Archive for the 'Barack Obama' Category

In the new issue of Us Weekly, presidential candidate Barack Obama invited news director Lara Cohen to join his campaign for a day. He described some of his best Just Like Us moments, and took our Presidential Pop Quiz (where he revealed that his daughters think Britney and Paris are “yuck”).

Some excepts from the Us interview:

How familiar are you with Us Weekly?
My wife reads it.

Do your daughters Sasha and Malia ever ask about Britney Spears?
Actually, yeah. But they’re very sensible. They’re pretty down on Britney and Paris and all of that. They think that’s very “yuck.” They’re way more into Hannah Montana and Beyonce. They got to go backstage and meet Beyonce and they just love her to death.

Your supporters include Oprah Winfrey. Ever been starstruck?
I don’t really get starstruck. Everyone I’ve met has been very nice and friendly, like Kal Penn. During the writers’ strike, he was like a staffer! And Scarlett Johansson has been traveling a lot. George Clooney is a good friend. He and I worked on Darfur issues together. I’m always impressed by people who do their homework… and use their celebrity to advocate for issues. George does that just about as well as anyone I know.

So, boxers or briefs? Bill Clinton said he wore boxers in a 1992 interview with MTV.
I don’t answer those humiliating questions. But whichever one it is, I look good in ‘em!

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama says that if there was ever a movie made of his life, superstar and budding Scientology enthusiast Will Smith should portray him. He might has just lost my vote. Will gave out free Scientology personality test/cult snagging cards as a gift for the crew of his latest flick. I don't want any kind of Xenu near my White House thanks. Obama supposedly told "Entertainment Tonight" that he and Will have actually discussed the fact that they both have large protruding ears and this means Will's a shoe-in to play him in a movie. Oral sex handles bring people together. I am dead serious, I do not want Will bringing Tom Cruise over to the damn White House to discuss policy. Separation of L. Ron Hubbard and state!

Photos: WENN

More photos of Will Smith are after the jump.

Kossacks dpg and BTD note an interview yesterday with Ed Schultz with Senator Obama. While Obama and Schultz cover a lot of ground, it's the Iraq portion of the interview that is of particular interest.

Unfortunately, Obama punted on Iraq by playing a card that I've seen floated more and more frequently lately, the "we're being held hostage by a madman card." The problem, this talking point goes, is that even if Congress does act to get our troops out, Bush will probably just keep them there anyway.

Here's Obama's formulation of that ultimately defeatest point:

I have concerns about cutting off funding . . . Jim Webb has some concerns, both of us have been consistent critics of the war. I think there is a possibility, given how obstinate the Administration is, that if we try to cut off funding, Bush is hellbent on doing what he is doing . . . he may decide to play chicken and say "you guys do whatever you want [I'm keeping the troops there]" . . . .

So anything Congress might do will just be ignored by Bush anyway, so why bother to act? That's quite the governing philosophy for a Senator to live by. The basic truth is that Congress does indeed have the power to defund this war, a power recognized by both Bush and Cheney:

WSJ: There's a lot of discussion in Congress about putting caps on troop levels or defunding or saying you can't deploy, as commander in chief, troops in Baghdad. Do you think Congress has the constitutional authority . . .

GWB: I think they have the authority to defund, use their funding power . . .

WSJ: You do?

GWB: Oh yeah, they can say 'We won't fund.' That is a constitutional authority of Congress....

WSJ: Can they put caps on total deployments in Iraq?

GWB: They can . . . through the purse. In others, I don't know if they're going to. And I don't want to predict. But they have the right to try to use the power of the purse to determine policy.

"Congress, obviously, has to support the effort through the power of the purse, so they have got a role to play and we certainly recognize that," Cheney said. "But also, you cannot run a war by committee.... You cannot simply stick your finger up in the wind and say, 'Gee, public opinion's against, we better quit' " Cheney agreed. That would "validate the al-Qaeda view of the world," he added.

There is definitely an "I dare you to" posture behind those messages. But Congress, last time I read the Constitution, is in a position to take up that dare. Meaning that in this game of chicken, Congress is in the same position of power as the president. That's what holding the purse strings is all about.

And that's what being a coequal branch of government really boils down to. As the branch of government that speaks for the people, those people with the title of "Representative" are precisely the ones who should have their fingers in the wind. When they test those winds, they will find that the American people want a way out of Iraq. They will also find that more of the public supports defunding the war than those who oppose it. It's a slim majority in this poll (by Fox!), 45% to 44%, but its a number that is likely to keep increasing as this war continues to drag on.

There are few good options at this point for Iraq. The damage this administration has done to that country, to Afghanistan, to the entire region is incalculable. As is the damage done domestically. Can there be any other answer, domestically, than to bring an end it? That's not going to happen with a Congress that persists in the belief that it is not as powerful as the President.

From the Hotline blog:

For months, Clinton strategist James Carville has been telling anyone who would listen that he's convinced ex-VP Al Gore will run, Gore's deflections to the contrary.

Here's how we're translating Mr. Carville:

He might think Gore will actually run.

Also, the more Dems pay attention to Al Gore, the less they'll pay attention to Sen. Barack Obama.

The more there's talk of a Gore run, the more impetus there is for a Draft Gore movement, the more pressure Gore feels compelled to run, the more excited some Democrats become, about a Gore run, etc, the more they compare Gore and his resume to the rest of the field...

The Clinton people fear two things above all else -- the entry of Al Gore into the race, and the clear emergence of an "anti-Hillary" candidate.

There's no reason for them to do anything to prompt Gore's entry into the race. So they must be confident that Gore is solidly out of the race. That way, their little misdirection campaign can safely inject enough confusion into the race to keep Obama (or Edwards) from becoming that dominant anti-Clinton candidate.

Update: Atrios isn't the only one.

Apparently I'm the only person who is bothered by this, but it's probably inappropriate for "Clinton strategist" James Carville to maintain his pundit seat at CNN during the primary season.

Remember Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs? I wrote about him last week:

[O]ne can’t help but get a little cynical hearing Obama talk about “changing the tone” and all that bullshit, while hiring a well-known smear-meister best known for his work trashing other Democrats.

Maybe I shouldn't be so cynical.

Obama repudiated the hardball tactics of his own staff. And he made it seem he was clueless about a major story dealing with his own campaign.

In a front page New York Times interview published Friday, Obama suggested that his marching orders to stay on the high road were ignored, quite a public flogging.

Obama, in his two-week old campaign, is offering himself as the antidote to a cynicism he asserts is poisoning U.S. politics. One of Obama's stump lines goes something like this: His rival in the Democratic primary "is not other candidates," he says, "it's cynicism."

Gibbs and Wolfson mixing it up is campaign business as usual. The back-and-forth, however, exposed Obama to a risk -- being called a hypocrite.

Obama decided not to handle matters internally, however.

"I told my staff that I don't want us to be a party to these kinds of distractions because I want to make sure that we're spending time talking about issues," Obama told the paper. He added, "My preference goinard is that we have to be careful not to slip into the game as it is customarily played."

Now Obama's desire to retain the high ground may not survive the heat of combat the closer we get to the primaries. But it was baffling to get down in the muck this early in the process.

Still, Obama didn't smack down Gibbs private, he did so publicly, in about the highest-profile publication in the country (and its front page).

That's called "sending a message".

(p.s. I'm still cynical, but receptive.)

Damn. This is impressive:

Barack Obama excited at least 15,000 people at Auditorium Shores on Friday with vows to unify the United States behind high hopes for change, including bringing U.S. combat troops home from Iraq by March 2008.

Organizers say 20-22,000, but even the 15,000 mark is pretty darn impressive. No one else in the field, not even Hillary, is competing with those numbers.

At this point four years ago, us Dean people were ecstatic over Dean drawing 3,000 in Austin, and that was considered huge at the time, much bigger than what anyone else could manage. 15,000 is mind-boggling.

Obama's ability to draw a crowd is generating headlines. And as long as Obama continues to ridicule Cheney as he so richly deserves, the crowds should continue to grow.