Blog from The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com

Biden Time

Jefferson Morley — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:03:19 GMT

Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware will be announced today as Barack Obama's vice presidential nominee.

Obama sent word of the selection of Biden, a six-term Senator and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in an email at 6:55 this morning after the decision was first reported by Association Press around midnight.

"Joe and I will appear for the first time as running mates this afternoon in Springfield, Illinois -- the same place this campaign began more than 19 months ago," Obama told supporters.

Biden is known for his international expertise and his talkative--some say longwinded--style which has occasionally gotten him in political trouble. Last year he described Obama "the first mainstream African American [presidential candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," a remark he spent days trying to explain away.

In the end, the gaffe didn't hurt Biden, as the Illinois Senator yesterday told Virgnia Governor Tim Kaine, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh and defeated rival New York Senator Hillary Clinton that they would not be on the ticket.

Biden differed from Obama on the key issue of Iraq, voting in late 2002 to authorize the Bush administration to use military force against the government of Saddam Hussein. While Biden became a fierce critic of the Bush policy after the 2003 invasion, he still defends that vote, a stance that may rankle anti-war Democrats.

Biden provides no obvious electoral advantage to Obama. Delaware's three electoral votes are all but certain to go for the Democrats.

The youngest person ever elected to the Senate, Biden was just 29 when first took office in 1972.

As Iowa Independent has reported, his wife Jill teaches at a community college. His son Beau was deployed to Iraq earlier this year as a member of the National Guard.

McCain Camp Mum on Iraq Timeline (Updated)

Matthew DeLong — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:19:24 GMT

Up at his ranch near Sedona, Sen. John McCain must be fuming. After everything he's done for President George W. Bush's campaign efforts -- the endorsement through clenched teeth after the bruising 20000 primary, stumping in 2004, etc. -- Bush couldn't even do McCain the simple courtesy of not completely undermining the Arizona senator's entire Iraq policy as he makes his bid for the presidency.

Now that the Bush administration appears to be on the verge of agreeing to a timeline (or is it a timetable? a time horizon?) for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq by 2011, the presumed GOP nominee is in a pretty tight spot. On the campaign trail, McCain frequently disparages any notion of a timeline for withdrawal, preferring instead to put his faith in the judgment of Gen. David Petraeus -- whom McCain referred to as "one of the great military leaders in American history" last weekend at the Saddleback Church forum -- to bring the troops home as developments on the ground permit.

Sen. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has had his 16-month timetable essentially endorsed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- who is currently negotiating the new timeline with the Bush administration. The administration subsequently shifted its position from being adamantly against anything remotely resembling a timetable for troop withdrawal and agreed to a "time horizon," the difference being largely semantic.

Of course, the agreement being negotiated reportedly provides for a change to the timeline if security deteriorates in the future, so it's not totally artificial. But now that McCain finds himself all alone on one side -- with objective reality, the Iraqi and American governments, and perhaps most important for him, his Democratic opponent standing together on the other -- what is he to do? Flip-flop? Hold fast to an increasingly irrelevant position?

Not surprisingly, the McCain campaign has yet to make a statement on the new developments -- it may be waiting to see the final result. But the prospect of reformulating its position on the central issue of its campaign, with a little more than two months remaining until the general election, must have some folks in Sedona and Arlington a bit worried.

UPDATE: At 8:07 EDT Sen John McCain released the following statement, doing its best to spin the days events favorably -- i.e. the success of the surge allowed these discussions in the first place, and this is fundamentally a "conditions-based agreement" that is really what McCain has been arguing for the whole time.

"I am pleased that, following the surge strategy led by General David Petraeus and our brave men and women in uniform, security in Iraq has improved to the point at which we can responsibly talk with our Iraqi allies about U.S. troop withdrawals. Because of the hard-won success of this strategy, the Iraqi security forces are able to take on ever greater responsibility for security in their country. We should not forget that this is possible only because of the surge -- a strategy many predicted would fail and that some cannot, even today, recognize as a stunning success.

"While negotiations with the Iraqi government are ongoing, reports indicate that all dates included in the draft security agreement are aspirational goals, based on conditions on the ground. Conditions-based withdrawals of U.S. troops are the precise opposite course of that advocated by Senator Obama. Senator Obama seeks to withdraw all U.S. combat forces regardless of the consequences for Iraq or for American national security, and in disregard of our commanders' best counsel. Had we followed his course, Iraq could have easily descended into chaos and America would have suffered a catastrophic defeat. Instead, we are today negotiating a conditions-based agreement that will enable us to withdraw troops in victory and with honor."

McCain Crisis Strategy: Go All In

Matthew DeLong — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:34:40 GMT

The McCain campaign's responses to the events of the last two days have revealed much about its strategy for dealing with crises. This strategy can be easily summed up: "At the first sign of trouble, go all in."

This week was the first time Sen. Barack Obama really went after Sen. John McCain. First, with an ad released Wednesday linking McCain to Ralph Reed, a prominent associate of convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Then again yesterday, with an ad hammering McCain on the "Housegate" controversy -- when he was unable to recall just how many houses he had -- and portraying him as out of touch with the troubles of ordinary Americans.

The McCain camp, in full-on damage control mode, immediately went to the big guns it had been saving for just such a situation. The campaign has been keeping three cards up its sleeve since Obama became the nominee in June, all involving controversial figures connected in varying degrees to Obama: former domestic terrorist William Ayers, convicted real-estate developer Tony Rezko and the senator's former minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In the last 48 hours, the campaign trotted out two of them -- and threatened the third.

Yesterday, a conservative group called the American Issues Project announced a massive $2.8 million buy for an ad linking Obama to Ayers -- a former member of the Weathermen, the radical group responsible for bombings around the United States to protest the Vietnam War, during the late 1960s and early '70s.

Without defending Ayers' actions, it is worth noting that the only people the Weathermen's bombs ever killed were their own members -- by accident. After turning himself in to authorities in 1980, Ayers is now an education professor and activist in Chicago. Politico reported earlier this year that Obama attended an event at Ayers' home before he ran for the Illinois State Senate in the mid-1990s, and the two remained casual friends -- though Obama has condemned Ayers past actions. From Politico:

Now, as Obama runs for president, what two guests recall as an unremarkable gathering on the road to a minor elected office stands as a symbol of how swiftly he has risen from a man in the Hyde Park left to one closing in fast on the Democratic nomination for president.

“I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,” said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. “[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.”

Obama and Palmer “were both there,” he said.

The AIP ad also draws a non-existent connection between Ayers and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The message: Obama is connected to Ayers, who was connected to bombings, which are a form of terrorism -- and Islamic terrorists carried out 9/11. Therefore, Obama is connected to Islamic terrorists. Get it? To its credit, Fox News declined to run the spot yesterday.

Of course, it was not the McCain campaign that released this ad. However, in a Wednesday evening post on The McCain Report blog, McCain campaign blogger Michael Goldfarb posted a statement from McCain spokesman Brian Rogers, raising the Obama/Ayers connection in response to the Obama campaign's Ralph Reed ad:

“Barack Obama’s ad is ridiculous. Because of John McCain, corruption was exposed and people like Jack Abramoff went to jail.

“However, if Barack Obama wants to have a discussion about truly questionable associations, let’s start with his relationship with the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, at whose home Obama’s political career was reportedly launched. Mr. Ayers was a leader of the Weather Underground, a terrorist group responsible for countless bombings against targets including the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and numerous police stations, courthouses and banks. In recent years, Mr. Ayers has stated, ‘I don’t regret setting bombs … I feel we didn’t do enough.’

It's possible that the one-two punch on Ayers is a mere coincidence. It would also seem to be a distinct possibility that AIP had the ad in the can for a while, just waiting for the McCain campaign to say something about Ayers, and then -- BAM! -- get it on the air. However, a former senior McCain campaign adviser, Ed Failor Jr., is one of only two AIP board members listed on the group's Website. Also noteworthy: According to ABC News, the AIP spokesman, Christian Pinkston, formerly worked with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who attacked Sen. John Kerry in 2004.

The McCain campaign trotted out the Ayers connection in response to a relatively minor threat -- Obama's Ralph Reed ad was only aired in Reed's home state of Georgia -- a relatively safe Republican state -- where Reed had solicited donations from political associates on behalf of the McCain campaign. Of course, the ad was garnering national headlines about McCain's support from an Abramoff crony -- which explains the campaign's desire to hit Obama hard on one of his own associates.

Similarly, McCain hit back with a vengeance against Obama's "Housegate" ad -- actually titled "Seven" -- with the Rezko spot, which I discuss in detail here. Rezko is far more of a sore spot for the Obama campaign than Ayers, because Rezko's ties to the Illinois senator are far more extensive and longstanding. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, the two met in 1990 and Rezko was one of Obama's major financial backers since the beginning of his political career in the mid-1990's. Aside from Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- Obama's controversial former pastor -- Rezko is likely the biggest piece of dirt the McCain campaign has on Obama.

Wright is the McCain campaign's real "nuclear option." Wright was Obama's pastor for 20 years -- and he officiated at Obama's wedding and baptized his children. Though Obama has distanced himself from Wright and his inflammatory comments, in the eyes of many Republicans the preacher represents all the anti-Americanism and radical Black Nationalism that they have long, if subtly, sought to tie to Obama. It was telling that a McCain campaign official reportedly dropped Wright's name into the mix yesterday. This means one thing: he's definitely coming -- probably the next time Obama does some real damage to McCain.

The problem for McCain is that there is still more than two months until the general election. With this much time left -- and three debates still to come -- there will likely be many opportunities for Obama to bloody McCain. McCain has already played the Ayers and Rezko cards, leaving him with just Wright. Each of these lines of attack will likely lose potency the more they are trotted out. From a strategic point of view McCain will have to wait for the right moment to use Wright for maximum benefit. If his campaign overreacts and releases a Wright ad too early -- or too frequently; or if Obama has an effective counter-strategy for deflecting this attack, it could be wasted. Obviously, the last two days have demonstrated that the Obama campaign needs to have that strategy prepared and ready to go, if it hasn't already. Though I'm sure it is.

The question remains: how far will Obama go in retaliating against such an attack? Will the Keating Five scandal -- in which McCain was a central figure -- show up in Obama's ads? Time will tell. If this campaign continues on the negative path it is currently on, I would certainly not be surprised.

But even if -- or when-- that happens, McCain has demonstrated that when the attacks get personal, he is fully prepared to break out the brass knuckles.

A post on Pandagon [warning, foul language] yesterday sums up the situation nicely, I think:

It’s good to see that the McCain campaign’s response to the first punch [Obama]’s caught is to go apeshit nuclear out of the gate. He may go "Taxi Driver" on us by the time this is said and done.

Ten Financial Institutions on the Brink?

Mary Kane — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:09:34 GMT

Like many people, financial blogger Michael Shedlock has been worried for a while about the stability of the financial system. He's made it clear in Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis that he thinks banks and lenders are in bigger trouble than they're letting on. Shedlock, an investment advisor for SitkaPacific Capital Management and a contributor to Minyanville, has a strong following. He's not alone in his worries; other financial experts are beginning to say out loud that things are getting pretty scary. Earlier this week, Kenneth Rogoff, the respected former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, predicted that a large U.S. bank will fail within months, due to the deepening credit crunch. Shedlock is going further, and he's naming names, with a list of ten financial institutions he thinks are close to going under. You can read his post to see why he thinks so, but to save you the suspense, here's the list:

Lehman (LEH)

Washington Mutual (WM)

Fannie Mae (FNM)

Freddie Mac (FRE)

Corus Bank (CORS)

BankUnited (BKUNA)

Downey Savings (DSL)

Wachovia (WB)

Regions Financial (RF)

MBIA (MBI)

Ambac (ABK)

And yes, you counted right; there are 11. Shedlock said he threw in an additional troubled institution because of deflation.

Stingy Republicans Hurting GOP Ad Efforts

Mike Lillis — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:30:00 GMT

For Senate Republicans, November could be the cruelest month. Not only are they the party of the least popular president in the history of approval ratings, but they also have scandals to confront and 23 seats to defend (compared to just 12 for Democrats). Seems that, in the face of all those factors, Sen. John Ensign (Nev.), who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, is having a bit of trouble getting colleagues to open their wallets to help out Republicans facing tough reelection bids this year. The absence of willing donors is impeding GOP efforts to run campaign ads. From CQ:

Republican lawmakers contributed $1.1 million to the NRSC through June, while Democrats chipped in nearly $5 million, according to FEC reports. Joint fundraising committees raised nearly $1.2 million for the NRSC, compared to $3.4 million for the DSCC.

[…]

Ensign had challenged his colleagues to step up back in July by increasing their fundraising efforts or by providing more of their own direct contributions. His statement amounted to a renewed call to arms.

"It is my hope that my Republican colleagues will engage in this election and help match what the Democrats are doing," Ensign said. "If they do, I will adjust our budget accordingly."

Not sure what Ensign hopes to accomplish by issuing such a statement, unless he thinks that embarrassment is the surest form of persuasion. Perhaps, senator, your colleagues just see a losing cause when they see one.

Ad: McCain Is Just One of Us

Matthew DeLong — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:11:47 GMT

In its newest TV ad, titled "Higher," the McCain campaign once again hits Sen. Barack Obama on taxes and his "celebrity" status -- and seeks to link Sen. John McCain with average Americans. Here's the ad:

PRODUCTION NOTES: The ad begins with the now-familiar crowd chanting Obama's name. As flash bulbs go off, a female announcer says, "Celebrities don’t have to worry about family budgets, but we sure do. We’re paying more for food and gas, making it harder to save for college, retirement." Wait a second. We? Who is the announcer referring to -- herself and the rest of us? Since she is an employee of the campaign, it would be fair to assume that the campaign is linking itself -- and its candidate -- to average Americans. "We" are all in this together, and "we" are all worried about higher taxes.

The purpose of this language is obvious. The Obama campaign attacked McCain yesterday for being out of touch with regular people after he could not say for sure how many homes he and his wife own -- clearly not a problem most Americans have. Now the McCain campaign is coming back and saying, "Don't worry, McCain is one of you guys."

The announcer also says, "[Obama]'s ready to raise your taxes." However, as McCain's ads frequently do, the spot falsely implies that Obama wants to raise taxes on all Americans, because his tax plan calls for a tax increase on some Americans in higher tax brackets. I believe this is what's known as a logical fallacy. Under Obama's tax plan, most Americans do not have to worry about tax increases -- but McCain does. Even conservative analysts have acknowledged that Obama's plan will deliver larger tax cuts to middle class Americans than would McCain's. But Obama would raise taxes on those making more than $200,000 for an individual or $250,000 for a couple -- which, by the way, the McCains do. So maybe the "we" to which the announcer refers is actually John and Cindy McCain. That would actually make sense.

Permanent Bases Again?

Spencer Ackerman — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:28:57 GMT

Seriously, I thought this was done. The New York Times has this errant mention, though:

Even if the goal of withdrawing combat troops by 2011 is realized, the accord does leave open the possibility that American military trainers and support forces could remain in Iraq after that time. It is unclear whether the accord provides for semipermanent military bases in the country, and what role the United States would play in providing air and naval support for Iraq.

As a wise old owl once said: O RLY?

New at TWI: Battleground Zero

Laura McGann — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:02:45 GMT

This morning we have a set of dispatches from swing counties across the country, written by reporters on TWI's sister sites in Minnesota, New Mexico, Michigan and Iowa. The feature helps explain McCain's uptick in recent polling. Check it out, here.

Withdrawal/Sons Of Iraq Quid Pro Quo?

Spencer Ackerman — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:37:57 GMT

My friend Dr. iRack surveys the timetable for U.S. withdrawal and notices a pretty important convergence: June 2009. By that point, the U.S. is supposed to be both out of Iraqi cities and, say the Doctor's sources, relinquished the Sons of Iraq program -- much hated by the Shiite government -- over to the Iraqis. What's that mean? Doctor:

This means the Maliki government will be free to employ them if they so desire or, more likely, fire them, detain them, or use all that biometric and biographical information we've collected to do whatever else they see fit with them. Given the fact that Maliki and his allies hate these guys and, according to a recent interview with General Petraeus, the Iraqi government is purposefully slowing the integration process down, it is unlikely that Maliki and his buddies will be generous once they are in complete control of the program. And if recent behavior in Diyala and the newly reported crack down on SoIs in Abu Ghraib are any indication, things could get ugly.

Again, this all goes back to the "assertiveness" of Maliki. If what Dr. iRack writes is borne out, Maliki believes he really can take on all comers and win. The Sons of Iraq are not going to take their extirpation lying down.

McCain Drops Rezko Ad

Matthew DeLong — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:03:12 GMT

We all knew it was coming -- it was just a matter of when. In response to an ad released by the Obama campaign feeding off the so-called "Housegate" controversy and portraying Sen. John McCain as out of touch with ordinary Americans on the housing crisis, the McCain campaign yesterday "went nuclear" and released its own spot blasting Sen. Barack Obama for his ties to his long-time friend and fund-raiser, Tony Rezko. Rezko, a Chicago real estate developer, was convicted in June on fraud and bribery charges. Here's the McCain ad:

PRODUCTION NOTES: The McCain ad, titled "Housing Problem," focuses on two aspects of Obama's relationship with Rezko that drew attention in the course of Rezko's trial. First, it says Rezko helped Obama "buy his million dollar mansion, purchasing part of the property he couldn't afford." In fact, it was Rezko's wife who purchased the parcel adjacent to the Chicago home Obama bought in 2005. The seller owned both parcels and wanted to sell them both at the same time. From the Chicago Sun-Times:

Obama’s relationship with Rezko grew closer in June 2005, when Obama and Rezko’s wife bought adjoining real estate parcels from a doctor in the South Side Kenwood neighborhood. Obama paid $1.65 million for the doctor’s mansion, while Rezko’s wife paid $625,000 for the vacant lot next door. Obama’s purchase price was $300,000 below the asking price; Rezko’s wife paid full price.

Six months later, Obama paid Rita Rezko $104,500 for one-sixth of the vacant lot, which he bought to expand his yard. In November 2006, he expressed regret about the transaction.

“It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else,” Obama said, “to believe that he had done me a favor.”

According to the Sun-Times, it was "widely reported" that Rezko was under investigation at the time of Obama's land purchase from Rezko's wife. I'm not going to defend Obama here. Without a doubt, this does not look good.

The ad then suggests Obama did political favors for Rezko, "including $14 million from taxpayers." This is a reference to letters Obama wrote in 1997, as an Illinois state senator, in support of a deal that benefited Rezko. From the Sun-Times:

As a state senator, Barack 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.

The deal included $855,000 in development fees for Rezko and his partner, Allison S. Davis, Obama's former boss, according to records from the project, which was four blocks outside Obama's state Senate district.

It is important to note that Obama has never been accused of wrong-doing. However, the sequence of the two charges in the ad seems to imply that Obama did a $14 million favor for Rezko quid pro quo for the land purchase. Because the letters preceded the house/land purchase by about eight years, this is extremely unlikely -- unless Obama and Rezko conspired with remarkable forethought and patience -- and therefore the ad is misleading.

In this ad, the McCain campaign brought out the big guns. I'll go out on a limb and predict this is not the last we'll hear about Mr. Rezko.

U.S. Out Of Iraqi Cities In June 2009, (Mostly) Out Of Iraq in 2011, Will Commute To Work

Spencer Ackerman — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:56:36 GMT

The New York Times reports that the draft U.S.-Iraq deal has U.S. troops pulling out of Iraqi "cities and villages" by June 2009 and combat forces out by 2011. As predicted, the Bush administration is insisting that these timetables are not in fact timetables. Sayeth Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

"We have always said that the roles, missions and size of the American forces here, the coalition forces, was based on the conditions on the ground and what is needed."

And here, the operative "condition on the ground" is Nouri al-Maliki's desire to retain power, and his mechanism for doing so is to insist on a staggered U.S. withdrawal to undercut his nationalistic rivals. So there's your consistency right there. In truth, this is a capitulation to reality, the collapse of the main Iraq argument made by George Bush in his second term: timetables for withdrawal will kill you and your grandmother. For liberals, that's two for the price of one!

But here's a serious question raised by the out-of-the-cities move. How does that scramble Gen. Ray Odierno's war planning? Odierno hasn't been very specific about what he intends to do after he takes command in Iraq next month, but he has indicated a broad consistency with the population-protection strategy of his predecessor, Gen. David Petraeus. But, as any counterinsurgent will tell you, population-protection strategies can't be pulled off when they're implemented from massive bases past the city limits and not... within the cities where the people are. Counterinsurgents deride that idea, associated with Petraeus's predecessor, Gen. George Casey -- now the Army chief of staff -- by calling that "commuting to work." So is Odierno going to have to be more like Casey than Petraeus?

Rice: Polish Missile Defense Has... Nothing To Do With Russia

Spencer Ackerman — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:24:51 GMT

Just because you're not tired of being lied to, here's Condoleezza Rice:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Polish counterpart agreed to place 10 missile defense interceptors in Poland to defend against threats from Iran and North Korea, not to weaken Russia, the secretary said.

"This is an agreement that, of course, will establish a missile defense site here in Poland, a missile defense site that will help us to deal with the new threat to the 21st century of long-range missile threats from countries like Iran or from North Korea," Rice said yesterday at the Polish presidential palace in Warsaw.

Just just just just stop right there. That stillness you hear is your natural tranquility returning to you. Breathe deeply, exhaling the lie. Tell yourself, as a calming mechanism, North Korean missiles cannot hit Poland; even if they someday could, they never never would; and Iranian antipathy to the Poles does not exist. It's kind of amazing that Rice expects you to believe this. You will miss her when she's gone, and you promise to visit her in the Hague.

He's Black -- 'Get Over It.'

Ari Melber — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:04:13 GMT

When future historians dissect the press coverage of the first black person to run as the presidential nominee of a major party, they will surely marvel at all the linguistic acrobatics and patronizing euphemisms. There are exceptions, of course, and today's New York Times features a welcome break from vague racial speculation with a thoughtful, well-researched report on racial prejudice in rural Pennsylvania. Journalist Michael Powell hits the problems that many reporters are afraid to touch, largely because he did enough homework to ensure that the article enables voters to tell the story themselves:

In Raccoon, Kelly Dobbins, a middle-aged factory worker, offered the same [view as another voter]: “I’m like a duck in the water — I float there but underneath I’m paddling hard as I can go,” Mr. Dobbins said. “What’s pushing me toward McCain is Obama. Who is he? Where does he stand?" Such questions hint at a cultural disconnect. Mr. Obama would invest tens of billions of dollars in retooling mills and factories to fashion windmills and solar panels. He notes that Denmark and the Netherlands have grown fat off the new energy economy....

White-haired Art Seckman stepped gingerly off his porch. Mr. Seckman puts no faith in Mr. McCain. “He looks tired, and he’s gung-ho about war,” Mr. Seckman said. “I was a Hillary guy, but Obama sounds honest and he’s young and he understands the modern economy.” He paused, and laughed, “Maybe, funny as it sounds, it’s time for a black man to fix this mess.”

For a century, Aliquippa formed the primal heart of Beaver County. There was the mill, the company store and the Italian Renaissance library built by the daughter of the mill founder. Ethnic communities occupied each hill. Croats, Italians, Irish and blacks worked, fought, and drank together. Now the downtown offers swaybacked homes and boarded storefronts, and rubble. Aliquippa is 35 percent black, the highest percentage in the county. Glenn Kimbrough, 65, with a silver-tipped goatee and a neat Afro, came out of the mills after 37 years. Mr. Kimbrough is an Obama supporter but he would not hazard a guess as to how his white buddies will vote. He said economic disaster had exacerbated racial tensions. With the mills closed, the work force is resegregating. Carl Davidson, a white friend and an Obama supporter, sat in Mr. Kimbrough’s living room. “My father voted for Edwards in the primary and now he wants McCain,” said Mr. Davidson, whose father and grandfather labored in the mills. “Without realizing it, he’s wrapped up in white-identity politics.” Sorting out white-voter discomfort with Mr. Obama is tricky business. Most speak of unease with his newness. But one in five primary voters surveyed in the Edison/Mitofsky exit poll in Pennsylvania said race was a factor. (emphasis added).

It's disheartening to learn about these voters, but that's the reality. This kind of "white-identity politics" is racist, and there's very little value in pretending it's not a major factor in key states. The article ends on this point, with a crisp counterpunch from a union organizer:

In Hookstown, Kristine Lakovich, 48, works the counter at Kiner’s Superette. She likes Mr. Obama, a preference she keeps to herself. “If you ask people around here, he’s not exactly the right answer,” Ms. Lakovich said. “People are split between their politics and their prejudice.”

Nationally, the Obama campaign shies from talk of race, preferring to argue that the poor economy will dominate this election.

Such delicacy holds no purchase here. An organizer with the United Steelworkers met with 30 workers in Beaver. He could not have been blunter. Mr. Obama, he told them, stands for national health care, strong unions and preserving Social Security.

“Some of you won’t vote for him because he’s black,” the organizer concluded. “Well, he’s a Democrat. Get over it.”

It doesn't make for the typical campaign slogan or bumper sticker. But it sure is true.

Swift Boaters and the Housing Crisis

Mary Kane — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:21:05 GMT

Since housing and politics are so intertwined today, it's worth noting this post from The Big Picture, which details the role of swift boaters in a new development regarding the failed IndyMac Bancorp.

There's a lot to explain here, since swift boating and the housing crisis haven't exactly been linked previously. But via a Reuters report, The Big Picture says that 51 former IndyMac employees sent a letter to the California Attorney General's office, requesting an investigation into Democratic Senator Charles Schumer's role in possibly causing the bank's failure. Schumer sent a letter in June to federal regulators questioning the financial stability of IndyMac, a troubled subprime lender hit hard by the mortgage crisis. Shortly after the letter was made public, the bank experienced a run by account holders. The FDIC took over IndyMac on July 11, and it became the third-biggest bank failure in American history. The problem here, as The Big Picture notes, is there wasn't exactly an authentic and sudden groundswell of indignation from former IndyMac employees. Here's what really happened:

Who is behind this "groundswell" of (former) IndyMac workers? It turns out that the employee letter was distributed to the media by CRC Public Relations -- yes, the group whose clients include the National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Republican National Committee.And, CRC was the PR firm behind the company that published a book questioning 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's Vietnam service on a swift boat. Yes, those despicable, embarrassing festering boils on the Americans body politics: Liars, cheats & traitors all. Let's review: It wasn't the conflicts of interest, the outright fraud, or management's rampant criminality that sent Indy Mac belly up. It wasn't losing nearly a billion dollars this year alone. It wasn't the share prices tumbling 87% in 2007, and then losing another 95% this year-to-date. And of course, the loss of ~$30 billion dollars had nothing to do with this. It was the Senator's letter in June that was the cause of the collapse. Man, these swift boat guys are a dangerous combination of rabidly partisan, utterly ethicless, economically clueless -- and about as dumb as lawn furniture. They make you proud to be an American.

Looks like the housing crisis is about to become an even bigger political issue, and it's going to go well beyond the debates over foreclosures and rescue plans.

Waxman v. Stephen Johnson, Clean Water Act Edition

Matthew Blake — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:55:07 GMT

House oversight committee chair Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) issued a subpoena yesterday to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson to provide documents on enforcement of the Clean Water Act. While it's become a familiar story line -- EPA Administrator stonewalling an oversight committee investigation -- the Clean Water saga has had some unique twists and turns.

According to Waxman's committee, Greenpeace obtained what they say is an internal EPA memorandum grousing about the agency's inability to enforce the 1972 Clean Water Act. Greenpeace has since handed the memo over to the oversight committee. The memo is said to outline how a 2006 Supreme Court case "negatively affected 500 enforcement cases" mostly involving wetlands. Waxman-- along with Rep. Jim Oberstar, (D-Mn.) chair of the House transportation committee, which has jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act-- believe the memo is legit and they've spent the last month trying to get EPA to produce documents related to it.

Rapanos v. U.S. was a rare court case without a controlling majority opinion. Charged with deciding if Michigan developer John Rapanos could build a mall on 35 acres of wetlands, the justices issued three different opinions on whether wetlands had to be a "navigable waterway" in order to merit federal regulation. Following the non-decision, the EPA has struggled to determine what bodies of water are protected under the Clean Water Act. But instead of admitting as much, EPA Asst. Administrator Benjamin H. Grumbles told the transportation committee in May that Raponos has has had no ill effect-- contradicting the document he allegedly received from a fellow EPA clean water official.

The best-case scenario is that Johnson will hand over the documents and they'll reveal he's had a super-secret plan all along to enforce the Clean Water Act.

McCain Flack: Rezko Is 'Fair Game' Now

Matthew DeLong — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:38:38 GMT

Responding to the Obama campaign's attacks on Sen. John McCain's inability to say how many homes he owns, McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers basically said "it's on," according to The Washington Post:

"We're delighted to have a real estate debate with Barack Obama," said spokesman Brian Rogers, adding that the press should focus on Obama's house. "It's a frickin' mansion. He doesn't tell people that. You have a mansion you bought in a shady deal with a convicted felon."

The felon reference was to Tony Rezko, a former Obama friend and financial backer who was convicted on fraud and bribery charges this year. Rogers vowed to intensify efforts to link Obama to Rezko in the coming days.

"That's fair game now," he said. "You are going to see more of that now that this issue has been joined. You'll see more of the Rezko matter from us."

Politico's Jonathan Martin -- who, along with his colleague Mike Allen, asked the now-infamous question that McCain couldn't answer -- reports the Republican National Committee has released a torrent of oppo research on the Obama-Rezko connection. Here's a sample, from Politico:

Obama Paid $300,000 Less Than The Asking Price For His Mansion, While Tony Rezko's Wife Paid Full Price For A Vacant Lot Next Door On The Very Same Day. "Two years ago, Obama bought a mansion on the South Side, in the Kenwood neighborhood, from a doctor. On the same day, [Antoin 'Tony'] Rezko's wife, Rita Rezko, bought the vacant lot next door from the same seller. The doctor had listed the properties for sale together. He sold the house to Obama for $300,000 below the asking price. The doctor got his asking price on the lot from Rezko's wife." (Tim Novak, "Obama And His Rezko Ties," Chicago Sun-Times, 4/23/07)

The Seller Of Obama's Home "Wanted To Sell Both Properties At The Same Time." "On the same day Obama closed on his house, Rezko's wife bought the adjacent empty lot, meeting the condition of the seller who wanted to sell both properties at the same time." (Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz, "The Rezko Connection," ABC News' "The Blotter" Blog, abcnews.go.com, 1/10/08)

Rush Limbaugh is, predictably, getting in on the action as well, according to another of Martin's Politico colleagues, Ben Smith:

This business about McCain not knowing how many houses he has. Folks, it turns out that Obama already knows. Obama’s got an ad: He’s got seven houses. They’re worth $13 million. That wouldn’t even pay for one of John Kerry’s houses.

And the second thing I have to point out to you is that I don’t care how many houses McCain has, he and his wife did not get a sweetheart deal from a fraud embezzler like Tony Rezko to buy their houses. But the Messiah did. The Messiah got all kind of sweetheart deals with Rezko, and who knows who else.

Last I checked, John Kerry isn't running for president, but Rush was never one for sticking to the relevant issues. However, the Rezko thing is certainly not something Obama wants back in the headlines. It was always out there during the primaries, but never gained much traction nationally. Now that Obama has effectively secured the nomination -- and his campaign chose to make an issue of McCain's homes -- it's more likely that the national press will pick up on the story, considering the Republicans will undoubtedly continue to push it. As I wrote earlier, Obama may have picked a fight that will leave both candidates bloodied.

UPDATE: The RNC has launched a Website highlighting Obama's relationship with Rezko -- or relaunched with a new header, we should say.

Keeping the Roof Over Your Head

Mary Kane — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:28:16 GMT

Just in time for our series starting today on foreclosure and foreclosure fraud in Prince George's County, Md., the Orange County Register's Mortgage Insider offers some tips on avoiding scams. The post notes that homeowners are unnecessarily losing their properties to foreclosure fraud. And a commentator points out that many people can negotiate with banks themselves, rather than hiring a specialist or a firm to do it. Just something to think about the next time you see one of those "I pay cash for houses" on the side of the road.

DNC Slams McCain as 'Sen. Hothead'

Ari Melber — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:16:50 GMT

Who said Democratic campaigns don't launch personal attacks? The Democratic National Committee just hit a huge personal weakness of Sen. John McCain -- his anger-management problem.

In a research document blasted to campaign reporters, the Democrats are teeing off McCain's recent complaint that Obama is "testy." After asking whether McCain "Really Want[s] to go Down This Road," the DNC runs through reports of McCain's infamous temper -- from his own Republican colleagues:

GOP Sen. Thad Cochran: “The Thought Of His Being President Sends A Cold Chill Down My Spine.”

“Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, who has known Sen. John McCain for more than three decades, on Wednesday endorsed Mitt Romney for president. Cochran said his choice was prompted partly by his fear of how McCain might behave in the Oval Office. ‘The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine,’ Cochran said about McCain by phone. ‘He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.’” [Boston Globe, 1/27/08]

Former GOP Sen. Bob Smith: “His Temper Would Place This Country At Risk In International Affairs, And The World Perhaps In Danger. In My Mind, It Should Disqualify Him.”

“Former Sen. Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican, expresses worries about McCain: ‘His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him.’… ‘I've witnessed a lot of his temper and outbursts,’ Smith said. ‘For me, some of this stuff is relevant. It raises questions about stability. . . . It's more than just temper. It's this need of his to show you that he's above you -- a sneering, condescending attitude. It's hurt his relationships in Congress. . . . I've seen it up-close.’” [Washington Post, 4/20/08]

GOP Sen. Pete Domenici: “I Decided I Didn't Want This Guy Anywhere Near A Trigger.”
McCain’s “ire is all too real. This has prompted questions about whether his temperament is suited to the office of commander-in-chief... [AP, 2/16/08]

Some Democrats worry that this kind of argument leaves the party vulnerable to accusations of negative campaigning, which could potentially undermine Obama's promise of a new, honest and more civil politics. That gets it backward. It is McCain's temper and actions -- widely and openly discussed by members of his own party -- that demand public scrutiny as he seeks the most powerful position in the world. Voters may choose him despite his temper, but honest campaigns are supposed to ensure all legitimate issues are vetted and debated in public. These issues cannot be preempted because insiders think voters can't handle vexing issues, or that the public will resent the political party that bring them up.

Obama Hammers McCain on Homes

Matthew DeLong — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:19:39 GMT

The Obama campaign wasted no time in jumping all over Sen. John McCain's admission in an interview with Politico that the doesn't know how many homes he and his wife own. In one of its sharpest attacks to date on the presumed Republican nominee, the Obama rapid response team quickly put together a video that portrays McCain as out of touch on the housing crisis -- and reminds him that he owns seven homes, worth $13 million.

At a town hall today in Chester, Va., Obama linked McCain's homes to his recent statements that a rich person makes more than $5 million annually and that "the fundamentals of our economy are very strong," to illustrate how McCain is out of touch with the economic hardships faced by many Americans.

"[T]here was another interview – this is yesterday, same day – where somebody asked John McCain, how many houses do you have? And he said, 'I’m not sure. I’ll have to check with my staff.' True quote. 'I’m not sure. I’ll have to check with my staff.' So they asked his staff, and he said, at least four. At least four.

Now, think about that. I guess if you think that being rich means you’ve got to make $5 million and if you don’t know how many houses you have, then it’s not surprising that you might think the economy was fundamentally strong. But if you’re like me, and you’ve got one house, or you are like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so they don’t lose their home, you might have a different perspective. And, by the way, the answer is John McCain has seven homes. So there’s just a fundamental gap of understanding between John McCain’s world and what people are going through every single day here in America."

The McCain camp immediately hit back, releasing a statement painting Obama as a hypocritical elitist for pursuing this line of attack:

“Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people ‘cling’ to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who’s in touch with regular Americans?”

Politifact, the St. Petersburg [Fla.] Times' fact-checking operation, released a report confirming that, including investment properties, the McCains do in fact own seven homes -- most of which are in Cindy McCain's name.

So basically, we have two wealthy candidates -- one being relatively "new money" who was still paying off student loans until his books became bestsellers, and the other married into such an incredible fortune that he can't even say with certainty how many houses he has -- hammering away at each other on who is more out of touch with the American people. This is obviously a favorable issue for Obama, but it could easily turn into one of those inter-campaign spats that leaves the winner bruised as well.

Time Running Out On The Sons Of Iraq?

Spencer Ackerman — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:18:51 GMT

Via Cernig, McClatchy has a disturbing report about an Iraq issue far more sub rosa than the withdrawal deal. The Shiite government's reluctance to incorporate thousands of former Sunni insurgents -- those Sons of Iraq again! -- is showing more and more signs of becoming a permanent condition. A senior Army commander tells McClatchy's Leila Fadel that it might tell all militiamen who don't have civilian jobs or security-force positions that they will either disarm by November 1 or be subject to arrest.

"We cannot stand them, and we detained many of them recently," said one senior Iraqi commander in Baghdad, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue. "Many of them were part of al Qaida despite the fact that many of them are helping us to fight al Qaida."

Longtime readers know I've had mixed-to-skeptical feelings about the Sons of Iraq for a long time. It's impossible to blame any U.S. commander who offered insurgents money and other inducements so their troops wouldn't get shot at. And the impulse to expand the program -- it ballooned to over 100,000 militiamen in scarcely a year -- was also a sensible and creative way to try to fracture the insurgency and extirpate the so-called "irreconcilables" who remained. The trouble was that Iraq isn't a vacuum. No government can stand the idea of not having a monopoly of force, and the sectarian characteristic of the Sons of Iraq -- mostly Sunnis, in contrast to a Shiite-led government and security structure -- was bound to make the Maliki government nervous. You just can't erase the legacy of sectarianism overnight. The incorporation of 100,000 Sunni men with guns, at the behest of the U.S., into the Army and police and civilian infrastructure looks to a Shiite government like a strategy for infiltration and, ultimately, a coup.

There's one other aspect of this that should be remarked upon. And that's this idea of Prime Minister Maliki's new assertiveness. Maliki looks more and more like he's actually trying to run the table, power-wise: forcing the Bush administration to agree to a timetable; going after his Sadrist rivals; going after the Sunni power structure in Diyala; etc. It would stand to reason that stiffing the Sons of Iraq is consistent with that strategy. He looks strong now, he figures, so why compromise? It's a very Bush-like style, so no wonder George W. Bush is so comfortable with him. But if it turns out he's not as strong as he thinks he is, he's in for a painful reconciliation with reality.