Email   |  

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan is making the TV rounds to drum up interest in his new book slamming the Bush administration for drumming up a “political propaganda campaign” to advance the Iraq war. McClellan first appeared on the Today Show this morning at the top of the 7am hour, the most coveted time slot for any interviewee, especially for one with a book to sell. McClellan made big news and the TV appearances will keep on coming. Producers and reporters are salivating over the juicy tidbits McClellan is dangling, Democrats are licking their chops and folks on the left think Christmas came early.

David Corn (formerly of The Nation) weighed in on CQ Politics:

“If he were truly contrite about his involvement in a deceptive, propaganda-wielding administration, McClellan could demonstrate his sincerity by pledging that all profits from his belated truth-telling will go to charities supporting the families of American soldiers killed or injured in Iraq.”

Arianna Huffinton asks

“How many times are we going to have a key Bush administration official try to wash the blood off his hands — and add a chunk of change to his bank account — by writing a come-clean book years after the fact, pointing the finger at everyone else while painting himself as an innocent bystander.”

The candidates are trying to score points with their base by offering their take:

Hillary Clinton said, “There isn’t any doubt that President Bush has misled us. The question now is what kind of president we need going forward.” She then slammed McCain saying he offers “more of the same.”

Barack Obama weighed in: “I haven’t read it. I don’t think that the substance is particularly surprising. I think many of us have been troubled by the lack of straightforwardness in this administration. The only news is that somebody within the administration has confirmed what a lot of us have thought for some time.”

According to McClellan and news outlets that nabbed early copies of the book, McClellan claims:

*In 2002, senior administration officials started a campaign to “aggressively sell the war.”

*McClellan claimed the administration shaded the truth on the threat Iraq presented. He said, “I gave them the benefit of the doubt….looking back now I don’t think I should have.”

*the White House was in “permanent campaign” mode, he said, one where politics and policy melded together. “In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president’s advantage.”

*the decision to invade Iraq was a “strategic blunder”

*he asserts that the White House made “a decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed.”

But the CIA leak investigation was the impetus for the book. He claims…

*Karl Rove mislead him about the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s name and that Rove may have improperly met with “scooter” Libby to discuss the case.

It’s unusual for a longtime insider to flip like this. (McClellan hails from Texas and goes back with Bush nearly 10 years.) It reminds me of David Brock’s conversion. Brock was the one time conservative foe of Hillary Clinton who famously switched sides and now is a darling of the left.

White House aides are shocked by McClellan’s claims.

Current White House press secretary Dana Perino called the situation “sad” saying McClellan is “disgruntled about his experience at the White House.” (Btw, McClellan was forced out in spring 2006. At the time White House aides told me they were concerned about what McClellan’s reaction to losing his job would be.)

Former White House counselor to the president Dan Bartlett told the Today Show that McClellan is “fundamentally wrong.” He said that when decisions to go to war were being made McClellan was “not in those meetings.” Later McClellan said that he had filled in for his boss (Ari Fleisher) who was on his honeymoon in late 2002.

Karl Rove says McClellan sounds like “a left wing blogger.” He adds, “If he (McClellan) had these moral qualms, he should’ve spoken up about them.”

Trent Duffy, who worked for McClellan said, “He appears to be dancing on his political grave for cash.”

A website read by DC media insiders posted this analysis today:

“Fishbowl DC is sure that McClellan means what he says, but lots of Washingtonians think poorly of their successors but bite their tongue and play the role of a good soldier. So why didn’t McClellan do this? Simple: Speaking out against the Bush administration in such harsh tones is simply a smart career move by McClellan.”

McClellan said, “My hope is that my writing this book and sharing openly and honestly what I learned is that is some small way it might help us move beyond the partisan warfare of the past 15 years. There is a larger purpose to this book. It’s about looking at the permanent campaign culture in Washington, DC and how we can move beyond it.”

So, is McClellan exaggerating to get even with Bush and make a little money or is he shedding light (albeit a harsh one) on an important part of our nation’s history while hoping to change the tone of politics? And why now?

Email   |  

Clinton’s comment about RFK last week surprised many of her supporters but they don’t seem to be backing away from their candidate. They are still holding out hope for a Clinton win, despite seemingly insurmountable odds. They argue that after FL and MI are decided and PR, MT and SD vote, she may pass Obama in the popular vote count. That strategy is falling on deaf ears. Some supporters are holding their breath that something embarrassing will emerge causing super delegates to ditch Obama, ‘come to their senses’ and pledge their votes for Clinton.

The longer the battle for the Democratic nomination continues the less these camps like each other. Actually, I should make this more clear-many in the Clinton camp despise the Obama team, which makes you wonder how they can present a unified front in the fall.

Some young Clinton supporters say that they are likely to vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. (That’s what exit polls indicated in KY, a state she won by a huge margin.) But would Clintonites really vote for a Republican over a Democrat?

Email   |  

Obama is on the hunt for a running mate, though his camp says they’re only in the early stages of coming up with a list of names.

Reports surfaced this week indicating that Bill Clinton might have just the person– his wife, but that concept doesn’t appear to appeal to young voters.

The concept of this “dream ticket” has been a topic of conversation for months. Some say this could unify the party, others say Obama needs her to win OH, TX, PA and other big states that he lost.

Young Obama supporters believe Obama can capture those states on his own-without Hillary on the ticket.

Clinton backers, many of whom have spent countless hours and hard earned money to the cause, fume at the idea of being his #2. They say the race isn’t over yet. (These devoted gals have taken time off work and have traveled to the hard-fought states on their own dime to knock on doors and drive voters to the polls. They’ve raised money and have given their own.) They are not ready to see their gal take the #2 spot to a man they view as inexperienced and sexist. (We report on the sexism charge on tonight’s Fox Report)

But Obama may not want her as his running mate or VP anyway (even if he gets the nomination) Hillary would likely be viewed by him as competition (ask Al Gore), he may not be able to trust her and another biggie– Bill can’t be controlled. Rumors have even surfaced that Michelle Obama doesn’t like Hillary…. many reasons this might not happen.

Allison Yang, Columbia University student and Palestra reporter, says young voters she’s spoken with are “adamantly against an Obama/Clinton ticket.” She says Obama supporters and Clinton supporters share this view. Obama fans say Clinton is polarizing and believe that she represents the “older form of politics” that Obama rails against.

What do you think? If Obama gets the nomination, would he need her to win or could he do it on his own?

Email   |  

Should Democrats vote for the “bro” (short for ‘brother’) or should they vote for the “ho” (short for a word I’d rather not write on the FNC website)? Think I’m being offensive? Take a look at these nearly 30 unofficial pro-Obama campaign t-shirts.

Hillary Clinton supporters say this kind of product is proof: the first female to run for President of the United States has been diminished by sexism, which has been pervasive in the media, on the campaign trail and embodied in products sitting on store shelves, like the Hillary nutcracker.

Geraldine Ferraro, one of Clinton’s biggest supporters, takes it one step further. She says that Barack Obama himself is “terribly sexist.”

So what is she referring to? It all seemed to start with a song. On the night of the Iowa caucuses, Obama’s campaign played a rap song by Jay Z at the victory party. The title was “99 Problems.” But playing a song wasn’t the problem—the lyrics were: “I got 99 problems, but a bitch ain’t one.” Then during a debate he quipped that he thought Clinton was “likable enough.”

Clinton backers saw this as condescending.

Clinton supporters also say she’s been the victim of a relentless campaign to show her looking and sounding silly with unflattering photos and audio tapes of her laugh, otherwise known as her “cackle.” They say Obama doesn’t get the same treatment-instead he gets praise.

Hillary told the Washington Post: “The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable, or at least more accepted, and . . . there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when it raises its ugly head. It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists.”

Hillary backers, in part, blame the media and they are protesting NBC studios and stations in five states.

They point to a comment by NBC’s Chris Matthews who said Hillary wouldn’t have her job today if her husband hadn’t fooled around. He eventually apologized.

Clinton discussed the overall issue with The New York Times. She said, “It’s been deeply offensive to millions of women. I believe this campaign has been a groundbreaker in a lot of ways. But it certainly has been challenging given some of the attitudes in the press, and I regret that, because I think it’s been really not worthy of the seriousness of the campaign and the historical nature of the two candidacies we have here.”

Today Ferraro told Fox News’ Shep Smith today, “these all seem like little things. Add them all together and they spell sexism.”

AP

AP

Email   |  

Listening to Barack Obama in Billings, MT today you’d think he had already won the Democratic nomination. He drew distinctions not between himself and Hillary Clinton but used the speech to hit John McCain for “running for George Bush’s third term.”

Obama wove “change” into his remarks (something particularly appealing to young voters) and painted McCain as the status quo candidate. He said, “…you can vote for john McCain and nothing will change we will keep fighting a war in Iraq that has not made us safer we will keep talking tough in Washington while countries like Iran ignore our tough talk or we can turn the page…”

He made little mention of Hillary Clinton who IS still in the race. Clinton and her allies are frustrated that Obama seems to have written them off before he has clinched the delegates he needs to secure the nomination. Clinton told an Oregon TV station this morning, “you can declare yourself anything, but f you don’t have the votes, it doesn’t matter.”

Sure, it’s not likely that Hillary can catch up to Obama but he risks further alienating the millions who have already voted for Hillary-and will still vote for her in KY, OR and other states. Hillary doesn’t draw the number of young voters that Obama does but he’ll need every one of her supporters (young and old) to back him in the fall if he wins the nomination.

She’s still campaigning hard in KY (51 delegates) where she maintains a big lead in the polls. The Real Clear Politics (RCP) average puts her 29 points ahead of Obama. It is a number that’s not insignificant. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ky/kentucky_democratic_primary-638.html She also said, “So I’m going to make my case and I’m going to make it until we have a nominee, but we’re not going to have one today and we’re not going to have one tomorrow and we’re not going to have one the next day.”

In Oregon, RCP gives Obama an 11 point lead over Clinton, a state with 52 delegates up for grabs and a place he has invested a lot of time and money.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/or/oregon_democratic_primary-298.html

He has welcomed his largest crowds ever in Oregon, reportedly up to 72,000 people turned out. http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/05/obamamayvisit.html

But Bill and Chelsea also gave it a run for their money. According to local reports they drew crowd closer to one thousand backers. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/19/bill-chelsea-clinton-stump-in-oregon-for-hillary/

Email   |  

Go to just about any college campus in search or young Republicans and get ready for a hunt because they’re not so easy to find. This year, producer Martin and I have interviewed many, many college voters-only a handful says they’re conservative.

That wasn’t always the case. In the 1980’s Republicans had the youth vote locked up—millions of them helped elect President Reagan in ‘84 and President Bush in ‘88. In fact, they won the youth vote by 20 points! (There were no exit polls in 1980)

Back then, Republicans ran as outsiders, says Charles Hurt, DC bureau chief for the NY Post (a sister company to FNC). “They were charging the gates and they were going to smash down this slow, plodding government that was not responsive to people,” he said. Essentially, Republicans were talking about “change,” and it worked. Today that’s Barack Obama’s mantra and it’s one that many young Democrats repeat.

Obama talks “change” and Hillary Clinton touts “experience,” but what’s the Republican message this year? Come to think of it, I can’t say for sure. (House Republicans have tried to co-opt the “change” message, and regardless of whether that’s true or not, that word has already been taken and conservatives look foolish for trying to co-opt it. Gotta come up with something new, guys!

Take a look at these poll numbers. Republicans are getting killed in the youth vote: Obama leads McCain by 23 points among voters under 40, says pollster Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussenreports.com. Hillary Clinton leads the AZ senator by 10 points. FOX News polls put Obama 21 points ahead of McCain. Republicans better get cracking if they hope to catch up.

So what happened in 20 years to drive young Republicans from the GOP?

Andrea Tantaros, a former Capitol Hill staffer and familiar face on FNC, says the GOP machine is in need of repair, “The way they communicate is fundamentally broken. They have a lot of work that needs to be done.”

Andrea says in recent years Republicans have ignored young voters in order to concentrate on Hispanics. She believes that such a narrow focus has been a mistake.

Charles Hurt says look back to 1994 when Republicans took control of Congress, that’s when their message really resonated with young voters.” They were going to change everything and for young people at the time it was a pretty exciting thing with Contract with America and it really seemed that things were going to happen in Washington,” he said.

http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

Part of the contract read: This year’s election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money.

Charles said, “Twelve years into it Republicans have proven themselves to have been just as errant as Democrats were.”

When I talk to most Republicans about the youth vote, they roll their eyes. They remind me that young people never really turn out to vote in the general election. Well, this year that doesn’t seem to be the case. Voter turnout among people under 30 has quadrupled in some primary states, leading many to believe that this fall’s election will amount to a youth quake. “Republicans cannot make the mistake of ignoring them this election cycle,” says Andrea.

Charles says, “Now the outsider is Barack Obama who says ‘tear it down’ and ‘change things in Washington,’ and that’s very appealing to young voters.”