Democratic National Convention

Joe Biden:


Hillary Clinton:


John Kerry:


Bill Clinton:

Hillary Clinton: Out of the Race

Election Update

With all the talk about Obama's former pastor lately, two things seem to have gone largely unnoticed. First, it looks like somebody has been using taxpayer money to buy votes and influence:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has requested nearly $2.3 billion in federal earmarks for 2009, almost three times the largest amount received by a single senator this year.

Second, it looks like somebody else has been calling for an expulsion of Russia from G8:

Amid the din of the dueling Democrats, people seem to have forgotten about that other guy in the presidential race-you know, John McCain. McCain is said to be benefiting from this politically because his rivals are tearing each other apart. In fact, few people are paying much attention to what the Republican nominee is saying, or subjecting it to any serious scrutiny.

On March 26, McCain gave a speech on foreign policy in Los Angeles that was billed as his most comprehensive statement on the subject. It contained within it the most radical idea put forward by a major candidate for the presidency in 25 years. Yet almost no one noticed.

In his speech McCain proposed that the United States expel Russia from the G8, the group of advanced industrial countries. Moscow was included in this body in the 1990s to recognize and reward it for peacefully ending the cold war on Western terms, dismantling the Soviet empire and withdrawing from large chunks of the old Russian Empire as well. McCain also proposed that the United States should expand the G8 by taking in India and Brazil-but pointedly excluded China from the councils of power.

We have spent months debating Barack Obama's suggestion that he might, under some circumstances, meet with Iranians and Venezuelans. It is a sign of what is wrong with the foreign-policy debate that this idea is treated as a revolution in U.S. policy while McCain's proposal has barely registered. What McCain has announced is momentous-that the United States should adopt a policy of active exclusion and hostility toward two major global powers. It would reverse a decades-old bipartisan American policy of integrating these two countries into the global order, a policy that began under Richard Nixon (with Beijing) and continued under Ronald Reagan (with Moscow). It is a policy that would alienate many countries in Europe and Asia who would see it as an attempt by Washington to begin a new cold war.

In the grand scheme of things, aren't these both far more important?

UPDATE: Also, it looks like NBC is giving priority to Hannah Montana over a recent Supreme Court decision on voter ID cards (which will actually have a greater effect on the upcoming presidential election than Hannah Montana).

Obama Memo on Electability

TO: Superdelegates

FR: Obama Campaign

RE: The strongest candidate to face John McCain

DA: April 24, 2008

Who's the strongest candidate to take on John McCain?

After 45 contests, Senator Obama has won more delegates, twice as many states and territories, and more of the popular vote. He's won in every part of the country, and has scored victories among every segment of electorate. He's inspired Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, building an unprecedented coalition of more than 1.4 million contributors. And when it comes to head-to-head match-ups versus John McCain, Obama performs better than Clinton in key states and shows the potential to put new states in play for Democrats up and down the ballot.

Polling data from across the country, from large states and small, reflects the advantage Senator Obama would bring in a race this fall. His ability to expand the Democratic base, and his ability to capture the crucial Independent vote, make him a stronger candidate than Senator Clinton, who would enter the fall campaign with the highest unfavorable ratings of any nominee in half a century.

Big States

• California: Obama beats McCain by 27, Clinton beats him by 23. (SurveyUSA, 2/23)

• New York: A February poll of Clinton's home state shows her beating McCain by 11, while Obama beats McCain by 10. (Quinnipiac, 3/18)

• New Jersey: Obama and Clinton both beat McCain by 5. (Farleigh Dickinson, 3/30)

• Illinois: Obama beats McCain by 29 in his home state, while Clinton wins by 9. (SurveyUSA, 2/28)

Traditional Battlegrounds

• Iowa: Obama up 7, Clinton down 6. (SurveyUSA, 4/17),
Among Independents: Obama up 9, Clinton down 31. (Rasmussen, 3/31)

• North Carolina: Clinton trails McCain by 11, Obama ties him. (Rasmussen, 4/10)
Among Independents: Obama up 8, Clinton down 16. (Rasmussen, 4/10)

• Oregon: Obama up 9, Clinton up only 1 (SurveyUSA, 4/17) A march poll showed Obama up 6 and Clinton down 6 (Rasmussen, 3/26)
Among Independents: Obama up 11, Clinton up 4. (Rasmussen, 3/26)

• Wisconsin: Obama up 5 while Clinton ties. (SurveyUSA, 4/17) A March poll showed Obama up 4 and Clinton down 4. (WPR, 3/26)
Among Independents: Obama up 17, Clinton up 2. (Rasmussen, 3/26)

• Michigan: Obama trailing by 1, Clinton trailing by 3. (Rasmussen, 3/25) A February poll showed Obama up 8 and Clinton tied. (Rasmussen, 2/17)

• New Mexico: Obama up by 3, Clinton down by 3. (Rasmussen, 4/8)
Among Independents: Obama up 8, Clinton down 5. (Rasmussen, 4/8)

• Nevada: Obama leads by 4, Clinton leads by 1. (Rasmussen 3/19)

• Minnesota: Obama up 14, Clinton up 5. (Rasmussen, 4/22)
Among Independents: Obama up 9, Clinton down 14. (Rasmussen 3/19)

• Pennsylvania: Clinton up 9, Obama up 8 (Rasmussen, 4/9)
Among Independents: Obama down 1, Clinton down 19. (Rasmussen, 4/9)

Making new states competitive

• Colorado: Obama up 3, Clinton down 14. (Rasmussen, 4/19) A February poll showed up Obama up 9 and Clinton down 6. (SurveyUSA, 2/28)
Among Independents: Obama up 9, Clinton down 13. (Rasmussen, 3/17)

• North Dakota: Obama up 4, Clinton down 19. (SurveyUSA, 2/28)
Among Independents: Obama up 9, Clinton down 29. (Survey USA, 2/28)

• Virginia: Obama down 8, Clinton down 16. (SurveyUSA, 4/17)
Among Independents: Obama up 10, Clinton down 8. (SurveyUSA, 3/16)

• Montana: Obama down 5, Clinton down 18 (Rasmussen, 4/6)
Obama down 2, Clinton down 12 (Rasmussen, 4/6)

• Texas: Obama down only 1, Clinton down 7 (SurveyUSA, 2/28)

Hillary Clinton's Bad Telecommunications Plan

If you ever hear Sen. Clinton describe her telecommunications plan, you'll surely hear the "private-public partnership" buzz words. But you probably won't hear much about this. Basically, her broadband policy is modeled after a really poor lobbyist-driven plan from Kentucky.

If you're concerned about all the really poor journalism we've been seeing lately, and the growing influence of singular figures in the area of journalism, you should also be worried about the potential for even more media consolidation in the next administration (particularly if McCain is elected). Ever since the 1996 Telecommunications Act (signed into law by a certain other President), we've seen a growing trend in this direction. I should point out that Sen. Clinton's rhetoric and record in this area has been good, but there is also an enormous conflict of interest on the horizon. She's received a whole lot of contributions from telecommunications lobbyists such as Jamie Gorelick and Thomas Donilon. Not to mention the fact that she has received more donations from the telecommunications sector than any other member of Congress.

The regular readers of this blog probably already know where my sympathies lie, but I'd like to say once again that Obama's technology plan (available here) is really good - and it's the only one with the Lawrence Lessig seal of approval.

UPDATE: She also missed the telecom immunity vote.

UPDATE II: In other news, Newscorps looks like it's about to purchase Newsday.

"Debate"

Danny Evans of Dormant, PA has this to say on the debate:

That was no debate--it was a rerun of Access Hollywood. If we Pennsylvanians should be bitter about anything, it's that our state debate was turned into a sort of media carnival, rather than dealing with the real issues facing our region, and the American people.

Still, if I had to find a silver lining? I admired the restraint Obama showed in NOT diving headlong into the fray. Though it did seem to frustrate him that over half the debate had nothing to do with substance, he held his tongue in check, defended his opponent on one occasion, and even said "she could win" without so much as batting an eye.

Hillary seemed to enjoy wallowing in ABC's mud just a little too much for my tastes. Especially since she still hasn't given a straight answer on her Bosnia lie, or how she can reconcile taking 800 thousand dollars from the Columbian government while campaigning AGAINST the Columbian Free Trade Agreement. All in all, I saw in Barack Obama a frustrated (yet honest) commitment to trying to stay away from the political pie-slicing that has paralyzed our country and silenced OUR voices for far too long, now.

As bad as it was to watch, what we did see (pay attention PA) is that we, as voters, need to seek out as much information as we can, not just what the networks and cable shows think we want to hear. Barack Obama didn't have his best night, yet carried himself with grace and dignity in the face of farce. That's my kind of President. Because NOT wallowing, NOT changing, means he really does stand for HOPE in ways we've not seen in a long, long time.

Danny Evans, Dormont

(h/t xpostfactoid)

Here is Brian Lehrer (who didn't watch the debate) on the debate:

The last eight minutes with Jared Bernstein are the best.

UPDATE: The Internet is quick.


UPDATE II: Obama responds

Staying Ahead of the Curve

Hillary Clinton (net worth: $34.9 million) and John McCain (net worth: $40.9 million) have been busy lately calling Barack Obama an "elitist" who is "out of touch," based upon some willfully misinterpreted comments he made the other day. Was he saying that the *only* reason people believe in their religions and protect their Second Amendment rights is because they're a bunch of bitter curmudgeons (as Hillary is now asserting)? Of course not. He was simply saying that people are cynical about the two parties on economic issues, and that politicians exploit wedge issues (such as God, guns, gays, immigration and trade) in its place.

What makes the "out of touch" and "elitist" comments particularly ridiculous is the fact that they're coming from Clinton and McCain. Clinton is a former corporate attorney, Wal-Mart board member, and the wife of a very successful politician. McCain is the son of a Admiral, and the husband to a millionaire heiress. Obama, on the other hand, is the son of a goat-herder and a single mother, who made his way through Harvard on a scholarship and returned to Chicago as a community organizer. He only recently broke the $1 million mark when his book sales exploded. So it's ridiculous on its face for these two to try to paint him as some wealthy elitist who doesn't have the public's best interests in mind.

But Bob Cesca has a good idea on how to counter the inevitable "Obama is an elitist" blitz.

On Monday, the talk radio wingnuts will be all over Senator Obama -- calling him an elitist snob. So let's prepare a counterattack. We need to call their shows and politely blitz them with the following simple question.

"When was the last time you mowed your own lawn, [fill in name of host]?"

Sean Hannity Show:
1-800-941-SEAN(7326)

Rush Limbaugh Show:
1-800-282-2882
E-mail: ElRushbo@eibnet.com
FAX: 212-445-3963

Radio Factor (O'Reilly)
1-877-9-NO-SPIN

Mike Hussein Gallagher
Call: 800-655-MIKE
Fax: 800-821-MIKE

Michael Medved
1-800-955-1776

Laura Ingraham
1-800-876-4123

Don't try to contact the show until it actually goes on the air. And be polite

UPDATE: All this "Obama is an elitist" rhetoric seems to be failing. CNN and Pat Robertson's CBN both are calling this out as a silly misrepresentation. I don't care much for either news organization, but it's a good sign that neither one was taken in by this one. No doubt Sean Hannity and others will make a big deal over this (just as he did with his misrepresentation of Michelle Obama's "proud" remarks), so you should all still call in. But I think that most of the people who are actually paying attention to this race can see these "silly season" remarks for what they really are.

UPDATE II: Obama responds here


UPDATE III: The Jed Report has compiled a video montage of this ridiculousness


UPDATE IV: Americans

Bill Clinton Lies About Hillary Clinton's Lies

This is getting exhausting.

UPDATE: I personally find Dan Abrams (as well as his panel) to be annoying, but here's a clip from his show where he calls out the numerous falsehoods from Bill Clinton:

Leahy Calls for Hillary to Quit

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (and occasional voice actor for Batman projects), recently said this on public radio:

"There is no way that Senator Clinton is going to win enough delegates to get the nomination. She ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator Obama. Now, obviously that's a decision that only she can make frankly I feel that she would have a tremendous career in the Senate."

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey just announced his endorsement of Barack Obama, and Howard Dean is calling on the Democrats to wrap this thing up before the convention:

"There is no point in waiting," Dean said, adding that despite the newly-found superiority in Democratic organization over the Republicans, "that all doesn't make any difference if people are really disenchanted or demoralized by a convention that's really ugly and nasty."

UPDATE: Freudian slip.

Obama Releases Tax Returns, Demands Hillary Release Hers

From TalkingPointsMemo:

This is pretty funny. Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer blasted out an email at 11:23 insisting that Obama release his tax returns for back years,

Exactly two minutes later, at 11:25, Obama spokesperson Tommy Vietor emailed out word that Obama had posted his tax returns for 2000-2006 on his campaign web site. Turns out the Obama camp has been planning this for some time.

You can view them here.

In pure political terms, this will obviously give more political potency to the Obama camp's efforts to make Hillary's failure to release her returns a key issue in the campaign. The Obama camp is now free to beat this drum between now and mid-April, when the Hillary camp has promised to release hers.

Indeed, the Obama campaign is already calling on Hillary to follow suit. “Senator Clinton can’t claim to be vetted until she allows the public the opportunity to see her finances," Obama spokesperson Robert Gibbs says, in a reference to the Hillary camp's frequent claim that Obama has not been thoroughly "vetted" in advance of the general election.

Overall, the tax returns themselves drop no major bombshells. I'm sure that people will try to spin it to fit into their narratives (FOX News contributor Michelle Malkin, for example, reports that "capitalism helped make them rich," mentions Rev. Wright a lot, and suggests that Michelle Obama is anti-capitalism or something), but it basically just paints a picture of a guy who didn't earn a lot at first (coming from a public service job and a gig teaching at the University of Chicago), and then saw a big increase in royalties from book sales as he exploded onto the national scene. The increased wealth came with increased charitable donations. Basically, it's nothing surprising.

I'd also like to say that the comments section at TPM has been particularly hilarious this election season.

UPDATE: Clinton's refusal to release her tax returns until three days before the Pennsylvania primaries is beyond ridiculous. M.S. Bellows suggests that you xerox your tax returns and send them to Hillary to show her how easy it is to do.

Everything Must Go!

Hillary Clinton Under Sniper Fire

This is how Hillary Clinton described her 1996 trip to Bosnia:

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.

Below is the shocking footage of Sen. Clinton in a mad dash from her airplane, under heavy sniper fire from Bosnian super-soldiers.



(h/t Matthew Yglesias)

UPDATE: Sinbad himself remembers that fateful day in Tuzla: "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.' "

Obama Memo on Clinton and "Experience"

Former Clinton administration State Department official (and current Obama foreign policy adviser) Greg Craig just released this memo from the Obama campaign:

To: Interested Parties

From: Greg Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department

RE: Senator Clinton's claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just words?

DA: March 11, 2008

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

• Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.” With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.”

News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.”

• Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.”

• Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.”

• Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

• China

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.” In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,” and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.” He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.”

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced” men in national security affairs – Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others – led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

• Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation – the War in Iraq – Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.” As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.” In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued – remarkably – that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization – like a blank check – to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader -- an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

I was going to write an entry on just this topic, but it looks like they beat me to it.

3A.M. Ad Tested

Olberman on Clinton and "NAFTA-Gate"

Keith Olberman on Hillary Clinton

Howard Wolfson Will Say Anything

Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson was recently answering questions on a conference call about Hillary Clinton's refusal to release her tax returns. In a dizzying display of spin, he accused Obama of "imitating Ken Starr" simply by asking for the tax returns (so that Sen. Clinton can be properly vetted).

This is particularly disingenuous coming from Wolfson, due to this episode from Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate bid:

"In recent months, the team has been trying to focus public scrutiny on Lazio. Wolfson himself, along with a Democratic State Committee member dressed as Uncle Sam, showed up at a Lazio event in Harlem in August, taunting Lazio with the first lady's New York property tax returns and challenging him to release his returns. In any other campaign, it might have been the candidate who seized such a photo op; but with his boss invested in preserving her dignity, it occasionally falls to Wolfson"

Was it a Ken Starr-like attack back then, too?

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan has more here. It seems that the Clinton campaign reflexively defends itself by accusing its questioners of being a part of the "right wing conspiracy."

Are You Experienced?

Related Reading:
Clinton's "35 Years of Change" Omits Most of Her Career (McClatchy D.C.)
What Experience? (Talking Points Memo)
Foreign Policy Pushback (TIME)
Bill Richardson Criticizes "3AM Ad" (The Huffington Post)

Olberman on Clinton's 3A.M. Advertisements

Canadian Embassy Debunks False Obama Story From CTV

Here is the official statement from the Canadian embassy:

Washington, D.C., March 3, 2008 — The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.

The people of the United States are in the process of choosing a new President and are fortunate to have strong and impressive candidates from both political parties. Canada will not interfere in this electoral process. We look forward, however, to working with the choice of the American people in further building an unparalleled relationship with a close friend and partner.

Keep in mind that Hillary Clinton herself has been circulating this false story:

"It raises questions about Senator Obama coming to Ohio and giving speeches about NAFTA and having his chief economic adviser tell the Canadian government that it was just political rhetoric," Clinton told reporters. "I don't think people should come to Ohio and tell the people of Ohio one thing and then have your campaign tell a foreign government something else behind closed doors. That's the kind of difference between talk and action and that I've been pointing out in this campaign."

Maybe now she'll stop.

Just to remind everyone, Clinton has consistently misrepresented Barack Obama's positions throughout the primary process. She has distorted his ethics reform bill, his position on the PATRIOT Act, his Rezko ties, his "present" votes, his position on abortion, his position on NAFTA, his position on Social Security, his statements about diplomatic preconditions, and his position on the Iraq war. Basically, everything.

UPDATE:


UPDATE II: Nope. Even when it is conclusively disproven, Clinton will push this false idea onto the voters of Ohio. At this point, I don't really see how I could ever vote for Sen. Clinton. Why isn't the media making a big deal over the fact that she's blatantly misinforming voters? For all the whining over how hard the media is on her, I don't see them calling her out on this in any meaningful way.