The Boss and Obama

The Boss endorsed Obama. Rock out to Jungleland.

Michelle and Stephen

McCain = Bush

Progressive Media USA, a new group led by David Brock, the president of Media Matters for America, is out with its first ad. A little background about the group from Ben Smith:

Wealthy Democrats are preparing a four-month, $40 million media campaign centered on attacks on Sen. John McCain. And it will be led by David Brock, the former investigative reporter who first gained fame in the 1990s as a right-wing, anti-Clinton journalist.

The planned campaign is the product of a shakeup in the top ranks of the struggling independent Democratic groups. Brock, now best known as the ex-conservative founder of the liberal group Media Matters, last month quietly assumed the chairmanship of what's expected to be the main vehicle for independent Democratic attacks on McCain, now called Progressive Media USA.

The ad is now up on the cable news stations in the DC market. Check it out.

Faker baker

The Huffington Post stumbled on a funny mistake on the McCain website. It turns out that some of the family recipes displayed in the "McCain Family Recipe" section of the site (yes, there's a "recipe" section of the site) were ripped directly from the Food Network's website. From the Huffington Post:

This past Sunday, Lauren Handel, an eagle-eyed attorney from New York, was searching for a specific recipe from Giada DeLaurentis, a chef on the Food Network. Yet whenever she Googled the different ingredients in the recipe, the oddest thing happened: not only did the Food Network's site come up, as expected, but so did John McCain's campaign site.

On a section of McCain's site called "Cindy's Recipes," you can find seven recipes attributed to Cindy McCain, each with the heading "McCain Family Recipe." Ms. Handel quickly realized that some of the "McCain Family Recipes," were in fact, word-for-word copies of recipes on the Food Network site.

At least three of the "McCain Family Recipes" appear to be lifted directly from the Food Network, while at least one is a Rachael Ray recipe with minor changes.

Update: Blame it on the intern.

Ambinder on elitism

Marc Ambinder wrote about the most common charge flying around the campaign these days: "elitism." He says it better than I would, so I post Ambinder's argument here:

Elitism is a tough charge and it's a legitimate attribute to be debating. But to use as signifiers one's bowling score and one's interlocutory manner with a diner hostess ... that's a little ridiculous.

Both Obama and Clinton have had Secret Service details for a bit. Neither of them has had to open a door by themselves for a long-while... nor driven a car... nor shaken a hand without an elitist rope stretched between them and the public. Both are coddled by fundraisers, yes-ma'am-and-sir'd-by advisers, hugged by supporters.... A sense of entitlement is thereby built in to a presidential candidate. (The only exception I can think of: Barack Obama's aides -- senior AND junior, call him "Barack.")

Campaigning in Iowa in 1988, Michael Dukakis famously asked for some Belgian endives. Remember when George H.W. Bush professed to be amazed by the new contraption of a supermarket scanner? Remember when Trent Lott confessed that he'd just taken the DC metro for the first time? When Hillary Clinton, professing her feminisity, said she wasn't going to stay home and bake cookies like Tammy Wynette? George W. Bush likes back massages? Bob Dole lives in the Watergate? Pat Buchanan lives in a manse in Virginia? How many houses does John McCain own?

The point, I guess, is that it's silly to debate elitism by pointing to the alleged elitism of your opponent. Because this is Washington, D.C., and if you're a presidential candidate or a national political figure, chances are pretty good that you're developed a bit of an ego and a bit of a sense of entitlement.

Republican called Obama "Boy"

Ben Smith noted that at the Northern Kentucky Lincoln Day dinner, Rep. Geoff Davis called Obama a "snake oil salesman" and said: "I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button." Wow.

The Senate's Minority Leader and one of the leaders of the Republican Party, Mitch McConnell, was at the event.

Update: CNN is reporting that Davis has written an apology to Obama. From CNN's report:

In a letter to Obama, Kentucky Rep. Geoff Davis said his “poor choice of words is regrettable and was in no way meant to impugn you or your integrity. I offer my sincere apology to you and ask for your forgiveness. ….

“My comment… in no way reflects the personal and professional respect I have for you.”

I'm glad Rep. Davis wrote the apology and I see how he can claim it was a "poor choice of words" (certainly Obama can sympathize), but how he can still claim he has "personal and professional respect" for Obama is beyond me.

It's about time

Finally, a major media outlet wrote about McCain, the conservative -- not McCain the moderate, not McCain the straight talker, not McCain the maverick. The Associated Press decided to look at where McCain is on the issues and here is what it came up with:

The likely Republican presidential nominee is much more conservative than voters appear to realize. McCain leans to the right on issue after issue, not just on the Iraq war but also on abortion, gay rights, gun control and other issues that matter to his party's social conservatives.

The article went on to dissect his positions and cast them as they should be cast -- CONSERVATIVE. Now the rest of the media should use this as a jumping off point.

Willow at 15 weeks

Bitter

The newest attack on the campaign trail is one I don't get. To set the scene: Obama, at a fundraiser in San Francisco on Sunday said that people in Pennsylvania have grown "bitter" because the last two administrations have promised a better life without delivering. For the sake of context, here is the full quote:

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

I read the headline for the story and didn't even click on it. Of course people are "bitter." That's not news.

Except apparently it is. Clinton has taken the comment and run with it. She responded saying that "bitter" people is not her "experience" and that "Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them." Here is her quote, according to CNN:

"Well that's not my experience. As I travel around Pennsylvania. I meet people who are resilient, optimist positive who are rolling up their sleeves."

"Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them," she said. "They need a president who stands up for them, who fights hard for your future, your jobs, your families."

I know there are things Clinton is trying to not talk about, and therefore change the subject. And I know her lead is slipping in Pennsylvania. But this doesn't sound like a diversion or desperation to me. It seems like she actually thinks she's hitting on something. Well, I don't see it. Of course Pennsylvanians are bitter. They're mad at the war. They're mad at the economy. They're mad that the Eagles don't have a reliable quarterback. I don't understand what's controversial about it. I don't even get what's politically incorrect about it. Does anyone?

Update: CNN has video of Obama responding to Clinton (and McCain, who said Obama's comments prove he's "out of touch"). The video is here. It's a fantastic response, so be sure to check it out.

Another Update: Obama's response can bee seen without watching the ad CNN puts up. Check it out:

Pure spin

Jake Tapper reported that at a fundraiser on Tuesday night, Obama seemed to make an argument for foregoing public financing in the general election should he win the nomination. McCain has been hammering Obama as a hypocrite for not sticking with his previous vow to accept public funding. As Tapper noted, Obama sounded like he "previewed his argument to justify this possible future discarding of a principle." Here is what Tapper says Obama said:

"We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful."

It's a good effort, but I don't buy it for a second. Obama is in a difficult position. His financing is tied for first with his rhetorical abilities for his most powerful asset. He would be silly to give up his power to raise $40 to $50 million a month.

But his power hasn't just been in the totals. People who have never given before are submitting $10 at a time on the web. His fundraising has democratized the system like never before; and he may have changed the system forever. Nothing he said in that quote is false.

Still, it's pure spin. He doesn't want to give up the money, so he's trying to justify the back track. It's a good effort, but it comes up a little short. And if Obama is the nominee, he's going to have to make this argument over and over again.