22
Feb
Attack On McCain Fizzles, Questions For Clinton And Obama
THE HOUSING CRISIS FINALLY BECOMES THE LEAD STORY IN THE NY TIMES
Rescues for Homeowners in Debt Weighed
WASHINGTON — Prodded in part by some of the nation’s biggest banks, the Bush administration and Congress are considering costly new proposals for the government to rescue hundreds of thousands of homeowners whose mortgages are higher than the value of their houses.
NOTE: The story says that it is the banks who are pressing for a solution (ie. to get paid and bailed out) not the candidates or the homeowners. There’s no deeper analyis being offered except that the situation is being described as “worse than the depression.” Experts are now fearing as many as FIVE MILLION foreclosures. Are the candidates addressing the full crisis?
IRAQ INVADED AGAIN: Turkish Troops Cross Border In War With Kurdish Movements
THE POLITICAL SLEAZE SEASON HAS BEGUN
QUESTIONS FOR CLINTON AND OBAMA
MAN DIES IN RIOT AT US EMBASSY IN SERBIA
I read the news today, oh boy. Last night when I first heard about the New York Times story on John McCain’s possible dalliance, I figured the paper of record was throwing a bomb. This one seemed to have self-destructed after John McCain denied it. It may yet blow up in the face of all those who saved the “gotcha” moment.
Now the right media is rallying to their standard bearer with a new issue with which to bash “liberal media.” I saw a big FOX satellite truck parked outside the new Times Building this morning. I haven’t heard all the stories about the “smear” but I can imagine.
First, the people who heard it last night seemed titillated. I saw a story about “McCain’s Monica.” But this is likely to backfire because the story itself was very vague and suggested more than it proved. I thought it was overblown journalism and, oddly, the very thing I have been seeing on Liberal blogs who feared attacks from the right but in reverse.
The story made the news it did because there was a sexual or supposedly a sexual angle. If was just about a Senator “sleeping” with sleazy lobbyists and doing their bidding as part of the favor factory, it would not have made news. There has to be something salacious in it, as if that is a cultural commandment. There was no outcry about the revelations that Rupert Murdoch, Mike Bloomberg and others gave McCain their planes the way Kenny “boy” Lay of Enron flew George Bush around in the days of that company’s glory. That story was quickly dropped!
IS IT JOURNALISM?
The Columbia Journalism Review carried a piece defending the curious 3030 word Times front page story reported by no fewer than FOUR reporters. CJR only had two. One,“McCausation” by Clint Hendler defended the Times.
One of the chief complaints about The New York Times’ story on the relationship between McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman is that the paper is implying more than it has proven. That’s certainly true, but as far as journalism goes, it’s an awfully wrongheaded criticism.
So much of reporting, especially reporting on situations where the facts are hidden, unclear, or developing, depends on creating meaning from only what is known, which is often a set of suggestive, but not definitive, facts. A lot of journalism magic happens between readers’ ears.”
Another CJR media monitor, Megan Garber, posed five questions to Times Editor Bill Keller including these:
Did the times have information that corroborates its suggestion of an affair, but that it didn’t publish in “For McCain”?
TPM’s Josh Marshall, commenting on “For McCain” last night, wrote, “It seems to me that we have a story from the Times that reads like it’s had most of the meat lawyered out of it.” Has it? Did legal concerns change any of the final story’s content?
SHOULD HILLARY TEAR DOWN HER COMPETITOR?
For weeks now I have been reading about questioning whether Obama can handle all the swiftboating the left expects the right will hurl his way. People like former CIA analysts and ex Ambassador Joe Wilson circulated a warning that Obama was vulnerable to being exposed as a friend of terrorists etc.
As Clinton partisans, they then planted the storiees and smears against Obama in the guise of alerting us to what kinds of attacks could be coming down the track. (At least one of the stories was total drek as I reported.) After everything Wilson went through with the smearing of his wife, he should have known better.
The Times also featured a story about a debate within the inner circle of Clintonville about how Hillary should handle this. Should she start flinging more accusations or not? Some of her advisors fear that if she does, it will rebound against her.
QUESTION FOR HILLARY
No candidate should be above or beyond scrutiny. And that includes Hillary Clinton who today took a swipe at Hedge Funds arguing that hedge fund executives shouldn’t be immune from certain taxes. Right on—BUT…. how much did her campaign receive from Wall Street execs including Hedge Funders?
QUESTION FOR OBAMA
And what about Obama, who seems to be flying in the ether above accountability or questioning, especially about all the money he’s raised. The Black Agenda writes: “The presidential campaign of Barack Obama has become a media parade on its way to a coronation. Journalists and leading Democrats have done shockingly little to pin Obama down, to hold him specifically responsible for anything beyond his slogans of “yes we can” and “change we can believe in”.
Obama is being attacked on the right but I don’t think the suggestions made by the wackoids at Accuracy in Media saying he a Communist deserves a response. But there is a story, now building steam about his finance chairman Penny Pritzker, who was the chairman of Superior bank that went bust and allegedly was in on the ground floor of the subprime scandal.
The New York Times has already reported that nearly half of the more than $5 million Obama raised for his 2004 Senate primary came from just 300 donors. The charmed circle of 300 included the Pritzker family, founders of the Hyatt Hotel chain. The Pritzkers donated $40,000 and Penny Pritzker is currently Obama’s national finance chairwoman. (Penny’s brother works for Hillary.)’
A fascinating blog, Day Dreams politics carries an analysis of what writer Karl L calls the “WEALTH PRIMARY”. The National Voting Rights Institute says “The “Wealth primary” is the process by which the person who collects the most money — the ‘winner’ of the Wealth Primary — almost always goes on to capture his or her party’s nomination. It also means that those campaign contributors with the most money or access to money, choose the candidate who almost invariably goes on to win…Our current system of financing electoral campaigns now stands where the poll tax and the high candidate filing fee systems once stood.”
Says the blog: “In support of the idea that the “Wealth Primary” gives disproportionate political influence to the wealthy few and excludes the non-affluent many, the NVRI presented a number of key facts:
* Less than 1% of the population provides over 80% of all money in federal elections.
* Over 60 percent of contributions to winning congressional candidates come in amounts over $1000.
* Only one-ninth of one percent of the voting-age population gave $1000 or more to federal candidates in 1999-2000.
* Less than two percent of Americans give candidate contributions over $200.
IS THERE MORE TO THE PRITZGER CONNECTION?
Ok, the system is corrupt, has been for years, but this Pritzker banking connection could be a big scandal. The collapse of the Superior Bank led to the rip off of depositors and millions from the FDIC. It deserves scrutiny. The case has not been closed. Does it have an subprime connection? If so that might be bad for Obama because he is on record against predatory practices.
One of those investigating the issue is a controversial but skilled radio journalist, Dennis Bernstein of Berkeley’s KPFA. He told me this story is an eye-opener and came to me about it because of my film and writing on the economic collapse. He thinks it offers insight into the system, not just Obama.
Listen to his report which includes some banking experts from Chicago.He says you have to go in about ten minutes on the online broadcast. I am sure we will be hearing more about this issue.
Stephan Richter: THE GLOBALIST: Obama’s Secret: The Son Bill and Hillary Never Had
In the race for the Democratic nomination, the biggest story is about why — and how — Obama has managed to derail Hillary Clinton’s campaign. As Stephan Richter explains, Obama’s real secret is that, as a person, he comes darn close to being the very son that Bill and Hillary never had — combining his charm with her brains.
Joe Wilson did not attack Barack Obama. If you can’t even be fair, why should any of us listen to you? I read Wilson’s original piece and his extended piece. You are wrong. Also, it’s “Black Agenda Report,” not “Black Agenda.” And Wilson’s correct, so is Joe Klein and so was Richard Cohen, that if Obama gets the nomination, the right-wing will have the field day they want. I expect more from journalism than what you are supplying.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:50 pmI have noyhing against Obama the only thing is that I don’t think that he gas enough knowledge abour running a country as big as ours and the remark that hi wife said about liking the country is because she believes that he might become President and before i guess that she wasn’t to crazy about our country and oprah in my opion is a racist
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:48 pmI think Bigabe’s point about gas is correct and I do think Michelle Obama’s remarks about only now being proud of her country (the first time in her adult life) was idiotic and embarrassing. Most important, I agree with what Ryan said and am disgusted that Danny Schechter wants to drag Joe Wilson through the mud. If Schechter is supporting Obama’s campaign, he needs to make that clear. I’ll avoid this website as I’ve learned to avoid the other liars.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:57 amThe involvement of the Obama campaign’s national finance chair, Penny Pritzker, in the 2001 Superior Bank S&L Scandal is not being publicized by the Big Media during the 2008 campaign as much as the Clintons’ involvement in the smaller Madison & Guaranty S&L Scandal was publicized during the 1992 campaign. But after the Illinois-based Superior Bank S&L collapsed in July 2001, the Office of Inspector General’s Feb. 2002 report concluded that “based on our review of the failure of Superior Bank it appears that some of the decisions made by Superior management rise to the level of insider abuse.”
Yet before Superior Bank failed (at a cost of over $440 million to U.S. taxpayers) due to its board’s financially reckles engagement in subprime mortgage lending and predatory lending, Barack Obama accepted a $1,000 campaign contribution on Sept. 14, 1999 from then-Superior Bank board member Penny Pritzker. And after naming Penny Pritzker to be his 2008 presidential campaign’s national finance chair on Jan. 31, 2007, Obama said that he was “proud that” the former Superior Bank S&L official “has agreed to partner with me in this important venture.”
For more information about the Obama campaign’s national finance chair’s role in the Superior Bank Scandal, you can check out the Nov. 8, 2002 article in In These Times, “Breaking The Bank,” at the following link:
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:34 pmhttp://www.inthesetimes.com/article/671/
Where there’s smoke there’s fire. John McCain isn’t above reproach, although he likes to play the part.
When The New York Times and Washington Post came out with stories about his questionable relationship with Vicki Iseman, the lobbyist for Paxson, he immediately began defending his honor, claiming to never have had a romantic relationship with “that woman.”
Okay; he didn’t say “that woman”. But his intent was clear: take the focus away from the question of his relationships with lobbyists - who, by the way, make up virtually his entire campaign team - and throw it against the straw dog of marital infidelity. And it almost worked. Attacking the Times for impugning his honor, McCain was able to rally the right wing-nuts to his defense. But that was bound to happen eventually anyway. Do you really believe Rush and his partners in prattle would stand back and forgo attacking the Democratic candidate for the months leading up to the election?
But, here’s the problem facing McClean; not only did he show incredibly bad judgment in hanging out with Ms Iseman (and taking multiple corporate jet rides with her), he apparently wrote a few letters to the FCC on behalf of her employer, Paxson. According to the AP:
“In late 1999, McCain twice wrote letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Florida-based Paxson Communications — which had paid Iseman as its lobbyist — urging quick consideration of a proposal to buy a television station license in Pittsburgh. At the time, Paxson’s chief executive, Lowell W. “Bud” Paxson, also was a major contributor to McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign.
McCain wrote the letters after he received more than $20,000 in contributions from Paxson executives and lobbyists. Paxson also lent McCain his company’s jet at least four times during 1999 for campaign travel.”
But that’s not all. McCain, in a news conference on Friday, February 22 said he had never done any favors for any lobbyist and his campaign insisted that McCain had never spoken to Ms. Iseman or anyone from Paxson prior to writing to the FCC.
Except he did. In a deposition in 2002, McCain acknowledged he sent those letters after meeting Mr. Paxson.
Like I said, smoke, fire. Read the rest of my comments on www.politicaldoodle.com
February 24th, 2008 at 8:31 pm