Jesse Jackson

Latest news on jesse jackson

Rev. Jesse Jackson In Chicago Hospital For Stomach Pains (AHN)

(AHN) - Rev. Jesse Jackson checked into the Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago after experiencing stomach pains while campaigning for Sen. Barack Obama. - Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:18:59 GMT

Boehlert: Hillary Clinton speaks at convention. The press concocts a story

Within the fast-forward world of campaign journalism, it's not considered cool to examine the recent past in order to provide context for today's events. (We know it's not cool because nobody does it.) Nonetheless, here's a very brief history lesson that the political press prefers to ignore. At the Democratic National Convention in 1992, Jerry Brown, who finished a very distant second to the party's nominee, had his name placed into nomination and addressed the assembled convention. After seconding his own nomination (true story), Brown delivered a fiery speech that thrilled his unruly supporters inside Madison Square Garden. Brown's ill will toward nominee Bill Clinton was so legendary that The Atlanta Journal-Constitution considered it newsworthy that Brown's convention address "avoided a direct attack" on the nominee, while the Los Angeles Times noted Brown "did not specifically endorse presidential nominee Bill Clinton." Indeed, for weeks leading up to the convention, Brown refused to back his party's nominee, complaining to The New York Times in June that supporting Clinton was like buying a ticket for the Titanic. Four years earlier, the Democratic convention in Atlanta witnessed even more tumult from the second-place finisher when Jesse Jackson, furious at being passed over for the vice-presidential slot by the party's nominee, Michael Dukakis (who failed to call Jackson and tell him the VP news), threatened to withhold his delegates' support from the party's nominee. In fact, just hours before the convention began, Jackson's supporters threatened to place the candidate's name into nomination for the vice presidency, which would have created a massive floor fight between Jackson and Dukakis' pick, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas. Pre-convention tension grew so heated that the mild-mannered Dukakis was quoted as saying, "I don't care what Jesse Jackson does. I'm going to this convention and I'm going to win." During his convention keynote address, which lasted nearly an hour -- much longer than expected, Jackson did not specifically endorse Dukakis. End of history lesson. Now, take those historical nuggets from 1992 and 1988 and transport them to Denver this week, and try to imagine what the press reaction would be (not the political reaction, but the press reaction) if Hillary Clinton delivered her address Tuesday night and did not endorse the Democratic Party's nominee. Honestly, I have trouble even picturing the response, mostly because there has already been such an unhinged media response (see Maureen Dowd, if you must) to Clinton's finishing second, speaking at the convention, and supporting the party's nominee. If she snubbed the nominee? We'd probably see a media-credentialed riot, with hordes of pundits and reporters roaming the late-night streets of Denver (Pitchforks? Probably) in search of Clinton and looking to inflict long-term pain. Fact: Many in the press have portrayed Clinton's planned convention address, as well as the fact that her name is being placed into nomination, as an unprecedented, heavy-handed power grab. Fact: It's not. In years past, Democratic candidates who won lots of primaries and accumulated hundreds of delegates (sorry, Howard Dean and Bill Bradley) have always been allowed to address the convention and very often place their name into nomination. It's the norm. It's expected. It's a formality. This newly manufactured media attack on Clinton is just the latest in a long line of press grenades thrown her way this year. But this time, she's not the only victim, because the media's concocted story line is being used to unfairly skewer Barack Obama, too. Consider New York magazine: "Obama Agrees to Roll-Call Vote for Clinton. Does That Make Him a Sissy?" What's so startling in watching the coverage of the Clinton convention-speech story has been the complete ignorance displayed about how previous Democratic conventions have dealt with runners-up like Clinton. It's either complete ignorance or the media's strong desire to painstakingly avoid any historical context, which, in turn, allows the press to mislead news consumers into thinking Clinton's appearance (as well as the gracious invitation extended by Obama) represents something unique and unusual. Something newsworthy. Based on previous conventions, if a candidate had accumulated as many delegates and votes as Clinton did during the primaries and then did not have her name placed into nomination, that would represent a radical departure from the convention norm. But, boy, in 2008, an awful lot of media outlets have played dumb. When covering the August 14 announcement about Clinton's role in Denver, they miraculously forgot to make any historical reference to similar names-placed-in-nomination at previous conventions. Instead, readers and viewers were left with the obvious impression that what was scheduled to happen in Denver was remarkable, an anomaly. And I suppose if you look at the events through a soda straw, it does look unusual. But if you include the slightest bit of context, the story changes into something normal and routine. But that's not the story the press wants to tell (the Clintons are not normal!), so the press simply erased the context and stuck to its preferred story line that Clinton's appearance in Denver and the placing of her name in nomination are one for the record books. Searching the recent news archives, it's hard to find many articles or television segments that reported on Clinton's symbolic nomination and also mentioned that runner-up Jerry Brown had been nominated in '92 or that Jesse Jackson had been nominated in '88 or that Gary Hart had been nominated in '84. (You get the idea.) When The New York Times reported on Clinton's pending nomination, it made no reference to historical precedents. Neither did The Boston Globe, nor The Wall Street Journal, nor The Washington Post. And on and on and on. On CNN, Jack Cafferty commented, "The Democratic National Convention is now shaping up to be quite a party for Hillary Clinton. Her name will be placed in nomination. She'll give a prime-time address." He made no mention that that's what previous runners-up had done at conventions. Let's give credit to the Los Angeles Times, though. In the final two sentences in an article reporting the Clinton convention story, the Times miraculously found space to note that Brown, Jackson, and Hart all had their second-place names placed into nomination. Actually, the real credit goes to CNN polling director Keating Holland (figures, he doesn't work in the newsroom), who posted a lengthy analysis at CNN.com. Holland's piece not only put Clinton's role in Denver into historical perspective ("Overall, between 1972 and 1992, 10 Democratic candidates who lost the nomination in the primaries went on to have their names formally placed in nomination at the convention."), it also pointed out that Clinton represents the only runner-up to speak at the convention who formally endorsed the party's nominee months before the convention; i.e., all the others grudgingly held out on endorsing their rivals. But not Clinton. Yet she's the one slimed by media venom. Even after all these months, I still don't completely understand why Clinton's essentially centrist campaign for the White House ginned up so much open contempt from the press corps, which has felt completely comfortable addressing her in an openly derogatory and condescending manner. The issue of her convention involvement simply allowed the press to whack her around like a piñata one more time, regardless of the facts. Just take a look at a recent edition of ABC's CW-worshipping daily bulletin The Note as it mocked Clinton's convention role with barely containable contempt: Maybe it was better for the Obama campaign to invite you inside, since you would have made an ugly scene outside. Surely Sen. Barack Obama can afford to be gracious, even to you, since he'll leave Denver with the only prize that counts. "Even to you." That's a nice touch, coming from the same press corps that erupts with indignation whenever somebody suggests Clinton might have been tarred with sexist campaign coverage. (Y'think? National Review Online, August 15: "Sure, Hillary's fat and waddly and screechy and gives pantsuits a bad name.") And this from Radar magazine: Barack Obama has approved Hillary Clinton's dubious campaign to put herself up for nomination at the upcoming Democratic National Convention. We have to ask: Is it because she's a woman or just power-hungry? Note that Clinton's convention campaign was "dubious," which was accurate if Radar, y'know, ignored facts and precedent and history and all that annoying stuff. Meanwhile, what was The Note's proof that Clinton would have "made an ugly scene outside" the convention if not included? The Note had none. And that's what's been so amazing about watching the brazen, Clinton's-trying-to-steal-the-convention-with-a-speech coverage: The narrative is built on a swamp. The press has provided virtually no facts, not even anonymous quotes, to support its beloved narrative that Hillary Clinton's planned speech ignited some kind of civil war inside the Democratic Party. What's curious is that journalists who have actually bothered to cite campaign sources about her speech and symbolic nomination came away with a very different picture of what was unfolding behind the scenes. Writing at his Atlantic blog, Marc Ambinder, who seems to enjoy regular access to Obama sources, noted that "reports of strife between negotiators for Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are exaggerated" and that "multiple sources in both campaigns have described the negotiations as relatively free of acrimony." The next day, Ambinder returned to the topic perplexed, wondering why so many members of the press were pushing the clearly inaccurate story line that the Obama and Clinton camps were practically at war over the convention schedule. Ambinder was either being naïve or playing nice with his Beltway colleagues. (My guess is the latter.) Because it was obvious the press didn't care whether the rift about Clinton's speech was real or imagined. The story helped journalists advance their beloved narrative that Clinton is a political-party wrecking ball and that Obama is too weak to control her. So even if the evidence ran counter to that, the press was sticking with its story line. Like Ambinder, another journalist who actually reported the story was Joan Walsh at Salon.com, who wrote, "My sources say the Obama campaign was enthusiastic about the idea of putting Clinton's name in nomination, having independently reached the conclusion that it was the best way to honor her achievement and do more to win over her supporters." She then included a quote from Obama spokesman Bill Burton: "The conversations with her folks were very cordial and we've been able to work very closely with them as we unify this party. ... We couldn't be happier about how things are going with Senator Clinton and her team." Burton made several public pronouncements like that regarding the Denver convention schedule, but New York Times columnist Gail Collins mocked the idea that the scheduling had been cordial and easy, instead comparing the convention task to negotiating a Middle East between "enemy forces." And then there was Washington Post columnist Jeff Birnbaum who announced Obama never should have allowed Clinton to be nominated, suggesting it was a huge political mistake. How did Birnbaum know? He just knew. The fact that polling found Democrats by an almost 2-to-1 margin thought Clinton's nomination would be good for party unity was of no interest to Birnbaum or anyone else in the press spinning the event as a Democratic catastrophe. FYI, Birnbaum told The Wall Street Journal he was "grateful" for "Hillary Clinton's attempt tacitly to take over the Obama victory" because it was a great story that the press could cover throughout the convention. (Oh, goody.) As one blogger wrote after reading Birnbaum's quote, "I thought journalists were supposed to uncover the facts and report the story, not decide on the story and then interpret the facts to accommodate their storyline." Meanwhile, let's be clear: Clinton isn't the only injured party here. After the press constructed the phony premise abut Clinton's convention speech, critics then used it, unfairly, to tag Obama as a softie who can't even stand up to a woman. (Gasp.) "Russia rolls over Georgia, Hillary Clinton does the same to Barack Obama. Now we know who's boss." (Michael Goodwin, New York Daily News) "If Hillary Clinton can ride [roughshod] over this guy what do you think bin Laden will do?" (Dick Morris, on Fox News) "Russia invades Georgia. Hillary invades Obama's convention. Obama does nothing constructive on either count." (Amanda Carpenter, at Townhall.com) Why were critics able to get off those cheap shots? Because the press, strenuously ignoring facts and recent history, was determined to paint Clinton as the ultimate party crasher.

NBC and MSNBC anchors ignore their own political director's criticism of media's "hyping" of purported division among Clinton supporters

On the August 25 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, when asked by host Chris Matthews about "this civil war" between "the PUMAs, the holdouts ... and the majority, apparently, of [Sen.] Hillary [Clinton] people who really want [Sen.] Barack Obama and the Democratic Party to win this November," NBC News political director Chuck Todd said of the story, "I kind of think we're hyping it up a little bit. It's getting a little overheated. ... And I wonder if in three days, we look back and say, 'Why did we waste all of our time with that?' " Notwithstanding Todd's comments, during MSNBC's August 25 coverage of the Democratic National Convention, in interviews with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), former President Jimmy Carter, and Obama communications director Robert Gibbs, 18 of the 20 questions asked by NBC and MSNBC correspondents and anchors dealt with Clinton, her supporters, or former President Bill Clinton. Following NBC News correspondent Savannah Guthrie's interview with Schumer -- in which three of the four questions she asked dealt with Hillary Clinton -- Matthews asserted: "Savannah Guthrie there with Chuck Schumer, the senator from New York, talking up Hillary's role in this. Of course, it is going to be the story of the week, no matter what we say. Will the Clintons get aboard? Will they be invited aboard with all the right protocols?" On Hardball, Todd asserted of Matthews' purported "civil war" in the Democratic Party: TODD: But, look, I think this is one of those stories that we're -- we're in the bubble. We are in the Denver bubble right now. And as [MSNBC political analyst] Howard [Fineman] said, there are Clinton people everywhere. You could find a PUMA, not just on your feet for shoes that you might need to be using to do all the walking that you do, but you can find a PUMA anywhere you want and you can write this story. But that doesn't mean it's a story. I kind of think we're hyping it up a little bit. It's getting a little overheated. MATTHEWS: Yeah. TODD: And I wonder if in three days, we look back and say, "Why did we waste all of our time with that?" The big moment tonight is going to be [Sen.] Teddy Kennedy [D-MA], when he does something tonight. Does he speak? I think we all assume he's not coming out here to go on stage to wave. That's not -- that's not the Teddy Kennedy we've all come to watch over the years. That's going to be a bigger moment than any Clinton people who are bitter, arguing outside looking for cameras to get attention. They feel almost like -- they're becoming like Ron Paul supporters were back in the Republican primaries. I think they're a much smaller group than we make them out to be, frankly. All of the six questions Ann Curry, co-host of NBC's Today, asked Pelosi dealt with the Clintons or Hillary Clinton's supporters: "Should Senator Clinton have called on her supporters to back Barack Obama already?" "[H]as she [Clinton] hurt Barack Obama, given what the polls are looking ... like? ... Why not?" "[I]t's three months until the election, Madame Speaker, and what we have is -- you talked about 20 percent. There are a lot of disgruntled, some of them actually angry, supporters of Hillary Clinton." "What gives you confidence of party unity?" "What do you say to Hillary supporters who are now being wooed by John McCain?" "Hillary speaks tomorrow night. President Clinton speaks on Wednesday night. What do the Clintons want, and what role do you think they [the Clintons] will play?" Questions Guthrie asked Schumer about Hillary Clinton included: "I have to ask you, first of all, about that other senator from New York. A lot has been said and written about lingering division in the party. Do you see that in your delegation?" "Is there some aspect to this that Hillary herself has not been able to control? I mean, there are people who clearly feel strongly about it and, no matter what her signals are, want to make a stand." "What do you think her role in the Senate will be now? Is she going to be the lioness of the Senate, in the mold of Ted Kennedy?" Questions Curry asked Carter about the Clintons included: "Do you think that she [Hillary Clinton] should have thrown her support and asked her supporters to go to Obama before now?" "Have you spoken to the Clintons? Have you asked them to have a certain kind of message? In other words, have you tried to guide what they're going to do here?" "[H]ave you called to talk to them about what they need to do here?" All six questions Matthews and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann asked Gibbs dealt with the Clintons or Hillary Clinton's supporters: Matthews asked: "When are we going to see a real coming together of Bill Clinton, the former president, and the Democratic nominee for president, Barack Obama? When will we see them in the same picture together, having lunch together, hanging out together in a friendly environment? When will that happen?" Matthews asked: "I haven't seen a picture yet of Bill Clinton with Barack Obama. When will I see them together?" Matthews asked: Let me ask you about this very bad blood that went on during South Carolina, all the primaries in the beginning, when comments were made by former President Clinton, you know, 'this is a fairy tale,' comparisons of the success in states like South Carolina by Barack Obama with those of [Rev.] Jesse Jackson in the past in a way that seemed to minimize the success of Barack Obama, his dominance, if you will of this effort. Were they racist or were they just unfortunate? How would you describe those comments by Bill Clinton?" Matthews asked: 'Let's talk about the roll call. Keith has been raising it -- he may want to jump in on this -- he's been raising the question as to what's the choreography come Wednesday night? We've watched a number of conventions where the loser grandly and magnificently or magnanimously says, 'I ask that this be made unanimous.' Will there be a moment like that of unity?" Olbermann asked: "Mr. Gibbs, what's the best-case scenario? What do you see as the best-case scenario of these conversations, if we don't call them negotiations, between you and those supporters sort of running what's left of the Clinton campaign as we wait for the Kennedy thing tonight?" Matthews asked: "Do you expect Bill Clinton to barnstorm his way through those areas where he did well -- Southern white guys, if you will -- in the Appalachian area, states that can be tricky? Portions of Ohio; portions of Pennsylvania. Are you going to really surgically use Bill the way, for example, Eddie Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, was able to call in air strikes by the Clintons?" From the August 25 edition of MSNBC's Hardball: MATTHEWS: Chuck Todd, give us analysis of where this civil war stands right now. Out here, it's pretty noisy between the PUMAs, the holdouts, and the people -- and the majority, apparently, of Hillary people who really want Barack Obama and the Democratic Party to win this November. TODD: I tell you, in here, they actually just started the convention, so I'm sort of confused. I do see the crowds out there going a little nuts, but they actually did start the convention behind here with -- Howard Dean just dropped the gavel, gave the opening remarks. But, look, I think this is one of those stories that we're -- we're in the bubble. We are in the Denver bubble right now. And as Howard said, there are Clinton people everywhere. You could find a PUMA, not just on your feet for shoes that you might need to be using to do all the walking that you do, but you can find a PUMA anywhere you want and you can write this story. But that doesn't mean it's a story. I kind of think we're hyping it up a little bit. It's getting a little overheated. MATTHEWS: Yeah. TODD: And I wonder if in three days, we look back and say, "Why did we waste all of our time with that?" The big moment tonight is going to be Teddy Kennedy, when he does something tonight. Does he speak? I think we all assume he's not coming out here to go on stage to wave. That's not -- that's not the Teddy Kennedy we've all come to watch over the years. That's going to be a bigger moment than any Clinton people who are bitter, arguing outside looking for cameras to get attention. They feel almost like -- they're becoming like Ron Paul supporters were back in the Republican primaries. I think they're a much smaller group than we make them out to be, frankly. MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, it's a free country, but the noisiest people get the attention. Mike Barnicle -- TODD: They do. From MSNBC's August 26 coverage of the Democratic National Convention: OLBERMANN: Our correspondent Ann Curry is inside the Pepsi Center, in fact at the podium, with the woman we just heard, Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Ann, good evening. CURRY: That's right. That's right. Good evening, Keith and Chris. Good evening, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In your remarks tonight, you talked about Barack Obama being the man who will take America into a new future. Here's the question I have to ask for you. Should Senator Clinton have called on her supporters to back Barack Obama already? PELOSI: Senator Clinton, I think, has done exactly the right thing. It's very important for voters who have -- workers who have worked so hard in the campaign, they have to follow the lead of the candidate they are supporting. CURRY: But has she hurt Barack Obama, given what the polls are looking at -- like? PELOSI: I don't think so. I don't think so. CURRY: Why not? PELOSI: I don't think so. I think -- first of all, let's put it the way, this -- Barack Obama won the nomination with full confidence that he could win the general election. Now, 80 percent -- what is -- Barack Obama is leading among women right now, the bulk of Sen. -- much of Senator Clinton's support, by 20 points. By 20 points. So he is taking his message directly to the American people. Senator Clinton has emerged as a great leader in our country. She was before -- a greater leader now. And her support of course is very important -- CURRY: You mentioned the 20 -- PELOSI: -- but this is the natural course of events. CURRY: The natural course of events -- but it's three months until the election, Madame Speaker, and what we have is -- you talked about 20 percent. There are a lot of disgruntled, some of them actually angry, supporters of Hillary Clinton. PELOSI: Well, they are, but that is not the point. The point is, here we have come here together to be unified, focused, disciplined. We will leave here with a clarity of message of the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. We will leave here mobilized to drive a grassroots operation, to get out the vote, and we are confident of victory. CURRY: What gives you confidence of party unity? PELOSI: It doesn't mean party unanimity; you never have that. This is my 12th convention, and I can say that this is a pretty enthusiastic convention because in those earlier days, sometimes you didn't know the outcome going into the convention when you came out. We knew the outcome going in, and we knew what one of those outcomes would be a unified, confident Democratic Party coming out. You know why? Because everybody knows what is at stake. People are concerned about their -- losing their jobs, losing their homes, losing their standard of living, losing their purchasing power, and they know that we must have change. And that's why we're confident that with our message of an economic agenda for all Americans that we will win. CURRY: What do you say to Hillary supporters who are now being wooed by John McCain? PELOSI: Well, I would say to them that women have the most to lose with the election of John McCain and the most to gain with the election of Barack Obama. Take any day in Congress, whether you're talking about childrens' health or pay equity, equal pay for equal work for women, or talk about issues like Medicare where John McCain was wrong and Barack Obama was right. Or issues about our national security and going to war, or our economy, where, instead of investing in good paying jobs here, our economy is on the downturn. So on all of the issues, whether they're national security, economic security, or issues as personal to women as their right to choice or their pay equity or Medicare, whatever it happens to be -- children's health -- this -- the difference between the parties in policy and the individuals in terms of leadership on those policies are clear. CURRY: Hillary -- Hillary speaks tomorrow night. President Clinton speaks on Wednesday night. What do the Clintons want, and what role do you think they will play? PELOSI: Sorry? CURRY: What do the Clintons want, and what role will they play once this convention is over? PELOSI: Well, President Clinton is a former president of the United States. So his role is a very clear one, and I would like to hear Senator -- President Carter here. So he will always be a force in our country and certainly in the Democratic Party. So everyone is looking forward to being inspired by him, by hearing what his views are about the future and his support for Barack Obama and [Sen.] Joe Biden [D-DE]. Senator Clinton, a candidate in her own right, brings a different credential. In some ways her speech is more important than President Clinton's because she was currently in this race and now her supporters want to take their lead from her. But she's been absolutely great. Our country, our party have been strengthened by her candidacy, and we're all very, very proud of it. CURRY: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, thank you so much for stopping to speak to us. Thank you so much. All right now, Keith, right back to you. OLBERMANN: Ann Curry at the podium. Thank you, Ann. MATTHEWS: And now to Savannah Guthrie, who is with New York Senator Chuck Schumer -- senior Senator Chuck Schumer. GUTHRIE: Chuck Schumer is with me now. I have to ask you, first of all, about that other senator from New York. A lot has been said and written about lingering division in the party. Do you see that in your delegation? SCHUMER: I don't. We're probably the most pro-Hillary delegation of all of them, and there is great unity. Hillary this morning spoke to the delegation, and she said, "We need unity," and that makes sense because Hillary cares about this country and knows we can't afford another four years of John McCain. GUTHRIE: Is there some aspect to this that Hillary herself has not been able to control? I mean, there are people who clearly feel strongly about it and, no matter what her signals are, want to make a stand. SCHUMER: There are a few outliers who will be never happy, but the overwhelming majority of Hillary delegates here at this convention -- and I was the first senator to be for her and last off -- but the overwhelming majority are going to be for her and for her big time. GUTHRIE: What do you think her role will be now? SCHUMER: Sorry -- for him, and for him big time. We were for her big time, now we're going to be for Barack big time. GUTHRIE: Old habits die hard. SCHUMER: Exactly. GUTHRIE: What do you think her role in the Senate will be now? Is she going to be the lioness of the Senate, in the mold of Ted Kennedy? SCHUMER: Well, you know, she -- you know, sometimes you lose an election. You hate to lose it. But you actually grow in stature. That has happened to Hillary, and I think she could on major issues be really a seminal voice. GUTHRIE: Obviously, the presidential election is what has brought us all here, but you're very integral to the Senate campaigns. How many seats do you think the Democrats will gain? SCHUMER: We're going to pick up a whole bunch. Now, 60 is the dream. It's hard 'cause there are so many red states, but it's not out of the question, and we're finding in places we never thought we had a chance -- Oklahoma, this week, Georgia, we're much closer than we thought in addition to other 11 states. GUTHRIE: Senator Chuck Schumer, thanks for your time. SCHUMER: Thank you. GUTHRIE: Chris, back to you. MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you, Savannah Guthrie there with Chuck Schumer, the senator from New York, talking up Hillary's role in this. Of course, it is going to be the story of the week, no matter what we say. Will the Clintons get aboard? Will they be invited aboard with all the right protocols? [...] OLBERMANN: Let me do the -- run the risk of interrupting you because we don't want to keep a former president waiting. Ann Curry back inside the Pepsi Center with former President Carter. Ann? CURRY: That's right. Thank you so much, Keith. Thank you so much, Mr. President, for sticking around. Now, let me ask you, you know, you're the elder statesman, really, of this party. CARTER: I guess so. I think this is my ninth convention. CURRY: I need to ask you your feelings about why -- what is your sense about why this race is still so tight? CARTER: Well, I think the main reason is that a lot of supporters of Senator Clinton have not yet made up their minds. I noticed in news media this morning that only 46 percent of them so far are completely dedicated to Obama. But I think after this convention, you'll see a massive move by them to support Obama, and I think the polls will change very quickly. CURRY: In part that is probably because we will hear from Senator Clinton on Tuesday night and she will make her statements known. However, it is now three months until the election. You know how this rolls. Do you think that she should have thrown her support and asked her supporters to go to Obama before now? CARTER: No, I think this is working out quite well. You know, I know this from history -- you said I'm an elder statesman, and I know it from history. In 1976, when I got the nomination for president, there was an intense argument or debate between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan at their Republican convention. They divided horribly, and it was about four or five -- almost two months later before the Reagan people finally said, "OK, we will support Gerald Ford as a last choice." That's not going to wait this long this year. I think immediately after this convention, you'll see a massive move by the Clinton supporters to Obama. CURRY: Have you spoken to the Clintons? Have you asked them to have a certain kind of message? In other words, have you tried to guide what they're going to do here? CARTER: Not really. I don't think that's appropriate for me. They know a lot more about politics than I do and have been in it a lot more recently. CURRY: But have you called to talk to them about what they need to do here? CARTER: Yeah, in fact, Bill Clinton has called me. I think he called me last time. I called him earlier. But we stay in communication. And I don't think there's any doubt that Bill and his wife will be completely committed to Obama. I don't have any doubt about that. CURRY: All right. Mr. President, I know you've got to make it to another location. Thank you so much for staying. CARTER: Pleasure to talk to you. CURRY: It's a pleasure to see you, sir. CARTER: I think it's going to be a wonderful convention. CURRY: Well, you're looking very well and I'm very glad to see you. CARTER: Thank you very much. CURRY: So now back to you, Keith and Chris, back in the studio. [...] MATTHEWS: Robert Gibbs is the Obama campaign communications director. Robert, thank you for joining us. You're right near us now. When are we going to see a real coming together of Bill Clinton, the former president, and the Democratic nominee for president, Barack Obama? When will we see them in the same picture together, having lunch together, hanging out together in a friendly environment? When will that happen? GIBBS: Well, look, they're trying to get together real soon but they had a long conversation last Thursday on our campaign bus as we were rolling through Virginia. You know, Chris, this party is united. This party's going to be united coming out of -- coming out of Denver here on Friday. We're gonna -- we're united by a simple message, and that is: We need change in this country. We can't have four more years of the same George Bush-John McCain policies that have taken this country in the wrong direction. That's what unites a lot of different delegates that have come here supporting different candidates in the past. But it's important that people understand we are going to be united. We have to have change in November. MATTHEWS: Well, again, I haven't seen a picture yet of Bill Clinton with Barack Obama. When will I see them together? GIBBS: Real soon. MATTHEWS: Real soon. Let me ask you about this very bad blood that went on during South Carolina, all the primaries in the beginning, when comments were made by former President Clinton, you know, "this is a fairy tale," comparisons of the success in states like South Carolina by Barack Obama with those of Jesse Jackson in the past in a way that seemed to minimize the success of Barack Obama, his dominance, if you will of this effort. Were they racist or were they just unfortunate? How would you describe those comments by Bill Clinton? GIBBS: You know, Chris, I remember South Carolina. It was -- it all happened so fast. We were quickly off on to I don't know how many states for February 5th. We didn't have a lot of time to focus on this. Look, I don't think in any way, shape, or form were those comments racist. There's been no better advocate for the African-American community than former President Bill Clinton. We're a united party. Somebody -- a very exclusive club, former presidents, and we look to hope to use the wisdom and the campaign skills of Bill Clinton to good use in the fall to bring Democrats together, to bring independents and Republicans out in places like Colorado and all throughout the West, and win the White House for the first time since he occupied it a little over eight years ago. MATTHEWS: Let's talk about the roll call. Keith's been raising it -- he may want to jump in on this -- he's been raising the question as to what's the choreography come Wednesday night? We've watched a number of conventions where the loser grandly and magnificently or magnanimously says, "I ask that this be made unanimous." Will there be a moment like that of unity? GIBBS: Well, look, the logistics of this are in some flux and they're being worked out. But again, what I think you'll see after that roll call is a party that's united. Look, again, we understand that people came with strong passions. Look, Senator Clinton ran a fabulous campaign. She was an outspoken and eloquent voice for working families, for better health care, for better schools. That's exactly what Barack Obama wants to see in this country, and that's what we're here to advocate each and every night in this platform. OLBERMANN: Mr. Gibbs, what's the best-case scenario? What do you see as the best-case scenario of these conversations, if we don't call them negotiations, between you and those supporters sort of running what's left of the Clinton campaign as we wait for the Kennedy thing tonight? GIBBS: Well, look -- here's what I think is going to happen. I think you're going to hear a very passionate, a very eloquent speech tomorrow night from Senator Clinton, and she's going to tell the hall and all of America that the candidate that she most wants to see as president of the United States is Barack Obama. I think that's going to carry a tremendous amount of weight with Democrats that may not be as excited right now as we'd like them to be. But I guarantee that 10 weeks, a little over 10 weeks from now on election night, Democrats will be -- will come out in full force in numbers like you've never seen before. MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the question as to the role they're going to play. Do you expect Bill Clinton to barnstorm his way through those areas where he did well -- Southern white guys, if you will -- in the Appalachian area, states that can be tricky -- portions of Ohio, portions of Pennsylvania? Are you going to really surgically use Bill the way, for example, Eddie Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, was able to call in the airstrikes by the Clintons? GIBBS: Well, look, former President Clinton has expressed a desire to get out and campaign. Obviously, Senator Clinton has been in key states for us -- Florida, New Mexico, and other places recently. They've both been fabulous. They've both been extraordinarily helpful. We couldn't ask anything more. And I think you mentioned it. Look, this race is going to be decided in places like Scranton, Pennsylvania, and Youngstown, Ohio, and Macomb County, Michigan, and look, you've got a great choice between these two candidates, right? John McCain was asked last week fairly innocently, I would presume, by a reporter, "How many houses do you own?" And his answer was, "I'll get back to you. I'll get some staff to get you that answer." For your viewers, guys, the answer was seven. That's how many houses they own. But I think there are voters sitting here tonight in Scranton, in Youngstown, in Macomb County, that are just trying to make their mortgage payment for next month. They want a president that's in touch with their problems, that understands that this economy has to get moving again, and that choice is Barack Obama. MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you for joining us over here at the MSNBC site. GIBBS: Thanks, guys. MATTHEWS: Robert Gibbs, communication director.

"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser

Sixteen years later, media still peddle Bob Casey myth For the past 16 years, news organizations have been repeating an obvious falsehood about the 1992 Democratic convention. According to countless news reports -- in The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, ABC, NPR, Time, Newsweek, CNN, MSNBC, The Wall Street Journal, and on and on and on -- then-Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey was denied a speaking role at the convention because he opposed abortion rights. That's false. And it's obviously false. Here's all you need to know in order to know with absolute certainty that Casey's views on abortion were not the reason he was not given a speaking role: that very same Democratic convention featured speeches by at least eight people who shared Casey's anti-choice position, including Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley Jr., Sens. John Breaux and Howell Heflin, and five governors. This is really, really simple: if there were eight speakers at the 1992 convention who were "pro-life," then it cannot logically be the case that Casey was excluded solely because of his position on abortion. Yet here's The New York Times, just last week: "Sixteen years ago, the Democratic Party refused to allow Robert P. Casey Sr., then the governor of Pennsylvania, to speak at its national convention because his anti-abortion views, stemming from his Roman Catholic faith, clashed with the party's platform and powerful constituencies." No. That is not true. That cannot be true. It cannot be the case that he was not allowed to speak because of his views -- other people with the same views were allowed to speak. Forgive the repetition, but reporters at nearly every significant news organization in the country are inexplicably incapable of grasping this extraordinarily simple concept. And when Media Matters pointed out the error, did the Times run a correction? No. The Times apparently stands by its transparent falsehood. That is not a sign of a newspaper that gives a damn about the truth. Not that the Times is alone in its willingness to traffic in obvious falsehoods. The Associated Press joined in this week, embellishing the claim: "the late Pennsylvania Gov. Robert P. Casey ... was not given a marquee speaking spot at the 1992 convention because of his anti-abortion views." ABC put it similarly: "Casey ... was denied a prime speaking spot at the 1992 convention because of his opposition to abortion rights." Those reports contained a new twist to go along with the old falsehood: They assumed that absent Casey's views on abortion, he would have been entitled to a "prime" or "marquee" speaking spot at the convention. But there's simply no reason to think that is the case. Casey wasn't a nationally renowned orator like convention speakers Mario Cuomo, Ann Richards, and Zell Miller, or the governor of the host state like Cuomo, or a leader influential with a large party constituency like Jesse Jackson. Casey certainly wasn't a nobody -- he was the governor of Pennsylvania, and that's a significant thing. But it isn't something that would have entitled him to a speaking spot at the convention, much less a "marquee" spot. Not everybody gets to speak at a national party convention. And based on contemporaneous media coverage from the months preceding the Democratic convention, there simply wasn't a widespread assumption that Casey would speak -- or even speculation that he might. In fact, a review of the news reports available in the Nexis database that mention Casey's name within 20 words of the word "convention" for the several months preceding the party gathering suggests that the only person suggesting that Casey might speak was ... Bob Casey himself. It seems from the public record that Casey wasn't "denied" a speaking spot because of his views on abortion -- he was never really considered, and nobody was suggesting he would be a good choice to speak. (By contrast, there were scores of news reports about Democrats wanting Cuomo to speak at the convention before an announcement was made that he would do so.) People involved in planning the 1992 Democratic convention have long maintained that Casey was not given an opportunity to speak because he refused to endorse Bill Clinton, who was to be nominated at the convention. That's what they said at the time, too. The Washington Post's first report on Casey's request for speaking time included a quote from the Democratic National Committee's press secretary: "anyone who is speaking at the convention will have endorsed Governor Clinton by the time of the convention and Governor Casey has not." It should be noted that it wasn't merely that Casey hadn't gotten around to endorsing Clinton. He was arguing that Clinton had only a "flyspeck" of support and that the party should consider nominating someone else at the convention. Of course, only those involved in the decisions about who would speak at the convention know for certain if Casey's refusal to endorse Clinton was the reason he wasn't given a speaking role. But we do know that as soon as Casey asked for one, the Democratic Party publicly indicated that his failure to endorse Clinton would prevent him from speaking. If the convention organizers were making a bluff, Casey could have called it by simply endorsing Clinton. He chose not to. Instead, he began denouncing the party for having a "radical, extreme position" in favor of abortion rights and claiming it was bowing to "the radical far left." Members of his own delegation were quoted saying he was "being a jerk" and said they were considering removing him as head of the delegation. It's also important to keep in mind that Casey didn't merely want to speak at the convention. He wanted to devote his entire speech to opposing the Democratic Party on a single issue. After the convention ended, Casey released the text of the speech he would have delivered had he been given the chance. The speech ran more than 1,000 words -- and not one of those words was "Clinton." Nor was the word "Gore" mentioned. Casey's speech did not include a single word of praise or support for the ticket being nominated at the convention he wanted to address. Instead, it accused the party of being "far out of the mainstream and on the extreme fringe" on abortion. That's what the entire speech was about: disagreeing with, and insulting, the Democratic Party on abortion. And yet the media pretend Casey's lack of a speaking role at the 1992 convention tells us something about the Democratic Party. OK, quick: Name a single example in modern history of a Republican who has not endorsed the GOP nominee being given time to give an address at the party's convention -- an address that does not support or even mention the nominee, but rather consists solely of arguing against and insulting the party's position on abortion. You can't name one, because it has never happened. Nor do I recall many speeches at recent Republican conventions arguing in favor of gay rights or against the Iraq war. Nobody points to that as evidence of the Republicans' intolerance of divergent viewpoints. And yet, ever since the 1992 convention, the news media have portrayed the lack of a speaking role for Casey as evidence of the Democratic Party's supposed intolerance of anti-choice politicians -- a portrayal gleefully encouraged by Republicans. As ABC reported this week: The 1992 snub has become a symbol over the years of the Democratic Party making support for abortion rights a litmus test. In 2004, Republicans contrasted the Casey snub with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, R-Calif., and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, R-NY., two Republicans who support abortion rights, speaking to their convention. But unlike Casey, Giuliani and Schwarzenegger had endorsed their party's nominee. And neither Giuliani nor Schwarzenegger delivered a speech that consisted solely of disagreeing with the GOP's position on abortion. Instead, they delivered strong endorsements of George W. Bush. The situations aren't even remotely comparable. The Republicans' granting of convention speeches to Schwarzenegger and Giuliani isn't a contrast to the Democrats' not giving Casey a speech; it is instead a direct analog to John Breaux and Howell Heflin and other anti-choice Democrats who have spoken at Democratic conventions. The comparison of Giuliani to Casey would be laughable even if it were true that Casey's position on abortion kept him from a speaking role. But ABC pretended the bogus contrast was apt. If you spend a few minutes browsing through news articles available on Nexis, you won't have any trouble finding absurdities like this. Here's one particularly convoluted comparison, from a Buffalo News columnist writing in November 2004: Last summer's Republican conclave in New York City was a skin-deep showcase for The Big Tent. In August, Republicans paraded a squad of pro-choice speakers on prime time. They didn't talk about abortion rights there, certainly, but their prominence beckoned to the undecided. In the VIP box sat Vice President Cheney's lesbian daughter, Mary, and her partner, Heather Poe. Contrast these shallow bows to cross-culturalism to what happened to the party of inclusion a dozen years before in the same building. The forces of then Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton barred Pennsylvania Gov. Robert Casey from making any address to the Democratic convention. Casey was the most influential anti-abortion voice in the nation. He passed the country's most stringent abortion controls and won re-election by more than a million votes. [...] Whatever one's views on abortion, it is undeniable now that the Republicans have handled their relationships with social-issue constituencies far more deftly than the Democrats have with theirs. Got that? The 2004 Republican convention featured pro-choice speakers who didn't talk about abortion rights. And that's supposed to be an inclusive, tolerant contrast to the 1992 Democratic convention at which eight anti-choice Democrats spoke. Why? Because Casey (supposedly) wasn't allowed to give a speech that would have been entirely about his opposition to abortion. The Republicans handled things more deftly than the Democrats by doing exactly what the Democrats did -- featuring speakers who disagree with them on abortion, but who didn't give speeches about the topic. Let's end where we began, by making this as simple as possible. Eight Democrats who opposed abortion rights spoke at the 1992 Democratic convention. Therefore, it cannot be the case that Bob Casey was prevented from speaking at the 1992 convention because of his opposition to abortion rights. The fact that Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and other pro-choice Republicans have spoken at recent Republican conventions does not in any way contrast with the way Casey was treated; their speeches were not devoted entirely to disagreeing with and insulting their party. Unlike the speech Casey wanted to give, Giuliani and Schwarzenegger devoted their convention addresses to supporting their party's nominee. Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, and other pro-choice Republican convention speakers are, instead, directly analogous to the numerous anti-choice Democrats who have spoken at Democratic conventions in recent years. This really isn't complicated stuff. There's no excuse for news organizations getting it wrong. They're just falling for bogus spin, and they don't care enough to get things right.

Could Obama's rise signal the end of black victimology?

If so, it's not good for Jesse Jackson, but it's great for America.

Citations in Freddoso's anti-Obama book rife with misinformation

The jacket cover for conservative author David Freddoso's The Case Against Barack Obama (Regnery) describes the book as "[s]ober, fair, and thoroughly researched -- and all the more powerful and provocative because of it." As Media Matters for America documented, however, just the first few pages of Freddoso's book are marked by false and misleading assertions about Sen. Barack Obama, accompanied by dubious citations. A review of the endnotes in The Case Against Barack Obama reveals that the rest of the book is little different from these first few pages, as throughout the book, Freddoso misrepresents or distorts his sources and even makes assertions that are actually refuted by sources he cites. 1. On pages 30-31 of his book, Freddoso cites page 124 of Chicago journalist David Mendell's book Obama: From Promise to Power (Amistad, August 2007) in characterizing a piece of ethics legislation Obama passed in 1998 as "relatively harmless," and claiming that the bill merely made Obama "look like a reformer." In fact, Mendell wrote something very different from what Freddoso claims. He did not in any way characterize the bill as "harmless," but instead noted that pushing the bill through the state Senate "was a tough assignment for a new lawmaker, since he was essentially sponsoring legislation that would strip away long-held privileges and perks from his colleagues," and that Obama received opposition from his colleagues regarding the ethics legislation. Mendell further wrote that Obama "worked the issue deliberately and delicately," and that upon its passage, the bill "essentially lifted Illinois, a state with a deep history of illicit, pay-to-play politics, into the modern world when it came to ethics restrictions." Freddoso writes: As [Illinois state Sen. Emil] Jones's political godson, and even long before the conversation about the United States Senate, Obama had the privilege of stealing important bills. Other senators had a name for this practice: "bill-jacking." 17 Mendell records that as early as 1998, Jones had already done such favors at the prompting of Obama's liberal friends. Abner Mikva, a former congressman and federal judge, had recommended to Jones that he give Obama a popular piece of legislation barring political fundraising on state property and barring lobbyists and contractors from giving gifts to legislators. The bill had enough loopholes to be relatively harmless, but it was a step in the direction of reform. Jones gave it to Obama. Obama proposed it. It passed, 52-4.18 The "Friends and Family" man, the old ward-heeler, was even capable of making Obama look like a reformer. From pages 123-124 of Obama: Legislatively, Obama managed to pass a decent number of laws for a first-term lawmaker in the minority party. His first major legislative accomplishment was shepherding a piece of campaign finance reform in May 1998. The measure prohibited lawmakers from soliciting campaign funds while on state property and from accepting gifts from state contractors, lobbyists or other interests. The senate's Democratic leader, Emil Jones Jr., a veteran African-American legislator from the South Side, offered Obama the opportunity to push through the bill because it seemed like a good fit for the do-good persona projected by Obama. Obama was also recommended to Jones by two esteemed Chicago liberals who had taken a liking to him: former U.S. senator Paul Simon and former congressman and federal judge Abner Mikva. Working on the bill was an eye-opening experience for the freshman senator. It was a tough assignment for a new lawmaker, since he was essentially sponsoring legislation that would strip away long-held privileges and perks from his colleagues. In one private session, a close colleague angrily denounced the bill, saying that it impinged on lawmakers' inherent rights. But Obama worked the issue deliberately and delicately, and the measure passed the senate by an overwhelming 52-4 vote. "This sets the standard for us, and communicates to a public that is increasingly cynical about Springfield and the General Assembly that we in fact are willing to do the right thing," Obama told reporters immediately after the bill's passage. The bill was not a watershed event anywhere but Illinois. It essentially lifted Illinois, a state with a deep history of illicit, pay-to-play politics, into the modern world when it came to ethics restrictions. The bill gave Obama a legislative success, but his public criticism of Springfield's old-school politics did not sit well with some of his colleagues, who already considered the Ivy League lawyer overly pious. Indeed, Freddoso goes on to undermine his dismissive treatment of the legislation, describing it as a "real accomplishment" later in the book. From pages 93-94 of The Case Against Barack Obama: Obama's reform record is not a complete wash. His most notable accomplishment in Washington was the bill he co-sponsored with Republican senator Tom Coburn, the conservative junior senator from Oklahoma. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 -- also known as "Google for Government" -- helped expose to the sunlight the congressional practice of "earmarking," in which members of Congress direct federal spending to parochial projects -- swimming pools, bridges to nowhere -- that often have no national importance or congressional authorization.63 Coburn and Obama's bill, approved over the objection of some of Capitol Hill's worst porkers, really was a small victory for open government and bipartisanship. This was a real accomplishment for Obama in the name of reform -- the second such accomplishment of his career after the Illinois ethics law. 2. On page 61, Freddoso claims that "[o]nlookers faint at his [Obama's] speeches with alarming frequency compared to other campaigns," citing a February 18 item called "The Monday Morning Presidential Briefing," by Boston Herald police bureau chief Jessica Van Sack. But while Van Sack did address fainting at Obama rallies, she made no comparison to other campaigns, as Freddoso claims. Freddoso writes: There is undoubtedly a religious component to "Obamania." The Reverend Jesse Jackson, himself a former presidential candidate, commented that Obama is running a "theological campaign" -- that "[a]t some point, he took off his arms and grew wings." At the University of Texas, crowds sang "Obama-leluja" at his approach.4 Onlookers faint at his speeches with alarming frequency compared to other campaigns. From Van Sack's item, which included this graph under the subhead, "Hot Video of the Week": Attending a Barack Obama rally anytime soon? Don't forget the smelling salts. Obama's enthusiastic young followers are dropping like worshippers at a televangelist mega-sermon, as the video of a string of recent crowd-fainting incidents shows. 3. Freddoso writes on page 83 that Obama "takes all the teeth" out his idea of a "merit-pay program" for teachers by "promising" that "the measure of 'merit' " will be determined "by some yet undiscovered measure to be chosen by teachers' unions." Freddoso's source for this claim is a July 5, 2007, Philadelphia Inquirer article on Obama's speech that day to the National Education Association. The article, however, does not say that Obama's merit pay measure will be "chosen by teachers' unions." Rather, the article reported what Obama said in his speech -- that he will work with teachers unions to develop a system. From page 83 of The Case Against Barack Obama: Obama has acquired an undeserved reputation for reform in education because he offers mild rhetoric about a merit-pay program for teachers. But he takes all of the teeth out of the idea by promising his allies that the measure of "merit" will not be determined by student achievement -- "arbitrary tests" -- but by some yet undiscovered measure to be chosen by teachers' unions.15 Obama's merit pay also comes only in exchange for six-figure teacher salaries. From the July 5, 2007, Philadelphia Inquirer article: Illinois Sen. Barack Obama today endorsed the idea of merit pay for teachers before an audience hostile to the idea, the giant National Education Association, but he softened the blow by telling the union's national assembly that he would not use "arbitrary tests" to link pay to performance. "I think there should be ways for us to work with the NEA, with teachers' unions, to figure out a way to measure success," Obama told a crowd of about 9,000 at the Pennsylvania Convention Center. "I want to work with teachers. I'm not going to do it too you, I'm going to do it with you." 4. On page 88, Freddoso writes that "Obama explained that if he took public financing, it might be hard to compete with the outside '527 groups' who will mercilessly smear him," and quotes a June 20 Washington Post article asserting: "No conservative 527 groups have materialized." As Media Matters noted at the time, the Post article ignored the actions of conservative groups, such as the Vets for Freedom political action committee, which had already launched two Internet ads attacking Obama over the Iraq war. Other outside groups such as Freedom's Watch and the National Campaign Fund PAC had also released ads attacking Obama. From page 88 of The Case Against Barack Obama: Obama explained that if he took public financing, it might be hard to compete with the outside "527 groups" who will mercilessly smear him. Of [Sen. John] McCain, he said: "[W]e've already seen that he's not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations." "No conservative 527 groups have materialized," the Washington Post noted.35 But what if they do? And the groups more favorable to Obama -- MoveOn.org and the labor unions, for example -- might lack the resources to compete with those conservative groups, should they materialize. It should be noted that in 2004, the pro-Democrat 527s outspent the pro-Republican 527s $282 million to $111 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.36 As of mid-year 2008, the Democratic 527s had slightly outraised their GOP counterparts, but then when you throw in the labor unions and pro-choice groups, Obama's 527 army is already better funded than McCain's. 5. On page 116, Freddoso addresses Obama's "present" votes in the Illinois state Senate, citing a December 20, 2007, New York Times article in claiming that "other Illinois senators say" Obama's 130 "present" votes was an "unusually high" number. In fact, the Times article does not quote any Illinois state senators commenting on the frequency of Obama's "present" votes, nor does it report that other Illinois senators considered the frequency of Obama's "present" votes to be "unusually high." Indeed, while neither the Times nor Freddoso provided substantiation for his claim that Obama had an "unusually high" number of "present" votes, PolitiFact.com quoted Christopher Mooney, a political scientist at the University of Illinois-Springfield, saying of Obama's "present" votes: "Everyone I've spoken to who's familiar with this, including lobbyists and people who are engaged in opposition research, say the number of times he voted present on a proportional basis was probably a little less than average." Freddoso writes: If Obama cast many controversial votes in Springfield, he also avoided many controversial votes. An interesting aspect of his career in the state Senate was his habit of voting "present" on controversial legislation instead of voting "yea" or "nay." He did this about 130 times over his eight-year career there, which other Illinois senators say is unusually high.56 As Nathan Gonzales of the Rothenberg Political Report noted, "We aren't talking about a 'present' vote on whether to name a state office building after a deceased state official, but rather about votes that reflect an officeholder's core values." 6. On pages 174-175, Freddoso claims that Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) was one of the Democrats who was "against Obama on this point" -- a reference to the debate over whether a U.S. president should be willing to meet with leaders of North Korea, Iran, and other countries without preconditions. As evidence, Freddoso quotes from Biden's May 18, 2008, appearance on ABC's This Week: "This is a fellow who I think shorthanded an answer that in fact was the wrong answer." However, the full context of Biden's quote shows that he actually said that he and Obama agreed, saying that Obama's recent statements on the issue "mirrored the statements the rest of us have been talking about." Freddoso writes: For Clinton, there had to be some preconditions -- how else could such a meeting be in the interest of the United States? There had to [sic] an upside. You don't have to take as hard a line as President Bush, she was arguing, but you can't just have a beer with Kim Jong II after he launched seven missiles in provocation during the summer of 2006.12 He must first show some cooperation -- some substantial sign of good faith -- as a precondition. That is how diplomacy works in the real world. In the months that followed, Democrats ranging from moderate to liberal generally sided with Clinton and against Obama on this point. Former congressman Harold Ford of Tennessee, another young, black superstar in the Democratic Party and chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, was one of the moderates. "I'll concede you cannot meet with foreign leaders -- with terrorists rather -- without some conditions. 13 "This is a fellow who I think shorthanded an answer that in fact was the wrong answer," said Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, the liberal chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. From the May 18 broadcast of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (host): So, he's developed that -- BIDEN: I think he has. STEPHANOPOULOS: -- what he needs to know in the nine months on the campaign trail. BIDEN: I think he's focused on -- what we're talking about here is that he has repeatedly, since then, said he would not negotiate unconditionally -- meaning him sitting down alone, right off the bat, with these leaders. He's talked about his secretary of state, his secretary of defense. As a matter of fact, the statements he's using have mirrored the statements the rest of us have been talking about. This is a fellow who I think shorthanded an answer that, in fact, was the wrong answer, in my view, saying I would, within the first year. It implied he'd personally sit down with anybody who wanted to sit down with him. That's not what he meant. That's not what he has said since then for the last year, or thereabouts. And so, I think that he's fully capable of understanding what's going -- and put this in context, the policy that Bush has pursued and McCain will continue, has been an abject failure. We are weaker in the Middle East. We are weaker around the world. Terrorism is stronger than it ever was. Iran is closer to a bomb. Just by any measure -- any measure -- what has their policy wrought? A disaster. It's been an absolute disaster. 7. On page 215, Freddoso cites a June 13, 2007 (wrongly identified in the endnotes as a June 13, 2008, article), Chicago Sun-Times article in claiming that a spokesman for Obama and a lawyer for convicted Chicago businessman Antoin Rezko "say it is simply a coincidence" that Obama wrote letters in support of Cottage View Terrace, one of Rezko's housing projects. In fact, the Sun-Times quoted Obama spokesman Bill Burton stating that Obama supported Cottage View Terrace "because it was going to help people in his district," and Rezko's attorney saying simply that "Mr. Rezko never spoke with, nor sought a letter from, Senator Obama in connection with that project." Freddoso writes: In June, Chicago Sun-Times reporter Tim Novak reported that Obama "wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko's successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens."10 The project, Cottage View Terrace, includes ninety-seven apartments. It is a few blocks outside of Obama's state Senate district. The deal for which Obama helped Rezko get this money also included Obama's old law-firm boss, Allison Davis. He is also a major Obama fundraiser and a developer who has built or renovated 1,500 apartment units in Chicago.11 From the $14.6 million in state funds that Obama requested, the two men would already be expected to profit through their housing business. But Davis and Rezko were also to collect $855,000 of it in "development fees." Obama's spokesman and Rezko's lawyer say it is simply a coincidence that the senator wrote these letters to help two longtime friends, Davis and Rezko, get millions of dollars. From the June 13, 2007, Chicago Sun-Times article: On Tuesday, Bill Burton, press secretary for Obama's presidential campaign, said the letters Obama wrote in support of the development weren't intended as a favor to Rezko or Davis. "This wasn't done as a favor for anyone," Burton said in a written statement. "It was done in the interests of the people in the community who have benefited from the project. "I don't know that anyone specifically asked him to write this letter nine years ago," the statement said. "There was a consensus in the community about the positive impact the project would make and Obama supported it because it was going to help people in his district. ... They had a wellness clinic and adult day-care services, as well as a series of social services for residents. It's a successful project. It's meant a lot to the community, and he's proud to have supported it.'' The development, called the Cottage View Terrace apartments, opened five years ago at 4801 S. Cottage Grove, providing 97 apartments for low-income senior citizens. Asked about the Obama letters, Rezko's attorney, Joseph Duffy, said Tuesday, "Mr. Rezko never spoke with, nor sought a letter from, Senator Obama in connection with that project." 8. In addition, as Media Matters documented, in the introduction to The Case Against Barack Obama, Freddoso writes that, in challenging the eligibility of signatures his opponents collected to get their names on the ballot of the 1996 Illinois state Senate Democratic primary for the 13th district, Obama threw "all of his opponents off the ballot on a technicality." On page 2, however, Freddoso undermines his own claim by quoting a 1996 Chicago Weekend report that some of incumbent Sen. Alice Palmer's signatures were disqualified because the voters who signed lived outside the 13th district -- something more than a mere "technicality." On page 3, Freddoso reproduces a portion of an April 3, 2007, Chicago Tribune article in which one of Obama's opponents in 1996, Gha-Is Askia, referring to Obama's challenge of the signatures, is quoted as saying: "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?" That same article, however, also reported that Askia "now suspects" some of the signatures his campaign collected were forged -- a fact Freddoso did not mention, which undermines his "technicality" allegation. On page 5 of The Case Against Barack Obama, Freddoso cites page 109 of Mendell's Obama, in writing that Palmer "was considered the early favorite in this contest," and "collected nearly 1,600 petition signatures in just ten days and submitted them ahead of the December 18 deadline." However, Mendell also wrote on pages 109-110 that "Palmer realized that Obama had called her hand, and she acknowledged that she had not properly acquired the necessary number of signatures" -- another fact Freddoso omitted. From page 3 of The Case Against Barack Obama: One of them was Gha-is Askia. He never had much of a chance of winning anyway, but he had gathered 1,899 signatures, and Team Obama took the time to challenge them as well.6 Askia spoke to the Chicago Tribune in 2007 about it: "Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?" From the April 3 Tribune article: Leafing through scrapbooks in his South Shore apartment, Askia, a perennially unsuccessful candidate, acknowledges that he paid Democratic Party precinct workers $5 a sheet for some of the petitions, and now suspects they used a classic Chicago ruse of passing the papers among themselves to forge the signatures. "They round-tabled me," Askia said. From page 5 of The Case Against Barack Obama (Mendell citations in bold): As an incumbent with the backing of the new congressman, Jesse Jackson Jr., Palmer was considered the early favorite in this contest.14 She went out and collected nearly 1,600 petition signatures in just ten days and submitted them ahead of the December 18 deadline.15 She would still need to defeat Obama and two other Democratic challengers, but as an incumbent with the backing of the popular new congressman, Palmer was the early favorite. Until Obama kept her from running, that is. From page 109-110 of Mendell's Obama: So a volunteer for Obama challenged the legality of her petitions, as well as the legality of petitions from several other candidates in the race. As an elections board hearing on the petitions neared, Palmer realized that Obama had called her hand, and she acknowledged that she had not properly acquired the necessary number of signatures. Many of the voters had printed their names, rather than signing them as the law required. 9. On page xii of the introduction to The Case Against Barack Obama, Freddoso claims that Obama's "liberal supporters ... support military strikes within the territory of an American ally without that nation's permission" because "Obama apparently made a slip of the tongue in August of last year and advocated such incursions into Pakistan." Freddoso's source for this was an August 1, 2007, Reuters article on Obama's speech that day at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C., in which Obama said: OBAMA: I understand that [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will. As Media Matters noted, however, Obama's comments were not a "slip of the tongue"; they were included in his prepared remarks and were among excerpts the Obama campaign emailed to reporters prior to the actual speech. The Reuters article Freddoso cites does not characterize Obama's remarks as a "slip of the tongue," nor does it suggest that they were in any way inadvertent.

O'Reilly: "It is not a stretch to say MoveOn is the new Klan"

While discussing MoveOn.org's "Petition Against Fox's Racist & Hate-Filled Smears" on the July 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly said, "[Sen. Barack] Obama must condemn organizations like MoveOn and the Daily Kos if he truly wants to run without a race component. These are the people that are dividing Americans along racial lines. It is not a stretch to say MoveOn is the new Klan." As Media Matters for America has documented, O'Reilly has previously called MoveOn.org and Media Matters for America "the most vicious element in our society today" and referred to the staff of both organizations as "assassins." On July 30, 2007, O'Reilly claimed that the Democratic presidential candidates were "afraid of the Daily Kos and MoveOn." O'Reilly has also repeatedly compared the Daily Kos website and its founder, Markos Moulitsas, to the Klan or white supremacist David Duke. From the July 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor: O'REILLY: Now, in the beginning of this campaign, I told you that any media using the race card would be scrutinized by us, and that includes folks who may attack Senator Obama on that basis. But we have seen little of that. Instead, the vile, far-left smear machines are trafficking in racial hate, and the MoveOn campaign is a vivid example of that. To his credit, Barack Obama has not made race an issue and was embarrassed when Jesse Jackson did that a few days ago. But Obama must condemn organizations like MoveOn and the Daily Kos if he truly wants to run without a race component. These are the people that are dividing Americans along racial lines. It is not a stretch to say MoveOn is the new Klan.