A Piece of the Action
We haven't had Rudy Giuliani to kick around for a while. But Rudy seems intent on throwing us a bone.
The Times reports that with the GOP for once running seriously behind Democrats in campaign fundraising, Giuliani is offering to hold fundraisers for down-ticket Republicans. But with an important catch -- he gets to keep part of the haul for himself.
Rudy has $3.6 million in campaign debt from his historically catastrophic campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. And while the precise modalities aren't completely clear, Giuliani is telling Republicans candidates that for him to come to headline a fundraiser to raise money for them -- some of the cash has to be set aside to help him retire his campaign debt.
The article contains quotes from various Republicans operatives who seem to think Giuliani is a self-serving schmuck. But the kicker comes in this passage toward the end of the piece ...
The fact that Mr. Giuliani -- who had an estimated net worth of at least $30 million in 2006, according to financial disclosure forms filed last year -- has loaned his campaign money gives the fund-raising a particular urgency. Candidates generally have unlimited time to pay off campaign debt. But if any portion of a personal loan to a campaign is unpaid by the end of an election cycle, the maximum amount that can be repaid with money raised after that is $250,000, according to Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the Federal Election Commission.That means that Mr. Giuliani could have to forgive all or part of his $500,000 loan if he does not raise the funds to pay it back before September, when Senator John McCain is formally chosen as the Republican presidential nominee, officially ending the primary elections
That is tough, isn't it? $30 million Rudy is faced with the prospect of having to take a loss of as much as $250,000 unless he can find local Republican givers who'll give him a chunk of the money they've set aside for funding the party's candidates.
--Josh Marshall
His Doctor's Account
Following up on my post below, here is video of an an interview NBC's Andrea Mitchell conducted with Russert's doctor, Michael Newman. Newman notes that Russert's doctors also wondered about the possibility of a pulmonary embolism because his death came so soon after a long plane flight. But an autopsy, which Newman relates, determined it was a heart attack.
--Josh Marshall
Details
When death strikes suddenly, the clinical why of it all becomes as terribly pressing as it is ultimately irrelevant. At TPM we first heard news of Tim Russert's death from colleagues and sources in the news and political world at about 3:20 PM eastern. We scrambled to find out more information -- particularly, some sort of confirmation. And we first published news of Russert's death about 8 minutes later when his passing was confirmed by The New York Times.
From the first reports it seemed clear that Russert had died of a heart attack. But there was some uncertainty in the original reporting, which I guess makes sense since I'm not sure a heart attack, or what is in clinical terms called a 'myocardial infarction', can be definitively distinguished from other causes of cardiac arrest without an autopsy.
Since Russert had flown across the Atlantic just yesterday it had occurred to me and a few of our readers this afternoon that he might have suffered a pulmonary embolism -- something that can strike people who have been on long plane flights or extended bed rest. But this was not the case.
This may seem like a coolly clinical response to this very sad news. But that's not the case. My own curiosity, which is much to dispassionate a word to convey my need to know, must have stemmed from the fact that my own father died just short of two years ago in more or less exactly the same way.
When I heard the first sketchy descriptions of my father's death I thought the people who were telling me he had had a heart attack must be wrong because there was, apparently, no violent grasping of the chest or look of pressure or pain on his face. In layman's terms, he had a few moments of feeling flush. And then he fainted. To me, in my happy ignorance, that sounded more like a stroke.
This evening when I checked back on the news after spending time with my family, I read this story in the New York Times which now confirms that a sudden heart attack was the cause of death.
His internist, Dr. Michael A. Newman, told MSNBC that "an autopsy had found that Mr. Russert had an enlarged heart and significant coronary artery disease." According to the Associated Press, Russert had been "diagnosed with asymptomatic coronary artery disease, which he was controlling with medication and exercise."
Since heart attack is such a common cause of death (the most common in the United States) I know many, many of you have experienced something very similar in your own lives. My fingers on the keyboard want to say that I can only imagine the shock and grief his wife and son are feeling right now. But I don't have to imagine. I remember. And my heart and prayers go out to them. Even more I wish them loved ones who can support and contain their agony and sorrow.
Russert was 58 years old.
--Josh Marshall
Tim Russert, Dead at 58
Very sad news. Tim Russert has died of a heart attack, at 58. News started spreading within the last half hour through media and political circles. It's now been confirmed by The New York Times.
Our deepest condolences to his family, friends and colleagues.
Late Update: Video of Tom Brokaw announcing Russert's death on MSNBC this afternoon. Brian Williams was on location in Afghanistan and joined the newscast later.
Later Update: Russert's final online chat at MSNBC.com, from earlier today.
Later Still: NBC's Chuck Todd reminisces about Russert:
--Josh Marshall
More Contempt Citations in the Works
The House government oversight committee will vote June 20 on whether to hold EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and a White House OMB official in contempt for their failure to comply with congressional subpoenas.
--David Kurtz
Caught Red-Handed
In the post below I noted how John McCain is now going in for the same Social Security 'privatization' bamboozlement that President Bush did, claiming that calling his policy 'privatization' is some sort of lie or spin.
Here's video of McCain using the word himself in 2004 and then claiming it's all a bum rap just this morning. For more ins and outs of the policy and terminology issues, see the post below. To take the McCain flimflam straight up, no chaser, watch the vid ...
--Josh Marshall
Krauthammer's Advice to McCain
M.J. Rosenberg hopes against hope that McCain makes Iraq the centerpiece of his campaign, as Krauthammer recommends.
--David Kurtz
McCain Signs on For More Bush Bamboozlement!
For those of you who remember President Bush's 2005 crusade to phase out Social Security by privatizing the program and converting it into a system of private investment accounts, you know that one of the biggest lines of bamboozlement was the White House's attempt to take the word for Social Security privatization -- i.e., 'privatization' -- and pretend that it was a word Democrats had come up with and one that was unfair for any members of the press to use.
Needless to say, not only is 'privatization' an accurate description of the policy but it's also the one Republicans came up with and the one they used until polls showed definitively that the American people want to preserve Social Security and weren't for privatizing it. So 'privatization' was consigned to the memory hole and Republican spinmeisters tried to find as many ignorant or gullible journalists as they could to allow them to keep changing the name of their policy in order to trick the public into accepting a policy they didn't like.
After they dropped 'privatization' they called it 'private accounts'. And when 'private accounts' tanked too, they said that 'private accounts' wasn't fair either. They were really 'personal accounts.' The whole thing just got silly and sad.
It didn't work in 2005. But now McCain -- he of the straight talk -- is trotting it out again.
This video is from a townhall meeting in New Jersey just this morning ...
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
VIPs -- including a couple of U.S. senators -- got special loan deals not available to the general public at subprime giant Countrywide.
--David Kurtz
Second Thoughts
With an era of good feelings breaking out among Democrats nationwide, I hesitate to delve back into the acrimony and angst of the Obama-Clinton duel and all the anger it sowed between Democrats across the country. But I do it with a suggestion that may surprise some of you and one that questions my own earlier take.
I was never someone who thought Hillary was under any obligation to get out of the race until the end or even necessarily that she should have done so. What got me was her campaign's harsh and strident attacks on Obama -- one that often mimicked Republican attacks and which escalated in intensity as her hopes of beating him approached the vanishing point.
Hillary supporters claimed that there was nothing that Hillary was throwing at Obama that McCain and Co. wouldn't be thrown at him later. So at a minimum she was helping him get the stuff behind him and perhaps even making him a stronger candidate.
This always struck me as what I can only very generously term a deeply disingenuous argument. And I still find it deeply disingenuous. But I'm coming around to the belief that it may have been an accurate one -- much more than I realized or was willing to credit.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think Hillary was trying to do Barack any favors. (see Matthew 18:7) But looking forward, it seems far better to me that all the Reverend Wright, Rezko, Bitter and and all the rest are out there and run through and basically old news. Better they were run through in the spring than the summer or the fall.
What's more, in these first few days of the general election, in addition to McCain's and Obama's fundamental qualities as candidates, I think it is increasingly evident that both campaigns are hitting the ground at very, very different speeds. Clinton gave Obama one hell of a run for his money. He's been campaigning and fighting at a fever pitch -- as has his whole campaign -- for months. And it shows.
On the contrary, McCain's operation is simply a wreck. Flabby. Disorganized. Sometimes comical. And one big reason for that is that McCain hardly won the nomination. It defaulted to him. Looked at with some distance and perspective the Republican race fell out as follows: Rudy imploded because of the combustible force of his own militant ridiculousness. Then Huckabee gutted Romney. And since Huckabee was too out there (ironically, simultaneously too sane and too looney to pass Republican muster) that left McCain. With the rest of the field flopping around like fish on dry land, McCain was able to sew the nomination quickly with pluralities in the GOP's winner-take-all contests.
No discussion of this race would be complete without reference to the many damaging factors that are beyond McCain's control -- the collapse of public support for the Republican party, the Iraq War, the deep unpopularity of President Bush, etc. But when you see trainwrecks like the McCain camp's lame effort to upstage Obama on his victory night with that lime green speech clunker, it becomes evident that this campaign just hasn't had a chance to go head to head with a real competitor. And it shows.
--Josh Marshall
Bummin'
I'm a little disappointed we weren't given at least a somewhat more scurrilous rating. I mean, how many sex scandals do we have to give wall-to-wall coverage to be even a little scurrilous?
--Josh Marshall
What About Me?
Dean Baker, feeling a little left out, says Obama's new economics team is more Wall Street than Main Street.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv: Be Gone, Demons!
We take another look at Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's (R) exorcism in today's episode of TPMtv ...
High-res version at Veracifier.com.
--Josh Marshall
Gov. Dobbs
Besides Godzilla deciding to move behind the camera and go into directing, the idea of Lou Dobbs running for Governor of New Jersey strikes me as one of developments that either heralds the coming of the apocalypse or would be good grist for reality tv.
--Josh Marshall
Tonight at the Strand
For those of you in the New York City area, I'll be the moderator tonight for a discussion of Matt Yglesias's book Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats at The Strand Bookstore. It starts at 7 PM and of course it's open to the public. More details here.
--Josh Marshall
Progressive But Maybe Not Progress
The Tax Policy Center has released a report comparing the Obama and McCain tax plans. You can read the report, "A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans," here (.pdf). A sampling:
If enacted, the Obama and McCain tax plans would have radically different effects on the distribution of tax burdens in the United States. The Obama tax plan would make the tax system significantly more progressive by providing large tax breaks to those at the bottom of the income scale and raising taxes significantly on upper-income earners. The McCain tax plan would make the tax system more regressive, even compared with a system in which the 2001-06 tax cuts are made permanent. It would do so by providing relatively little tax relief to those at the bottom of the income scale while providing huge tax cuts to households at the very top of the income distribution.
At his TaxProf Blog, Paul L. Caron hits the highlights of the report and rounds up early reaction, some of which centers on the fact that both plans would dramatically increase the national debt.
To its credit, CNN also had a decent rundown on the tax relief numbers this morning:
--David Kurtz
Today's Must Read
The strange case of U.S. Appeals Court Judge Alex Kozinski and his porn website . . .
--David Kurtz
The Only Thing to Fear . . .
Arianna ponders why some Democrats fall prey to Republican fear-mongering while others persevere.
Late Update: Gary Hart notes that Democrats' argument that the GOP is engaged in delusional, fear-mongering promoted by commercial interests and cynical right-wingers hasn't worked very well.
--David Kurtz
Obama's Baby Mama?
As Josh flagged last night, Fox News has a new moniker for Michelle Obama:
Good catch by Salon's War Room.
--David Kurtz
New Wisconsin Poll
Obama running 13 points head of McCain. Equally significant, Democrats are running 14% ahead of Republicans in party ID.
--Josh Marshall
I'm am continually surprised by my ability to be surprised by just how disgusting an organization Fox News is.
--Josh Marshall
TPMtv: Hit the Road, Joe
Are the Senate Dems finally going to toss Joe Lieberman overboard? We ask the question in today's episode of TPMtv and look at one way grassroots Dems across the country may be able to give the final push that sends him over the edge ...
High-res version at Veracifier.com.
--Josh Marshall
Yeah, That's the Ticket!
Presidents pick vice presidential nominees for different reasons -- for foreign policy cred, to secure the support of a key state or demographic. But if John McCain picks Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) for his vice presidential nominee, as he's reportedly considering doing, Jindal may be able to bring McCain key assistance in holding exorcisms and casting demonic spirits out of the afflicted. He's got experience.
--Josh Marshall
Ex Post McCaino
The McCain campaign is hitting back hard against Democratic criticism of his "not that important" quote this morning on Today. But as often is the case with McCain, the explanations of what he said are even sillier than the original statement.
According to the McCain camp, the original clip that we published this morning doesn't contain the full context of the remarks. And they've posted a longer version, which doesn't appear to change the meaning in any meaningful way. But decide for yourself.
Their other point is that McCain isn't saying that bringing the troops home isn't that important, he's saying that precisely when they come home isn't that important and that reducing the number of casualties is more important than the precise date when they come home. But this highly strained argument seems premised on the assumption that journalists should report not what you say but your own highly generous after-the-fact interpretation of what you said.
I would say that in the context of Iraq when they come home and whether they come home are actually inextricably combined. Presumably US military personnel won't be in Iraq 20,000 years from now. At some point they'll come home. But staying for many decades is, in the context of most of our lives, the same as staying forever. On the latter point McCain doesn't say that reducing casualties is more important than getting people home. He's saying one is his focus and the other isn't very important.
Sometimes these references by McCain are treated as gaffes but they're not. This is what McCain believes: that we should have a long-term troop presence in Iraq to guarantee the survival of a pro-U.S. government and assert power in the region. That's not a crazy position. That's the position of the current administration. That's why we're currently trying to secure an agreement with the Iraqis to ratify that goal. The problem isn't that McCain's position is incomprehensible. It's just not popular. Most Americans think reducing casualties is important too. But they'd like to do both -- reduce casualties and leave too.
The problem for the McCain campaign is that he keeps stumbling into clear statements of his actual policy, which is close to lethal since the vast majority of Americans disagree with his policy and Iraq is virtually the only thing he's running on. The context the McCain campaign keeps trying to put forward after the fact is what they wished he'd said rather than what he did. And even that, when you push deep, isn't that different from McCain's actual policy, which is that he doesn't think we should be leaving Iraq for years to come, most likely decades.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
Before going up the river, a convicted hedge fund manager might have jumped into it. He left the message "suicide is painless" scrawled in the dust on the hood of his car. Was it the real thing or a fake suicide on the eve of serving a 20-year prison term?
--David Kurtz
John McCain: I am Viral Video!
McCain: Bringing Troops Home from Iraq "Not Too Important" ...
Get a good look. Within a day or so he won't have said it.
--Josh Marshall
Golf We Can Believe In
Seems the McCain campaign is not closely moderating the comments on their McCain golf gear page.
Late Update: In a very un-web 2.0 move, the McCain site is no longer allowing readers to post reviews of his McCain Golf Pack.
--Josh Marshall
Colorado and Virginia
As I and innumerable others have mentioned, the red states that seem genuinely ripe for flipping this year are Colorado and Virginia. Others are definitely possible. But those are the ones that might even be considered probable.
The most recent poll of Viriginia (May 22nd) has Obama beating McCain by 7 points (49%-42%). And the one immediately previous has Obama down by 3 points (47%-44%).
Colorado is even stronger for Obama. The most recent poll (Rasmussen, May 21st) has Obama up by 6 points and the one previous to that (Ramussen, April 21st) had him up by 3.
TPM Reader DS sent me to this electoral college widget and fiddling around I found that if I gave the Dems Virginia and Colorado, I could get them to victory while losing Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Missouri, New Mexico and Nevada. The other states I'm giving the Dems all seem eminently winnable, though a few in the upper midwest will certainly take some hard work.
Of course, there are a million different ways to divide up the electoral votes. But since I'm increasingly confident that Obama can actually win Ohio, this put me in a bullish state of mind.
--Josh Marshall
Wexler Too?
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) has signed on to articles of impeachment against President Bush that Dennis Kucinich introduced yesterday.
--Josh Marshall
Terrorist Fist Jab, Redux
Fox News' E.D. Hill offers up feeble apology for "terrorist fist jab" swipe at Obama ...
Late Update: Ouch. Turns out E.D.'s show is being cancelled. Maybe because she wasn't pushing the terrorist card hard enough?
--Josh Marshall
OutFoxed
Normally I don't care much about cable chat show ratings, but for this one I'll bite.
From a press release just out from NBC ...
MSNBC NOTCHES DEMO WIN OVER FNC IN PRIMETIME"Countdown" Out-Rates the "Factor" for First Time Ever
NEW YORK - June 10, 2008 - MSNBC continued its ratings surge last week, with viewers flocking out of the "No Spin Zone" and to "The Place for Politics." For the first time ever, MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" was the #1 show at 8 p.m., out-drawing Fox News's "O'Reilly Factor" head-to-head among Adults 25-54. This is the first time since June 2001 that MSNBC has out-rated "The O'Reilly Factor" at 8 p.m.
Excluding Tuesday's primary coverage, "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" averaged 477,000 A25-54 vs. 472,000 for the "Factor."
--Josh Marshall
Rumblings
Are Cheney and his neocon allies retaking the reins of power on Iran policy in the White House. Steven Clemons thinks so.
--Josh Marshall
The Case Against Webb
Putting Jim Webb on the ticket with Obama makes a lot of sense on paper. He complements Obama's weak points very well. Just speaking for myself, I've always thought it was an obvious choice. And there's little question that he's interested in the job. But there's a strong contrary chorus of people -- at least some of whom know him well and like him -- who think it's a terrible idea because Webb is just characterologically not a team player and because he has in the past expressed various views that many Democrats will find anathema, even if he's since recanted many of them.
Tim Noah makes that case in Slate.
--Josh Marshall
Today's Must Read
Privatizing security and other military functions proved so profitable that Blackwater is trying to do the same thing for espionage.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv: 2008: Battle Lines Drawn
With the general election campaign now upon us, we thought we'd take a look at the map and see where the real swing states are this cycle ...
High-res version at Veracifier.com.
--Josh Marshall
Joe Strikes Back
When last we checked in with Joe Lieberman, an Obama aide was telling Newsweek that the talking to Obama gave Lieberman on the senate floor last week was about Lieberman's "personal attacks and his half-hearted denials of the false rumors that Obama is a Muslim." But now Joe's crew is pushing back, telling National Review Online that Newsweek didn't ask for a response from Lieberman and that the characterization is "entirely false and fabricated," in the words of Lieberman spokesman Marshall Wittman.
An anonymous Lieberman aide ups the ante with Mark Halperin of The Page, telling him: "If the Obama campaign thinks they are going to intimidate Joe Lieberman with these sleazy tactics then they are sorely mistaken."
Now, it's not clear to me what they're calling 'sleazy tactics' -- the initial talking-to or the allegedly false characterization of the conversation. I should also be clear, along the lines of disclosure, that while I've only met Lieberman maybe once or twice, I consider two of his top people, Dan Gerstein and Marshall Wittman friends, though I haven't talked to either of them about this in many months or in Marshall's case years.
What does seem clear to me is that Lieberman's days in the Democratic caucus, or more specifically, his days with a committee chairmanship courtesy of the Democratic caucus are numbered in months.
My assumption is that after the November election, regardless of the outcome of the presidential campaign, Joe will be stripped of his chairmanship. (This seems even more certain to me if Obama wins the general, but I suspect it will happen regardless.) Whether he'll actually be expelled from the caucus I don't know and probably doesn't really matter. Once he's stripped of the benefits he gains from it, presumably he'll leave himself and become an actual non-caucusing independent or, more likely, start caucusing with the Republicans.
What that tells me is that Lieberman has no incentive not to make the maximum amount of trouble over the next five months both for his senate colleagues and for Sen. Obama.
--Josh Marshall
Huh?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but how does anybody think future US governments, not to mention future Iraqi governments, are going to be bound by some slapped-together deal President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki put together that hasn't even been passed by our Congress or their parliament? The administration is treating it as a big priority because it will supposedly ensure a longterm (i.e., permanent) US presence in Iraq. And war critics are taking it seriously for the same reason. But it's entirely unclear to me why anyone thinks a President Obama couldn't say 'Forget it. Bad idea.' on day one.
--Josh Marshall
Right on Time
Notwithstanding today's news, the Abramoff scandal is mainly fading off into the past as we head into the thick of the 2008 campaign season. But it seems that Jack will make at least one cameo appearance. According to a motion filed today in the case, it seems likely that Abramoff will finally be sentenced in early September, just after the Democratic and Republican conventions.
--Josh Marshall
Scottie's Ready to Talk
Former White House Secretary Scott McClellan accepts Rep. John Conyers' (D-MI) invitation to testify before the House Judiciary Committee about the Plame leak.
--David Kurtz
Personal Democracy Forum
If you're going to pick one year to go to the annual Personal Democracy Forum conference this is the year to do it given just how much focus there is on the role the web is playing in this year's election.
It's June 23rd and 24th at Lincoln Center here in New York City (see the program here). The Internet Directors for six of the presidential campaigns will be there -- including those for Clinton, McCain and Obama. And I'll be speaking on a panel about online political videos.
If all that weren't enough, the first ten people to email conference at personaldemocracy dot com and mention TPM in your email will get a special $100 discount. So check out the program and I'll see you there.
--Josh Marshall
Arianna Visits TPMCafe
This week at TPMCafe Book Club we're discussing Arianna Huffington's new book Right is Wrong. To discuss the book she'll be joined by Jared Bernstein, Gary Hart, George Lakoff, David Sirota, and Jane Smiley.
This is a special treat since Arianna and I have been comparing blogospheric notes for some time and thinking about ways to work together.
Arianna kicks the conversation off here with her first post. Take a look.
--Josh Marshall
Powwow
TPM Election Central reports on the Obama team's effort to woo Hillary's biggest donors to a sit-down in mid-town Manhattan later this week.
--David Kurtz
Reality Check (First of Many)
Sometimes the national political conversation lapses so far into nonsense that it's necessary to restate the obvious to get things back on track. And that is the case with the debate over whether to hold negotiations or high-level meetings with our enemies without pre-conditions. As you've seen, Sen. McCain is making a big ruckus about Sen. Obama's willingness to do so, even going so far as to run new ads questioning his willingness to meet "unconditionally" -- a loaded reference to the phrase 'unconditional surrender'.
But let's remember what this issue is really about. The Bush administration (and to a much less but still significant degree, the Clinton administration) has held to a policy of refusing to hold any negotiations with rogue states on the theory that we gained by not providing them the prestige of holding direct negotiations with the US. It wasn't framed that way precisely. We were willing to meet as long as certain preconditions were met. So in the case of Cuba, this would mean, changing the form of government, releasing political prisoners, giving an atomic wedgy to Hugo Chavez, etc.; or with Iran, ending their nuclear program, changing their political system, cutting off funding to Hamas and Hezbollah, etc. Laudable aims in most cases, but also ones that amount to demanding that bad-guy country X give in to our maximal demands of a potential bilateral relationship in advance of even saying hello -- something that's obviously not going to happen.
So the question is, are we willing to have negotiations and high-level meetings (even at the presidential level) with hostile powers to discuss our differences (do whatever risks there may be outweigh the possible benefits?) or do we think the current freeze-out approach is serving us well?
--Josh Marshall
Abramoff and the Bush White House
Henry Waxman's committee has a preliminary report (.pdf) out this morning detailing the contacts between the White House and Jack Abramoff and his lobbying team.
We're going through it at TPMmuckraker. Looks like a number of White House officials, including Karl Rove and a current economics adviser to John McCain's campaign, got some of the ticket freebies that Team Abramoff regularly doled out to grease the skids.
Late Update: The McCain campaign says the economics adviser in question is no longer with the campaign.
--David Kurtz
TPMtv: Sunday Show Roundup: End of the Beginning
Hillary Clinton finally conceded over the weekend, marking the official end of the presidential primaries. Is she now angling for the VP slot? And as the general election fight kicks off, is there any way McCain can claim to be the actual change candidate?
High-res version at Veracifier.com.
--Ben Craw
Today's Must Read
A Senate committee has found evidence that top medical researchers have failed to disclose outside income they've received, including from drug companies, in possible violation of rules governing government funding for such research.
--David Kurtz
Strangely Muted
From Newsweek ...
McCain has enlisted high-profile help of his own to help win Jewish votes: Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a self-described "independent Democrat" who has criticized Obama's leadership qualities, has agreed to head up a booster group called Citizens for McCain. In a brief but animated Senate floor confrontation last week, according to a campaign aide who asked for anonymity when talking about private discussions, Obama told Lieberman he was surprised by Lieberman's personal attacks and his half-hearted denials of the false rumors that Obama is a Muslim. (The aide says Lieberman was "strangely muted" during the exchange; a Lieberman spokesman says the chat was "private and friendly.")
--Josh Marshall
Bipartisan Agreement!
After the ABC debate trainwreck from last April, I have a hard time believing any candidate -- particularly Barack Obama -- would be stupid enough to accept an invitation for another ABC-controlled debate. And both Obama and McCain have turned down ABC's invitation for an ABC-controlled 'townhall meeting' in Manhattan moderated by Diane Sawyer.
Interestingly, both campaigns negged the idea on the same grounds: that any townhall events they do will have to be open to all press and not sponsored or organized by a single news organization.
Perhaps ABC would be more suited to staging a debate between Hannity and Colmes.
--Josh Marshall
