states away from the polls for his partisan advantage. I think there’s a certain irony to the fact that the man who once said, “The true genius of America” lies in the faith that “our votes will be counted at least some of the time.” It’s ironic that he is now engaged in an effort to disenfranchise two and a half million voters in Florida and Michigan. I think it is clear that when it comes to voting, Senator Obama has turned the ‘Audacity of Hope’ into the audacity of nope.

I think, in all seriousness, that Senator Obama talks about the disastrous consequences of the Bush years, of the Bush presidency. There’s a basic reality here which is that we could’ve avoided the entire George W. Bush presidency if we had counted votes in Florida. I think it’s distressing, it’s upsetting, that Senator Obama is now putting the Democratic Party at risk and more importantly the future of this country at risk in many respects by ignoring the voters of Florida and standing in the way of Michigan voting again. We have a unique opportunity right now to win the White House back in November and to do something to end the war, to fix the economy, do something about health care and tackle so many of the challenges that we face as a nation. So the fact that Senator Obama is endangering and jeopardizing Democratic prospects in two states that are going to be vital to our efforts to take back the presidency is unacceptable and we again call on Senator Obama to stop standing in the way of the people of Florida and Michigan from being counted and to embrace efforts to include them in our process so we are able to carry those states in the Fall.

Ickes: I don’t have a lot to add to what Phil said. As you know from prior conferences, I am increasingly concerned about our ability to carry Michigan and Florida. They are key – certainly, I don’t see how we win a general election without Michigan. It is typically a very close race. As many of you on this call know, my sense is that this general election is going to be very, very close. I think Senator McCain is going to make a formidable candidate probably reaching into constituencies that some of his predecessors in prior cycles have not been able to reach. It is absolutely critical as we start looking at the electoral vote map to assemble 270 electoral votes that Michigan be very squarely in that column. Florida I think we have a real shot at winning this year if Hillary is leading the ticket, but slapping these people in the face is not the way to engender support and most importantly it gives the Republicans a real opening to say to each one of those states, “Why are you going to vote Democratic?” Florida in particular is very, very sensitive about disenfranchisement.

Hillary from the beginning has said, starting as early as South Carolina, seat these delegations. Senator Obama has done everything possible to make sure that re-votes in these jurisdictions are scuttled. On the one hand he says the votes aren’t fair. We disagree with that characterization, and most certainly with respect to Florida. But on the other hand when we call on him to join arms to have a new process so that we can have a new election so those delegations are seated, those voices are heard at our convention, he then does everything behind the scenes to try to make sure that there is no re-vote. So I’m increasingly concerned about this. We have a general election to look forward to. Hopefully Mr. Obama will begin thinking about that as well.

Andrea Mitchell, NBC News: I don’t have a full transcript from the Philadelphia Daily News, but I’m wondering whether in her editorial board meeting she was trying to lay a new marker, Harold, on pledged delegates, on their flexibility to vote on manners different from the way they were supposedly pledged. I’m also wondering whether, Phil, you can give us some response to the Obama campaign criticisms of Clinton’s involvement with lobbyists from the financial services industry; what your general view is of his position on the economy and the housing crisis, to follow up on her speech from yesterday. Thank you.

PS: I will take the second question first. I think it’s particularly ironic that the Obama campaign indeed I might replace the word ironic with the word audacious if you will, but particularly audacious of the Obama campaign to make this an issue in light of the fact that Senator Obama has received almost $1.2 million from subprime lenders and is taking more campaign contributions from the top ten issuers of subprime loans then Senator Clinton has. In fact, he has a fundraiser with Credit Swiss on the 27th, I believe, in New York. Credit Swiss is one of the top issuers of subprime loans. I can’t think of a better example of a glass house metaphor applying then in this case. Senator Clinton has been out front on the housing issue, she was among the very first to speak out about the need for action to be taken on the housing issue about a year ago, over a year ago. And has advanced a comprehensive set of proposals aimed at dealing with this crisis. Senator Obama cannot make a similarly credible claim. I would encourage the Obama campaign to perhaps take a look at its own house before it starts throwing stones. I’ll turn it over to Harold.

HI: I think what Mrs. Clinton was trying to make clear was that no delegate is required by party rule to vote for the candidate for which their pledged. Obviously circumstances can change and people’s minds can change about the viability of a particular candidate. That’s permitted now under our rules every since the 1980 convention.

PS: But let’s be clear, we have said and we continue to say and is still our position that we are not seeking or asking pleaded delegates for senator Obama to flip over or anything like that. There is a rule, but we are not engaged in any efforts, so please don’t make any mistake about that.

David Kiley, Business Week: On Florida and Michigan, your campaign agreed to the DNC rules and the Obama campaign has agreed to seat the delegates in Denver 50/50. So nobody I know is suggesting that Michigan and Florida delegates won’t be seated. Why shouldn’t we view this as nothing more then a ploy by your campaign to take advantage of a weak stretch of the Obama campaign brought about primarily by the Reverend Wright issue, which could be as temporary a problem as any of Senator Clinton’s problems in the campaign? I’m actually sitting in Michigan, that’s where I work from and where I live. No research that I have seen that would show that MI has much chance at all of going Republican. Democratic voters here blame the Michigan Democratic Party leaders here who screwed up the rules, not either of the candidates. While you may have a point on Florida, even Ed Rendell says even Pennsylvania even has little chance of going Republican, no matter who the Democratic candidate is. This seems very opportunistic on the part of the Clinton campaign.

HI: I’m not sure what you’re calling “opportunistic”. Mrs. Clinton has been calling for either seating those delegations under the existing votes or having re-do as we say under the existing votes or for having re-dos, as we say; beginning with South Carolina, it's been Senator Obama who's been resisting that day after day, week after week. In terms of your assertion that there is an offer of 50 percent, it's the first I've heard of it. I mean, there's a lot of loose chatter about it. But as far as I know, there's been no offer. And any such offer like that would have to come through the Democratic National Committee. If the two campaigns agreed on how to settle this, it could not be settled without the participation and sanction of the Democratic National Committee. So, it seems to me that any "offer," quote, unquote, has to originate there. And then finally, as you -- I would be reluctant were I you. I certainly wouldn't have predicted how either of these states are going to go in the general election. They are typical hard fought races. They're close elections. And, as I say, I think Senator McCain may present challenges to us Democrats that we've not faced before in terms of voting demographics. I'll say one thing. For me, who has been in presidential politics beginning with 1968, I wouldn't take any state for granted, and certainly not those two.
SINGER: And I would just add two points -- this is Phil. First, this isn't about who gets a seat in Denver; this is about making sure that the voters who spoke in Michigan and Florida are counted and heard. Second, I'm sure, and please note the sarcasm in my voice, that the McCain campaign and the Republicans will say, "Huh, you know, there was a period of time when leading Democrats didn't want to -- they were trying to exclude Michigan from the process." I'm sure the Republicans won't do anything to exploit that and use that as a campaign issue in the general election.
SINGER: I'm sure that the Republicans won't be able to find a media consultant with, you know, a modicum of talent who will be able to parlay that into a larger case against the Democrats. I'm sure that won't happen. So I think we can rest assured that the Republicans will stop at nothing to use this situation, use the fact that Senator Obama is standing in the way of new votes and has opposed new votes in Michigan and Florida, and stood in the way of making sure that the voters there are counted, to their advantage.
ICKES: This is Harold again. I just want to make one final point. You know, Michigan was 48-51 in '04. That is not what I'd call a comfortable margin.
QUESTION: Well, by that argument, in terms of what the Republicans might do, I mean, if Obama gets the nomination, the Republicans might trumpet a bunch of ads quoting the Clinton campaign that says Obama's not fit to be the commander in chief. I mean, you could play that game all day long.
SINGER: Sure could. And if Hillary's the nominee, I'm sure the Republicans will trumpet a bunch of ads quoting the Obama campaign saying that she's dishonest. So let's stop with the double standard, sir, and start holding both -- you know, holding the Obama campaign accountable for the words that it uses, and let's start holding them accountable for standing in the way of the good people of Michigan and Florida from voting.
Next question, please.
QUESTION: I just wanted to clarify something, Mr. Ickes, that you just said. If I understood it correctly, you're saying that the Clinton campaign is not open to any sort of negotiations about some sort of deal with the Obama campaign, that anything like that would have to happen at the -- the DNC would have to start those discussions.
Given the fact that there seems no progress on any sort of revote in Michigan or Florida, for that matter, right now, doesn't that mean that there will be no seating of the delegates? I mean, if you folks won't sit down with the Obama campaign and try to come up with some sort of agreement, what else is there to do?
ICKES: Well, I would make three points. Number one is, there's still plenty of time to have redo elections, and that's what we continue to call for. Number two, what I said, but let me just repeat it, is that even if the two campaigns were to make an agreement, that agreement binds no one, because the Democratic National Committee was the one who took the action, stripping those delegations, or those states, and it will have to be the Democratic National Committee that is party to an agreement and signs off on an agreement. Absent that, it goes to a formal credentials process and to the Credentials Committee and finally the convention itself will make a decision in that regard.
QUESTION:
I just wanted to ask if you could give an explanation. There was a couple stories this morning about Senator Clinton had misspoke regarding the Bosnia trip. And this has been something that started with a comedian named Sinbad. Apparently she told an editorial board that she did mis-speak.
QUESTION: Could you give us some indication as to how she was that confused about that particular...
SINGER: Sure. We addressed this yesterday on the call -- Howard Wolfson did. I'd be more than happy to send you the transcript, but we've said what we're saying on that.
So, if you'd like to E-mail me, I'm at psinger@hillaryclinton.com. And we will get you the remarks that were made yesterday on this point, OK?
Thanks.
QUESTION: To go back to an early question, you said, I think, Phil, that you are not -- you guys aren't seeking to have pledged delegates flip over or anything like that.
Why did Senator Clinton bring up that subject in that case? Why did she float that idea?
SINGER: Well, I don't think she floated the idea. I think she was simply repeating what the DNC has said in its memo in a memo that it put out several weeks ago. And, look, it is one of the rules of the DNC and the process. So, I wouldn't read anything into it. I get that there's always a temptation to read everything -- something into everything. But simply stating a fact I don't think is a cause for hysteria.
QUESTION: Have there been any indications, regardless of whether you guys are courting them or not, that any of the pledged delegates are going to go from one direction to the other at this point?
ICKES: No. And this is Harold. We're focused, as you know, on these upcoming states in winning more pledged delegates. And we are focused on the, what you call super, what I call automatic -- the remaining super automatic delegates. That's where our focus is.
You know, my experience in the past is that if candidates have done a good of slating, which, presumably, both sides have, it's pledged delegates generally stay with the candidate that they're pledged to.
QUESTION: This is a question for Harold Ickes.
Yesterday, you and every other member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to approve Puerto Rico's request to switch from a caucus to a primary and to move up the date of the primary to June 1st.
Could you tell me about what operations you have on the ground in Puerto Rico at this point?
ICKES:
Well, I'm not going to disclose everything we have on the ground, suffice it to say we're focused on Puerto Rico, we think it's an important jurisdiction from several points of view. And we are -- we will have a very active campaign there.
ICKES:
We're in the process of putting together our campaign committee and campaign apparatus and expect to run a very vigorous campaign.
QUESTION:
I have two questions I'll try to ask quickly.
The first is, Harry Reid is quoted in the Las Vegas Review Journal as saying that he's got some, quote, "magical solution for ending the Democratic race before the convention."
I wanted to know if you guys had heard of that and what your response was to the fact the he says that in conversations with Howard Dean -- he's in conversations with Howard Dean and, "Things are being done," quote/unquote.
And the second question is that Harold said earlier that the Obama campaign as done everything behind the scenes to prevent a re- vote and I wanted to know exactly what you guys are alleging they've done and in what states.
ICKES:
Well, on the first one, I don't know what Senator Reid is referring to. Our view is that this process needs to play out. There still a number of states that need to vote, some very important states. All states are important, but some big states. And a lot of delegates still to be elected. So that's our position. You'll have to ask Senator Reid what he's talking about.
You know, and on the second one, I think it's clear to anybody who's been following this with half an eye, that we've been in the forefront for calling for new elections. And this is clear to even the most casual observer that the Obama campaign has been dragging it's feet and actively working in both legislatures and as well as elsewhere to make sure that that does not come off.
QUESTION:
Harold, we've seen some stories that say the Democratic race is already effectively over. And I know that you don't agree with that. So can you please walk us through the delegate math, the arithmetic that gets Senator Clinton to 2,024 delegates in Denver?
ICKES:
Well, the fact is that the Obama campaign is trying to persuade everybody that this race is over. And my response is that I hope they don't get their hands on the federal budget because they surely can't count. If they can't count among 4,000 some-odd delegates, God knows how they're going to handle the federal budget.
But putting that tongue and cheek aside, the fact is, as we look at this race -- I mean, the unvarnished facts are that no -- neither one of these candidates will be able to achieve the nomination, whether you're with the lower amount of the 2,024 without Florida and Michigan or whether you're with the higher amount of 2,208 with -- neither candidate can achieve nomination solely with pledge delegates because they're split damn near right down the middle. Either candidate is going to have a very substantial number of delegates to reach the nomination.
As we look down toward the end of this, we think that both candidates are going to be within a hair of each other by the time the last states vote, which will be Montana and South Dakota. And assuming that the remaining, unpledged automatic delegates generally say where they are, unpledged as they watch this race unfold, as they see new information being developed, particularly about Senator Obama, at the end of this process, neither candidate will have the nomination.
And each candidate is going to have to depend on the remaining automatic delegates to make their decisions. And that applies to Senator Obama, as well as Senator Clinton
So there's -- the math argument -- it fascinates me because it's been completely turned on it's head and it has no validity.
SINGER:
I'd also point to one basic fact, which is that if the Obama people really believe that this race was over, I don't think that they would be engaged in a full out assault on Senator Clinton's character and ethics that is really horribly in keeping with the mission statement that Senator Obama outlined in the beginning of this campaign, just over a year ago.
So I would like to, you know -- I'm perplexed as to why, if they're so confident in their prospects that they are pursuing what can only be described as a wholly, W-H-O-L-L-Y, a negative attack strategy.
QUESTION:
Getting back to Michigan and Florida, just to clarify. You all think that its still possible to do a redo? And that's still in the cards, even though Michigan legislature won't be back for a week and a half.
ICKES:
This is Harold. I'm confident that they can do it from a timing point of view. All they have to do is, you know, enact legislation that would call for set a new date and then leave it up to the campaigns. Our cut off period on the democratic rules is the 10th of June. So you could have a primary some time in very late May or early June. It's not even April yet. So there's certainly plenty of time.
QUESTION:
Say there's no redo, do you have any plan in the works for going to the credentials committee? Have you looked that far ahead? And what are you seeing if that's the route that has to be taken?
ICKES:
Well, we think that there's a lot of play still left in the system and we hope that there will be a redo in these states. And we await that. We're not going to cross any bridges until we have to.
SINGER:
I'd also just add there is also a simple solution lying under our respective noses, which is count the votes that have taken place already.
You had record turn out in Michigan and Florida. In Florida, everyone was on the ballot. In Michigan, Senator Obama made his strategic decision to remove his name from the ballot. That was his decision and something that he did on his own. But we had over 2.5 million people turn out in these elections, and we could do the democratic thing of counting those votes.
QUESTION:
Two questions, if I may.
First, David Plouffe made some statements yesterday that sounded as if the Obama campaign was open to negotiation on a compromise settlement as far as seating the delegates. Is there any possibility that your campaign could be also or that that could happen?
The second question is, given the situation, is there any thought within the campaign that it was a mistake for Hillary Clinton to join the boycott of Florida that was called for by the early states?
ICKES:
Well -- this is Harold -- on the latter question, there wasn't a boycott (inaudible) was an agreement that was reached among the four early states -- I assume this is what you're referring to -- among the four early states and the presidential campaigns. All the campaigns signed on to that agreement, and that agreement was very straightforward, which said that there won't be any campaigning in those states prior to the final primary, which was South Carolina, actually, prior to Florida.
We -- we, meaning Mrs. Clinton -- adhered to that, as did every other presidential campaign with the exception of Mr. Obama. He ran hundreds of thousands of dollars of cable television in Florida prior to the vote there on the 29th. He now throws up his hand and said, "Oh, that wasn't fair down there." Well, the only thing that wasn't fair in Florida was his breaking a campaign pledge that his campaign signed and so that he campaigned. And, you know, the results speak for themselves.
So, one, we didn't boycott Florida. We adhered to an agreement, unlike Mr. Obama, and the results speak for themselves. We think that that was a perfectly fair election, that those delegates ought to be seated. Absent that, there ought to be a redo.
QUESTION:
I'm just curious if Senator Clinton or President Clinton had any discussions with Florida and Michigan Democrats before they set their elections to try to urge them to change the date and avoid this big mess.
ICKES:
This is Harold again.
Not to my knowledge. I'm quite confident that Mrs. Clinton did not. I can't speak for President Clinton but I don't think he did either.
Those -- that whole process was played out under the -- by way of the Democratic National Committee. I sit on the Rules and Bylaws Committee, and we had permitted four states to go earlier. But to my knowledge there were no discussions...
QUESTION:
And did you speak out and say that this could be a potential problem for Democrats in a general election?
ICKES:
Well, as members of the -- as a member of the Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws Committee, you know, we talked to -- or talked to at least through the press, and may well have talked to some members of both Florida and Michigan urging that they not break the window, that a lot of us, and I in particular, along with others on the Rules and Bylaws Committee, feel that our process is really out of kilter, that we start way too early. And certainly this process was way too front-loaded, and we wanted to discourage that.
ICKES:
But, you know, that's the background.
SINGER:
And, look, at the end of the day, this election and this effort is about winning the White House and making sure that we are able to achieve the goals that have been discussed and laid out during the course of this campaign.
So, bottom line, this is the issue that must drive the DNC's deliberations and the way that Democrats approach this situation now.
There's too much at stake to fool around with Florida and Michigan. We can not put -- Democrats cannot afford to put ourselves in any situation whereby we jeopardize our prospects in those two states.
And if there is not a resolution to this that reflects the will of the electorates in those two states, we will have problems. And I know that if you care about ending the war in Iraq, you're going to care about the fact that Democrats are -- you will care if Democrats find themselves in this position.
If you care about achieving universal health care, if you care about fixing the economy, as so many Americans do, it's important that we remedy the situation and ensure that the people in Florida and Michigan are counted.
QUESTION:
I just wanted to know what you plan to do to assure voters that Senator Clinton has never embellished or misspoken before.
SINGER:
Well, look, I think Senator Clinton is an open book. There have been 60 books written about her, scores of articles and news stories.
You can count on Senator Clinton when she says that she's going to end the war in Iraq. You can count on her when she says she's going to work her heart out to deliver universal health care. You can count on her when she talks about solutions for the economy.
She has amassed her record over her course of 35 years in public life of doing the things she says, and I think her record speaks for itself.
So, I think the bigger question here is, what is it that Senator Obama can do to prove that his words are anything -- are just words?
You know, over the course of this campaign, you've seen Senator Obama's top foreign policy advisor go on television and dismiss the hard (inaudible) plan that he so often touts on the campaign trail, saying that that's not something that he'll rely on if he gets elected.
You've seen one of his top economic advisors go and talk to people in the Canadian government and dismiss the criticisms that he's leveled against NAFTA as political rhetoric.
You've seen Senator Obama talk about his relationship with Tony Rezko earlier in the course of the campaign, only to change his story around and reveal that his relationship was more involved than he had let on originally.
You've seen Senator Obama talk about how he has a plan to ban lobbyists from working in his White House only to find out that the plan that he put out actually allowed them to work in his White House.
So, Senator Obama -- I find it curious that Senator Obama is allowed to go un-scrutinized, is not held accountable for his words, is not held accountable for inconsistencies in the stories that he tells, that he essentially gets a free pass.
And I would encourage voters, I would encourage reporters to take a look at the things that Senator Obama says, to examine the comments that he's made and to point out the inconsistencies in his record, because I assure you there are many.
QUESTION:
A question for Harold and Phil.
The set-up to the question is, Florida and Michigan, the votes will be counted. We will see, at some point in the future, to what extent and when those votes will be counted.
But the question that I'm asking is, what's the understanding of the campaign to the knowledge base of the entire electorate, not just Florida and Michigan, but the entire electorate across the United States with the feeding of delegates, the credentialing, the constitution? What's the campaign see as the knowledge base in their understanding of these matters?
ICKES:
I wouldn't begin to opine on what the knowledge base of the electorate is. All I can tell you is that there is a process in place to see delegates in the event that, you know, these issues can not be resolved.
There's a very formal process that initiates with the rules and bylaws committee. In fact, two challenges have already been filed with respect to the Florida delegation. One challenge focuses on the failure to seat the automatic or recognize the automatic delegates from that state. And the other challenge, filed by the same person, focuses on the rest of the delegation. So there's a formal process.
There's also a political process. We think it makes great sense particularly in terms of the general election that we've talked about earlier today, that these delegations be recognized by way of a political process and that's what we've been urging.
SINGER:
All right. Let's take a couple of more questions. May not be able to go the full hour today that we normally do. But, we'll take a couple more and take it from there.
QUESTION:
I have two quick questions.
The first one is on Bosnia. Now, I know that you referred to the transcript from yesterday's call. But after the call, an Obama's spokesman put out a statement, basically drawing a distinction between a misstatement and an inaccuracy in prepared remarks saying that that would constitute misleading.
SINGER:
I need to cut you off right there, the Obama campaign was mistaken in their statement. Those were not prepared remarks. Those remarks on our web site were as delivered.
QUESTION:
That was my question. OK.
And my second question is, you've made an electability argument based on carrying states in the primaries, states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. And my question is: Assuming that Senator Obama is the nominee, don't you think that Senator Clinton supporting Senator Obama and possibly being on his ticket would be enough to carry those states?
Don't you think she has enough influence?
ICKES:
I'm a little unclear. You mean if Obama is leading the ticket and Mrs. Clinton is also on the ticket?
QUESTION:
Yes.
ICKES:
Well, that's not the outcome we expect. We expect Mrs. Clinton will be leading the ticket. And we think, as I've said before, we think she has a substantially stronger, general election electoral base.
QUESTION:
Don't you think that that prospect mitigates your electability argument on carrying those states in the primaries?
ICKES:
I'm not sure what you're asking.
SINGER:
Can you explain the question please?
QUESTION:
Sure. You're saying that not carrying Pennsylvania in the primary for Obama would mean he wouldn't carry it in the general. But if Senator Clinton is the vice president on his ticket or even if she's supported him strongly, don't you think that would help him carry those states and make that argument moot?
ICKES:
Well, I don't think I or anyone has ever said that Barack Obama won't carry certain states. Clearly, he's going to carry states, you know, such as New York, Illinois, obviously, Massachusetts, et cetera --you know, the typical Democratic states.
When it comes to swing states such as Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, to mention a few, we think that Mrs. Clinton has a much stronger electoral base there. And that may well go for Pennsylvania. I mean Pennsylvania is again, a very close state for us, as is Michigan.
Finally, the rest of your question, presumes a ticket we predict that Mrs. Clinton will be heading the ticket. And so we think that she will be able to do very well in the general election.
QUESTION:
Getting back to making sure the delegates seated at the convention reflect the will of the Democrats who voted in the primaries in Michigan and Florida, I've heard talk of the possibility of pushing back the deadline for the last primary or caucus, and hopefully it will be a primary past the June 10th deadline.
Can you speak to that briefly?
And I also was wondering if you had any comment on a Slate article a few weeks back that showed Senator Clinton was leading among Democratic voters by about a million votes at this point.
ICKES:
This is Harold. I've heard no talk about pushing the date back. That could only be done by the Democratic National Committee primary to it's rules and bylaws committee. I'm a member of that committee and have heard nothing in that regard. And at this point, I see no reason for pushing the date back.
Two, we have always contended that, you know, as you know, they permit open voting, that is independents and Republicans in a number of the processes that we've held up until now has long been argued that Mrs. Clinton is leading among Democratic voters.
SINGER:
All right. Let's take one last question. Before we get to that. This is Phil. I just want to make note of one thing.
SINGER:
I noticed that the Obama campaign plans on doing a conference call at 11:30 a.m. where they will talk about the need for transparency and government, which I presume to be code for attacking our campaign.
And I just wanted to (inaudible) an interesting little thing which we have spoken about one point or another, but I think before the Obama campaign stands up on the soapbox and talk about its commitment to transparency, I believe that the Obama campaign should be held accountable for its failure to live up to the standard that it seems to set for everyone but itself.
Because Senator Obama has not released his tax returns with the exception of 2006. He has not released tax returns, to our knowledge, from any period of time during his public life, other than that 2006 return.
We understand he plans to release his 2007 return, which we think is terrific, as do we, as we also plan to release all the other returns that Senator Clinton has amassed over her post-White House years.
But I think it's important to hold Senator Obama accountable. If he's going to go out and attack others for and accuse others of not being transparent, it's important to hold him to that same standard and see if he is going to release his returns.
Because as far as we can tell, we don't where they are if he's released them and if he's made them public.
Similarly, he often talks about the need for transparency in Hillary's White House papers. And yet, I just can't seem to find anywhere -- perhaps a reporter on this phone calls or one of the bloggers that's joined us might know.
But I don't believe that he's released any of his records from his time in the state senate, which I find to be somewhat incredible and hard to believe when he says that he doesn't have -- that he doesn't have them.
So, I wanted to flag that for anyone that might be getting on that call, and we'll be happy to send you some examples of other areas where he has not been transparent.
But anyway, let's take the last question, please.
QUESTION:
I wanted to clarify a couple of things.
Number one, did you say you are open or not open to sitting down at the table with Senator Obama's campaign in regards to the Florida and Michigan delegations?
And second, you made it clear that you think that there's plenty of time to have revote elections in Florida and Michigan. And I want to just say, in Florida, the Florida Democratic Party came out last week and said that there was no support for a mail-in vote and it was already made clear we couldn't redo another statewide primary because of several reasons, notably the fact that we're in the process of changing our voting machines over. And so, many counties don't even have the proper equipment to hold a vote.
So, are you still insisting it's possible?
ICKES:
Well, we think it is possible. I mean, people can change their minds. We continue to think -- look, as I said earlier, we think that the Florida vote was fair and square.
And the Obama campaign whining about the fact that it wasn't fair when they, in fact -- when he, in fact, broke the pledge that his campaign signed by -- can't actually campaigning in Florida, you know, rings high.
I don't think any objective observer who looked at that result, in which a million more Democrats came out to vote in this presidential preference compared to 2004, can argue with even a semblance of a straight face that that was not a fair contest and that those results reflect the will of the Democrats who participated.
Senator Obama just didn't like the results. I suggest that had the results been just the opposite, he would be rushing to the forefront to try to seat those delegation, and if not, arguing for a redo.
We don't even think a redo is necessary, but we're willing to go the extra mile to try to accommodate whatever reservations anyone could possibly have about Florida.
So, but is there time? Yes. And hopefully, people will -- you know, the leading people in Florida, Democratic leaders will change their mind in that regard.
Otherwise, we say seat them, and there are other processes to make sure that they are seated.
With respect to meeting with -- I think your first question is, are we prepared to meet with and negotiate -- we don't see any need for that. We think that there's plenty of time to have redos and we'll see what happens in both Florida and Michigan in that regard.
SINGER:
This is Phil. I'd just make two quick points, as well, and refer you to the poll that your paper did last week that shows broad support for, A, counting the election that took place in Florida already, and, second, support for holding a new election.
SINGER:
And I guess, with regard to the 50/50 proposal that the Obama campaign is rumored to be floating. You know, I think that it's important that, as Senator Obama himself has said, that we need to make sure that every vote counts. The proposal that they are floating essentially dismisses the role of the electorate and the views expressed by the electorate in January, which was an overwhelming preference for Senator Clinton. And I just don't see how you embrace a solution to this problem that ignores what voters are saying, what real people are saying.
You know, the Obama campaign is fond of decrying back room deals and the roles of the super delegates, except apparently when they think they have some sort of incentive for cutting a back room deal for themselves. So there's a certain a consistency that they're dancing and I would hope that people would call them out on that.
So we thank everyone for participating and joining in on our call today. As always, we'd be more than happy to take whatever questions you might have wanted to ask but didn't get a chance to ask via e-mail or perhaps tomorrow if we are so lucky to met one another over the telephone lines again.
And with that, I wish everyone a good day and we'll talk to you later. Bye.

Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama’s Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements

noreply@blogger.com (Homertojeebus) — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:12:00 +0000

Once again, the Obama campaign is getting caught saying one thing while doing another. They are personally attacking Hillary even though Sen. Obama has been found mispeaking and embellishing facts about himself more than ten times in recent months. Senator Obama’s campaign is based on words –not a record of deeds – and if those words aren’t backed up by facts, there’s not much else left.
"Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor, claimed credit for passing legislation that never left committee, and apparently inflated his role as a community organizer among other issues. When it comes to his record, just words won’t do. Senator Obama will have to use facts as well," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.
Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there’s a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]
Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. "Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was 'the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.' 'I just did that last year,' he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate." [New York Times, 2/2/08]
Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. "Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: ‘I meant the whole civil rights movement.’" [New York Times, 3/5/07]
LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. "As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld's asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir 'Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.' Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book." [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]
Chicago Tribune: Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' "…Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos." [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]
Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.' "White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House' after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions… After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge -- at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech." [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]
FactCheck.org: ‘Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.’ "Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen – who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama's plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans," neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it's only Clinton's and Edwards' plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama's would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to." [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]
Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. "As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care…And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage." The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that "The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. […] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a 'cloud' over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year." [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]
ABC News: 'Obama…seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform. "ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of "bundlers," those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is "because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that." Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama's amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What's more, although Obama's amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a 'law' that the Illinois Democrat has 'pushed through' but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information." [ABC News, 7/23/07]
Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. "When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from ‘Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser’ to ‘Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser’ to ‘Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll’ to ‘Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.’ Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it." [politico.com, 5/9/07]

First time in 12 years she misspoke?

noreply@blogger.com (Homertojeebus) — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:09:00 +0000

TODAY on KDKA Pittsburgh radio: "You know I have written about this and described it in many different settings and I did misspeak the other day. This has been a very long campaign. Occasionally, I am a human being like everybody else. The military took great care of us. They were worried about taking a First Lady to a war zone and took some extra precautions and worried about all sorts of things. I have written about it in my book and talked about it on many other occasions and last week, you know, for the first time in 12 or so years I misspoke." http://www.kdkaradio.com/pages/22441.php?contentType=34&contentId=592
Really? Below are four instances where Hillary Clinton misremembers sniper fire upon her arrival in Bosnia. (With some video of her reading her remarks.)
MARCH 17: Clinton: "There Was No Greeting Ceremony, And We Basically Were Told To Run To Our Cars. Now, That Is What Happened." "Everyone else was told to sit on their bulletproof vests," Clinton said. "And we came in, in an evasive maneuver....There was no greeting ceremony, and we basically were told to run to our cars. Now, that is what happened." [CNN, 3/1708]
MARCH 17: Clinton, Speaking About Her Trip To Bosnia, Said "I Remember Landing Under Sniper Fire. There Was Supposed To Be Some Kind Of A Greeting Ceremony At The Airport, But Instead We Just Ran With Our Heads Down To Get Into Vehicles To Get To Our Base." Clinton: "Good morning. I want to thank Secretary West for his years of service, not only as Secretary of the Army, but also to the Veteran’s Administration, to our men and women in uniform, to our country. I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady. That’s where we went. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base. But it was a moment of great pride for me to visit our troops, not only in our main base as Tuzla, but also at two outposts where they were serving in so many capacities to deactivate and remove landmines, to hunt and seek out those who had not complied with the Dayton Accords and put down their arms, and to build relationships with the people that might lead to a peace for them and their children." [Clinton speech (remarks as delivered), 3/17/08]
FEBRUARY 29: Clinton Said That The Welcoming Ceremony In Bosnia "Had To Be Moved Inside Because Of Sniper Fire." "At the rally, she belittled the idea that Mr. Obama’s 2002 speech ‘at an antiwar rally’ prepared him to serve as commander in chief. She said he was ‘missing in action’ on the recent Senate vote on Iran and as chairman of a subcommittee responsible for NATO policy in Afghanistan. Contrasting that with her own experience, she evoked foreign battlefields, recalling a trip to Bosnia as first lady, when the welcoming ceremony ‘had to be moved inside because of sniper fire.’ She said she had traveled to more than 80 countries and was ‘on the front lines’ as the United States made peace in Bosnia and Northern Ireland and helped save refugees from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo." [NYT, 3/1/08] VIDEO
DECEMBER 29: Clinton That When She Went To Bosnia, "We Landed In One Of Those Corkscrew Landings And Ran Out Because They Said There Might Be Sniper Fire." Clinton, in Dubuque, Iowa on December 29, 2007, said "I was so honored to be able to travel around the world representing our country. You know, going to places that often times were, you know, not necessarily a place that a president could go. We used to say in the White House that if a place was too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the first lady. So, I had the time of my life. I was the first, you know, high- profile American to go into Bosnia after the peace accords were signed because we wanted to show that the United States was 100 percent behind the agreement. We wanted to make it clear to the Bosnians of all backgrounds. Plus we wanted to thank our American military and our allies for a great job. So, we landed in one of those corkscrew landings and ran out because they said there might be sniper fire. I don't remember anybody offering me tea on the tarmac. We got there and went to the base where our soldiers were and I went out to a lot of the forward operating bases to thank our young men and women in uniform and to thank the Europeans, including the Russians who were part of that effort." [CNN, 1/1/08]
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bill Burton
Press Secretary
Obama for America

Enough! Pix

noreply@blogger.com (Homertojeebus) — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:40:00 +0000

sundance

noreply@blogger.com (Homertojeebus) — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:57:00 +0000

vids

noreply@blogger.com (Homertojeebus) — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:50:00 +0000

Pictures

noreply@blogger.com (Homertojeebus) — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:22:00 +0000

Open Thread

noreply@blogger.com (Homertojeebus) — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:50:00 +0000

This is an open thread to comment about the videos, I will check these every day. It's better if you comment the videos at Youtube, though.

The REAL Rudy: Command Center Brave New Films

noreply@blogger.com (Homertojeebus) — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 19:43:00 +0000

The electability of Rudy Giuliani in a general election rests solely on his pimping of 9/11 myth. Anything we can do to pop that bubble, we need to do.
I will promote this film on my show and my blog, and I'll email it around.
Here's a link to my own attempt, albeit juvenile, to puncture the Rudy mystique. It's also available at Brave New Films.
The Dancing Giulianis

If you go to the Youtube page, you can rate or comment on the video, which will also increase awareness.
Many of us witnessed the most horrible scene of our lives that day, and in the aftermath, people were right to put aside judgement until the nation had some time to recover. Unfortunately, the myths built in that time are durable. This country has already made one tragic voting decision out of 9/11 shellshock. We cannot let that happen again.
Here is the other Real Rudy film:

Go to Brave New Films for more info.

Dancing Rudys:

Larry Craig Will Get Off - Exclusive

noreply@blogger.com (Homertojeebus) — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:59:00 +0000

We checked, and we haven't seen this angle on the Craig story yet. Watch the video, and discuss after. Also, since this one isn't really funny, watch the videos after the break for our highly amusing coverage this weekend of the resignation and other stories, plus a really funny spoof of everyone's favorite Aqua Velva aficionado.

BallWitness News

DurableTeste

If you like the show, why not subscribe?
If you don't, subscribe anyway, huh? Support Liberal programming, even volunteer liberal programming.

Rudy Giuliani - Be Very Afraid

noreply@blogger.com (Homertojeebus) — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:48:00 +0000

Much is being made of Rudy's oppostion by firefighters, his unbelievable assertion that he's just like the rescue workers, his support for the Iraq war, and presumably any other war he can get his hands on. Check out this rather odd Rudy '08 clip, and read on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp5R5u7XXJo

Now, we make fun of Rudy for the drag bit because it's fun, but that's actually something I kind of like about Rudy. I guess that seems kind of unfair, unless you note that Rudy is running away from his relatively liberal stand on gay rights in order to appeal to the Republican base. Then, it seems extremely fair.
The real reason to fear Rudy is his unquenchable lust for power, best evidenced by his attempt to "postpone" the inauguration of his successor in the wake of 9/11. Check out Matt Taibi's article here:www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/02/1622/
At the time, a shocked public cut Rudy a lot of slack, but put in contaxt with the rest of his worldview, it is this propensity that really makes you shudder. Had Rudy succeeded, it might have been just the precedent Bush & Co. would need to extend their own reign. Thankfully, in this one instance, cooler heads prevailed.
There are scores of other reasons not to vote Rudy, but this is one that I don't hear too often, and it is compelling. Think before you vote.

Welcome to The Jung Jurks

noreply@blogger.com (Homertojeebus) — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:50:00 +0000

This is our inaugural blog, sort of a getting-to-know you session. Basically, this blog is a companion to the show, so let's start by showing you what we do. Here is a segment from a recent episode. Warning: The show is definitely R-rated.

The show is heavy on news and politics, but hopefully in a humorous and accessible way. Go to my Youtube Channel to get caught up.

Feel free to post comments, even if you disagree, but troll posts will totally be deleted. Just keep it productive/constructive. More to come!