Scarborough Kids Internet Panel

Teens are confident that the Obama administration will be able to resolve the current economic crisis, according to a recent study from the Scarborough Kids Internet Panel (S.K.I.P.), an Internet panel tracking youth behavior and sentiment. Three-quarters (75%) of teens in the study said they are optimistic that the new administration will help solve current economic problems. African-American and Hispanic teens appear to be more optimistic than Asian and Caucasian teens.  Almost half (46%) of African-American teens are “very optimistic” about President Obama’s ability to help the economy, versus 31 % of Hispanic teens, 24% of Caucasian teens and 20% of Asian teens.

The vote of confidence is well-timed, as teens are feeling the impact of the crisis at home. Three-quarters (74%) of teens surveyed said that they are worried about the economy, including almost one-quarter (23%) who are “very” worried and 51% who said that they are “somewhat worried.” Twenty percent are “not very worried” and 6% “aren’t worried at all.”

Eighty-six percent of teen respondents think their parents worry about economic conditions, and 70% have discussed the economy with their parents.  Almost half (47%) said that they would like to talk to their parents more about the issue and 64% of teens stated that they were discussing the downturn with their teachers at school.  Eighty-one percent of teens are also interested in understanding more about the causes of the current problems.

The survey identified some health related behaviors being impacted by the economy. Many teens report that they have made adjustments in their household to accommodate changing financial situations.

In order to save money:

• 15% of teens dropped out of a sport or recreational activity
• 13% missed doctors’ appointments
• 11% stopped or cut back on taking vitamins
• 33% changed eating habits. The most frequent change cited is a reduction in eating out, particularly at quick service restaurants
• 20% have cut back on eating organic food

“The weakened economy is undoubtedly affecting the majority of American families, and teens are not exempt from feeling household financial stress,” commented Steve Seraita, Executive Vice President of Scarborough Research. “Knowing the sentiments of kids, teens and their parents can help marketers tailor messages and new products to meet current needs.  Even if a family is not able to afford a certain brand or product right now, marketers can stay top-of-mind and continue to engage and maintain the relationship with their consumers. Doing so will better position their brand to regain market share when families are able to spend again.”

“There is also a message in this research study for government organizations and policy makers that are looking to use some of the stimulus funding earmarked for youth education/health programs,” further commented Mr. Seraita. “The study clearly demonstrates that teens are feeling the financial pinch in their households and perhaps the new programs can help fill-in the gap where their families have cut back.”

This S.K.I.P. survey was fielded from December 30, 2008 through January 10, 2009. Survey participants were between the ages of 13 and 17.

I tried.  I really really did.  I tried MSNBC, CNN, PBS, my local PBS affiliate, as well as the official Silverlight stream from the transition website.  Every single site would work a little, then degrade to an unwatchable state.  (If anyone cares,   this was via a 50mb/20mb Verizon Business FIOS circuit with very little load on it.   The PC I used is running Ubuntu 8.04LTS, Firefox 3, Flash 10 and Moonlight 1.0)   And all these video issues began before Mr.  Obama even took to the stage.

Rather than miss any of the speech, I gave up on video and jumped on WHYY in Philadelphia’s audio feed and that worked flawlessly.

I’m sure the new team in the White House is well aware of these problems becuase I just got this email from the Obama-Biden Transition Project:

Dear JD,

Barack Obama is now officially the President of the United States. In his inaugural address yesterday, he laid out a challenge for all Americans to unite in common purpose and tackle the challenges our nation faces.

In case you missed it, or would like to see it again, the full video, along with the text of President Obama’s remarks, is at WhiteHouse.gov.

Watch the video now at WhiteHouse.gov.

Thank you,

Obama-Biden Presidential Transition Project

NEW YORK, Jan. 19 — It has been 133 years and 26 United States Presidents since Major League Baseball’s National League was officially formed in 1876. To commemorate the storied history of baseball and its place as a social institution, MLB.com, the official website of Major League Baseball, will offer fans live coverage of the Inauguration of President Barack Obama, beginning at 9:00 a.m. (EST) on Tuesday, January 20, 2009.

MLB.com will begin its coverage with streams of six past Presidential Inaugurations, including John F. Kennedy (1961), Lyndon B. Johnson (1965), Jimmy Carter (1977), Ronald Reagan (1981), George H. W. Bush (1989) and Bill Clinton (1993). Each of these Presidents has participated in the time-honored tradition of the throwing out the ceremonial first pitch at a Major League Baseball game.

Following those historic replays, Vinny Micucci and Hal Bodley will host the “MLB.com Live Inauguration Special” at 11:00 a.m. (EST). Bodley, who attended his first inauguration in 1949, will provide his unique perspective on the national pastime’s connection to the White House through the recollections of his 50-year journalism career and several visits to the White House, the Oval Office and Air Force One while interviewing six sitting U.S. Presidents.

MLB.com will join the official Inauguration ceremony at 11:30 a.m. (EST) and provide a live stream through its conclusion.

Shawn Otto here.  Two weeks ago today, America woke up to a new era.  Before the election, I said we’d report to you on the successes and failures of this initiative that we have built together.  This has, for me, become a very personal mission, one that I have volunteered a good portion of my life to over the course of the last year.   Thank you for joining me and the SD08 team in that journey.

In the beginning…

Eleven months ago, six of us called for a presidential debate on science.  We put up a website, reached out to our contacts, wrote some opeds, and launched it in the blogosphere – and with your help, Science Debate 2008 arguably became the largest political initiative in the history of American science.  More than 39,000 individual scientists, engineers and concerned citizens joined together, along with nearly every major American science organization, the presidents of over 100 leading universities, 30 Nobel laureates, leaders of American industry, the editors of most American science publications,  leading congresspersons and many of the most brilliant minds working in science today.  All told, our initiative came to represent some 125 million Americans.

No news is not good news

By any measure, this many prominent individuals and organizations publicly calling for a presidential debate on science was news, and yet despite our pitching this story to hundreds of political reporters around the nation, not one political page in America reported on it in the early days.

We researched why this might be and discovered a structural problem in American news.  Editors don’t allow political reporters to cover science, and science reporters have no access to the political pages.  At a time when the majority of challenges facing the nation revolve around science, from innovation and the economy, to climate change and energy, to healthcare, the environment, and science education, there is virtually no one covering science policy in America.  This is being compounded by major news outlets closing their science sections.

You gotta have faith

This lack of news coverage has a feedback loop with the candidates, causing them to class science as a niche topic.   This became apparent when, armed with our supporters, we secured broadcast partners in PBS’s NOW and NOVA, and a venue partner in the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, but the candidates declined to attend.  Instead, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton attended the “Compassion Forum” at Messiah College, where, among other things, they answered questions about science.  John McCain ignored both events.

While I was disappointed, I was not surprised.  The faith community has worked for decades to develop a political voice in the national dialogue.  Campaign advisors suggested to us that a science policy debate would require extensive preparation and be high risk for low return, as only a small segment of the population was interested.

We decided to test that assumption, so we partnered with Research!America to do a national poll, and found that in fact 85% of US adults said the presidential candidates should participate in a debate to discuss key policy problems facing the United States, such as health care, climate change, and energy, and how science can help tackle them.  These results held across party lines.   Contrary to the assumptions of the media and the candidates, the public is highly interested in science when it becomes science policy – how science will affect their lives.

The Top 14 Science Questions

So we decided to demystify the event.  Our supporters had submitted some 3,400 questions online.  I laid them out in a spreadsheet and categorized them by subject frequency, and we culled them into what we thought were the key questions you were interested in.  We then worked with our cosponsors, as well as SEforA and several other organizations, to turn them into The 14 Top Science Questions Facing America.

I then went back to the campaigns and essentially said “look, these poll results show Americans are very interested in seeing you debate, and here are the questions.  Virtually all of American science and academia is behind this.  You’ve at least got to answer these questions in writing, and we still think you should attend a nationally televised forum.  We live in a science-dominated world and these are many of the key questions facing the nation.  The American people deserve to know your positions on them.”

A new milestone in presidential politics

To their credit, both Barack Obama and John McCain responded.  While they still declined a televised forum, instead attending yet another forum on faith, they did answer us in writing, representing the first time the endorsed candidates for President have laid out such detailed science policies as a part of the campaign – a milestone that is critical as we move further into the science-dominated 21st Century.

How they differed

There were several marked differences in their answers, which have been widely covered, but the largest was a philosophical difference, which was reflected in the answers to several of the questions.  Obama favored doubling federal investment in the kinds of research that eventually produce new economies that business can exploit, while McCain favored deregulation and tax credits to stimulate corporations to make increased R & D investments themselves.  Both positions had their detractors.  Some argued that government cannot afford to spend more in tough times, while others said quarterly-driven corporations can’t afford to carry decade-long high-risk basic research projects on the books.

800 million media impressions and a top web site

Science Debate 2008-related stories subsequently appeared in almost every major paper in the nation, and in blogs, print media, radio, and television around the world.  All told, thanks to you, the Science Debate 2008 initiative eventually made over 800 million media impressions, and the web site rose into the top 1/4 of 1% of most visited sites on the internet.  Together with you, we are now widely credited with having elevated science in the national dialogue, which was our stated goal at the outset.

Science Debate 2008 in play in the campaigns

The answers played out in the race in other ways as well.  I’ll give you just a few brief examples.  Senator McCain’s answer to the embryonic stem cell question came into play a number of times – first when his wording appeared to pull back from his earlier support for embryonic stem cell research, a characterization both campaigns battled over in radio ads, and later when his running mate, Governor Sarah Palin, flatly contradicted his answer in an interview with James Dobson and was subsequently described as “going rogue.”   Senator Obama’s answer has been the basis of numerous stories since the election as stem cell advocates look forward to his lifting President Bush’s restrictions as one of his first official acts as president.  In another answer and follow up interview, Senator McCain claimed to have been responsible for the development of wi-fi and Blackberry-like devices, which caused a minor tempest.  Senator Obama assembled a first class science advisory team to answer the questions, and they went on to further refine them into the Obama campaign’s science policy.  They made news when 61 Nobel laureates (and eventually 15 more), led by Obama science advisory team leader Harold Varmus, signed a letter in support of his campaign; and the answers of both candidates to the questions of Science Debate 2008 served as the basis for a letter signed by 178 universities and organizations, urging the next president to appoint a science advisor by January 20 and elevate the post to cabinet-level.

No matter which candidate you supported, this debate of science issues is healthy for America.  Science Debate 2008 without question achieved its objective of reframing and elevating science in the American national dialogue, and I am proud to have been a part of it, along with you.

The road ahead

Looking forward, president-elect Obama has laid out ambitious science policy objectives that, if enacted, will go a long way toward reinvigorating America’s science, research, engineering, energy, innovation, health, education and environmental standing, along with creating a renewed economic foundation for growth.  But to enact anything the President needs the support of Congress, and Congress in turn needs the support of the American people.  This is an historic opportunity to renew America’s commitment to science at the federal level, but in a tight economy, science remains vulnerable as long as it is low in public and media awareness.  Now, more than ever, efforts that increase the visibility of the role of science policy are very important, and the voice of scientists is critical in that process.

Because of this, the Science Debate initiative is seeking funding to continue.  I have done this as a full time volunteer for the last year, but to sustain it we need paid staff and infrastructure, so now I am asking you to stand up with me for science.  This is your initiative, and together we need to continue our work with the American media to bring science policy more into the mainstream, we need to continue with cutting-edge conferences like Innovation 2008 that educate policymakers and the public, we need to continue to cross-promote as a netroots team, and we need to continue to advocate for public debates of science issues in political races.

Strategies for change

There is much work to be done to overcome decades of infrastructure that has been created to disseminate antiscience misinformation.  Where we see ourselves fitting in is at this same nexus of policy, science, the media and the public.  So in the off year, one of our areas of focus will be to work to make the media more aware of the critical, positive role science policy and their coverage of it plays in the future of the United States, and to develop strategies for them to be more successful at it.  If science is engaged with policy, the public is highly interested.  Another is to work with state-level debate organizations, build bridges, and educate them, so when the time comes in 2010 for congressional races, we have laid some groundwork for science debates, or at least for science to be a much larger part of the debates.  Finally, we need to continue to use leveraged strategies to make the general public more aware of these issues as policies are debated and bills pass through congress.

The key to the future is in your hand

But let’s be clear.  None of this happens without your support.  It is all in your hands.  Science Debate has proven to be an enormously successful approach.  You own a piece of this initiative and its success because you helped build it, promote it and fund it.  But you have to want it to continue.  If you’re like me, you have a stake in a science-literate America, because you know how important it is to the ongoing success of the United States, to the health of the planet, and to your future and your children’s future.  I’m largely in this for my son and the millions of kids like him, and because I think it’s the right thing to do.  How about you?  Will you make an ongoing monthly contribution to help us continue?

Together, we can bring a new dawn for science in America.

Thank you, as always, for your support.

-Shawn Otto
and the rest of the team
at ScienceDebate2008.com

The six founders of Science Debate 2008: Matthew Chapman, Austin Dacey, Sheril Kirshenbaum, Lawrence Krauss, Chris Mooney, and Shawn Lawrence Otto.  They were later joined by team members Darlene Cavalier and Erik Beeler.  Science Debate 2008′s database and email communication infrastructure is made possible with pro-bono support from The DataBank, which we gratefully acknowledge.

John Ashcroft, the 79th United States Attorney General put in place many restrictions on the release of information.

Freedom of information advocates have a lengthy to-do list for President-elect Barack Obama and Congress.

A report (PDF) from a coalition of open records groups lists 69 recommendations for the new administration to increase government transparency.

While the Obama transition team has vowed to run a transparent administration, it has yet to provide details about what they will do immediately – sort of. As we reported earlier this week, the transition team’s Web site, Change.gov, once contained pages describing how it would use technology to provide more information to the public, but the transition team took down the pages to “retool” them.

Perhaps this new report will help with that.

Read the rest at ProPublica

FactCheck.org

Closing Arguments: McCain

McCain and Palin close their campaign with a new set of dubious character attacks.

Summary
In the final week, the McCain-Palin campaign unleashed some all-new misleading character attacks on Obama:

• McCain strained to tie Obama to a Palestinian professor whose views on Israel are quite different from Obama’s.
• McCain and Palin both distorted a seven-and-a-half-year-old radio interview with Obama concerning the court system and civil rights.
• McCain and the GOP ran ads claiming Obama’s military budget would mean huge job cuts in Virginia, despite Obama’s proposal to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps – and McCain’s own calls for ending wasteful weapons programs.

Closing Arguments: Obama

With the finish line in sight, Obama serves up familiar, pie-in-the-sky promises.

Summary
In the last few days, Obama has wrapped up his pitch to the electorate with some misleading claims we’ve heard before:

• He continued to ask voters to believe he can pay for every dime of an ambitious health care plan and other spending proposals while cutting taxes for all but the most affluent. Budget experts say that’s unlikely.
• He also kept up the drumbeat on a promise to end “tax breaks for sending jobs overseas,” as though that could do much to keep jobs at home. Experts say it can’t.

A License to Kill – October 28, 2008

A new anti-Obama group runs a bunk-filled ad implying he’d give a driver’s license to Mohammed Atta.

Summary

An upstart group calling itself the “National Republican Trust PAC” mixes a pile of false claims and the image of 9/11 mastermind Mohammed Atta to create one of the sleaziest false TV ads of the campaign.

• The spot falsely claims Obama has a “plan” to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. In fact, Obama has said quite specifically, “I am not proposing that that’s what we do.”
• The ad implies such licenses would enable terrorist attacks. In fact, Atta wouldn’t have needed one to carry out his attacks.
• It claims that Obama’s health care plan will apply to illegal immigrants. But Obama has stated quite clearly that his plan “does not” cover illegal immigrants.
• The ad falsely claims that Obama’s plan “gives illegals Social Security benefits,” which is also flatly untrue.

Analysis

Despite its name, the National Republican Trust has no formal connection to the Republican Party. It is an independent group with ties to the conservative Web site Newsmax. It sprang into being barely a month ago and has reported spending more than $900,000 to attack Obama through e-mail messages and, now, TV ads.

Its TV spot first showed up on the air in Columbus, Ohio, Oct. 26, and it has also received considerable circulation on the Web. It attempts to link Sen. Barack Obama to the 9/11 hijackers. The link? A spurious claim that Obama plans to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. NRT PAC, which is headed by a former writer for the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Insight magazine, says it plans to air the ad in other swing states.

Two Mid-South men have been charged by federal authories with illegal possession of firearms and making threats against Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama after allegedly talking about going on “a killing spree.”

Daniel Cowart, 20, of Bells, Tenn., and Paul Schlesselman, 18, of West Helena, Ark., who were arrested last Wednesday by the Crockett County Sheriff’s Office, vowed they would be willing to die during the attempt, federal documents say.

“The United States Secret Service takes all threats against Presidential Candidates seriously and is actively investigating the allegations,” said Richard Harlow, Special Agent in Charge of the Secret Service-Memphis Field Office.

Officials said Cowart and Schlesselman met on the internet through a friend about about a month ago and shared their interest in “White Power” and “Skinhead” philosophy, according to federal court documents.

The pair talked of robbing a gun shop and going on “a killing spree” and had a sawed-off shotgun when arrested.

This undated photo obtained from a MySpace webpage shows Daniel Cowart, 20 of Bells, Tenn. holding a weapon.

They give you some historical context by noting with a (R) for Bush or (D) for Kerry who the newspaper endorsed in the 2004 Presidential election.

Currently on the list are 41 newspapers that endorsed George W. Bush in 2004 that now are endorsing Obama and 4 newspapers that endorsed John Kerry and are now endorsing John McCain.

Spin and hype were apparent, once again, at the third and final debate between McCain and Obama:

* McCain claimed the liberal group ACORN “is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history … maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.” In fact, a Republican prosecutor said of the first and biggest ACORN fraud case: “[T]his scheme was not intended to permit illegal voting.” He said $8-an-hour workers turned in made-up voter registration forms rather than doing what ACORN paid them to do.

* McCain said “Joe the plumber” faced “much higher taxes” under Obama’s tax plan and would pay a fine under Obama’s health care plan if he failed to provide coverage for his workers. But Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher would pay higher taxes only if the business he says he wants to buy puts his income over $200,000 a year, and his small business would be exempt from Obama’s requirement to provide coverage for workers.

* Obama repeated a dubious claim that his health care plan will cut the average family’s premiums by $2,500 a year. Experts have found that figure to be overly optimistic.

And much much more.

McCain and Obama contradicted each other repeatedly during their first debate, and each volunteered some factual misstatements as well. Here’s how we sort them out:

• Obama said McCain adviser Henry Kissinger backs talks with Iran “without preconditions,” but McCain disputed that. In fact, Kissinger did recently call for “high level” talks with Iran starting at the secretary of state level and said, “I do not believe that we can make conditions.” After the debate the McCain campaign issued a statement quoting Kissinger as saying he didn’t favor presidential talks with Iran.

• Obama denied voting for a bill that called for increased taxes on “people” making as little as $42,000 a year, as McCain accused him of doing. McCain was right, though only for single taxpayers. A married couple would have had to make $83,000 to be affected by the vote, and anyway no such increase is in Obama’s tax plan.

• McCain and Obama contradicted each other on what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen said about troop withdrawals. Mullen said a time line for withdrawal could be “very dangerous” but was not talking specifically about “Obama’s plan,” as McCain maintained.

• McCain tripped up on one of his signature issues – special appropriation “earmarks.” He said they had “tripled in the last five years,” when in fact they have decreased sharply.

• Obama claimed Iraq “has” a $79 billion surplus. It once was projected to be as high as that. It’s now down to less than $60 billion.

• McCain repeated his overstated claim that the U.S. pays $700 billion a year for oil to hostile nations. Imports are running at about $536 billion this year, and a third of it comes from Canada, Mexico and the U.K.

• Obama said 95 percent of “the American people” would see a tax cut under his proposal. The actual figure is 81 percent of households.

• Obama mischaracterized an aspect of McCain’s health care plan, saying “employers” would be taxed on the value of health benefits provided to workers. Employers wouldn’t, but the workers would. McCain also would grant workers up to a $5,000 tax credit per family to cover health insurance.
• McCain misrepresented Obama’s plan by claiming he’d be “handing the health care system over to the federal government.” Obama would expand some government programs but would allow people to keep their current plans or chose from private ones, as well.

• McCain claimed Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower had drafted a letter of resignation from the Army to be sent in case the 1944 D-Day landing at Normandy turned out to be a failure. Ike prepared a letter taking responsibility, but he didn’t mention resigning.

For full details, as well as other dubious claims and statements, please read the full Analysis at FactCheck.org.

Given that we would never have had the odious George W. Bush in the White House in the first place if it wasn’t for your blow jobs, Bill, it seems obvious that you owe it to the people of this country, and especially to the parents whose kids died in the Iraq War that Gore would never have started, and to all the parents whose kids would be killed in the WarFest that would be a McCain/Palin — sorry, Palin/McCain — administration to do everything in your power to get Barack Obama elected.

But that’s not what you’re doing, Bill, and it’s not going unnoticed. We see your rage, Bill, it’s too huge to hide. We see that — as Chris Rock so brilliantly pointed out — it pains you to even speak Obama’s name. We see you petulantly rooting against him even as you go through the motions of doing the barest minimum on his behalf to avoid being blamed if he loses.

Read the rest at Paul Slansky: A Note to Bill Clinton

The McCain campaign has finally responded to the Sciencedebate2008 questionnaire. His responses, alongside Obama’s responses from two weeks ago, are now online at The Questions and Answers, a Side by Side Comparison.

Washington (September 15, 2008) – Entering the debate on several contentious science issues, John McCain today answered the “14 top science questions facing America,” according to ScienceDebate2008.com, the group leading an effort to make science issues a larger part of the election. His answers join those of Barack Obama, who answered the same questions two weeks ago.

“Most of America’s major unsolved challenges revolve around these 14 questions. To move America forward, the next president needs a substantive plan for tackling them going in, and voters deserve to know what that plan is,” said Shawn Otto, CEO of the initiative. “We’re pleased that Senator McCain has provided voters with that plan.”

The top 14 questions address energy policy, national security, economics in a science-driven global economy, climate change, education, health care, ocean health, biosecurity, clean water, space, stem cells, scientific integrity, genetics, and research.

The 14 questions were developed from over 3,400 questions submitted by more than 38,500 signers of the ScienceDebate2008 initiative. The questionnaire is a joint effort led by ScienceDebate2008, with Scientists and Engineers for America, AAAS, the National Academies, the Council on Competitiveness, and several other organizations, together representing over 125 million Americans.

“I have a broad and cohesive vision for the future of American innovation,” said Senator McCain. “My policies will provide broad pools of capital, low taxes and incentives for research in America, a commitment to a skilled and educated workforce, and a dedication to opening markets around the globe.”

“Ensuring that the U.S. continues to lead the world in science and technology will be a central priority for my administration,” said Senator Obama. “Our talent for innovation is still the envy of the world, but we face unprecedented challenges that demand new approaches.”

Recent national polls have shown that 85% of voters would like the see the candidates debate these challenges, and the majority of voters are much more likely to vote for a candidate that has a plan for tackling these issues.

“We are grateful for both Senators’ detailed responses,” said Matthew Chapman, president of the initiative. “Now we hope the candidates will want to discuss their differences. Science Debate 2008 and its partners once again extend an invitation to both candidates to attend a televised forum where these vital issues can be discussed in front of a broader audience.”

ScienceDebate2008.com is a citizens initiative started by six individuals whose signers now include nearly every major American science organization, the presidents of nearly every major American university, and dozens of Nobel laureates and top American CEOs. For more information, to see a list of the signers, or to see detailed results of the national polls, please visit http://www.sciencedebate2008.com.

I am far from the only one to use www.wordle.net to do this.  This preformed Custom Google Search will show you pages of them.

There has been constant coverage of a few Clinton supporters who are upset that she lost – thats understandable – but if you listen to the news you get the impression that these people are eager to go out and support John McCain. McCain’s platform is so far from what Clinton stood for in the primary season that you have to question what these few, but vocal, Clinton supporters wanted out of this election.

Were they voting for an X chromosome instead of the political positions held by Clinton? I really don’t want to think that is the case, but it may well be true for a small group of people. I was keeping count on the NPR coverage that I was able to listen to during my commute and the number of women that were interviewed on this issue outnumbered the men by at least ten to one. And even then, the overwhelming of these Hillary button wearign delegates said that when push comes to shove in November, they will be supporting Obama over McCain.

Eric Alterman wrote a nice column in The Nation that really sums up the problems with the media coverage of this overblown idea of a split within the Democratic Party. He exposes the echo-chamber effect driving this phenomenon as journalists use each other as ‘sources’.

The following is a small except of Media Gone Mad. It’s worth reading the entire article if you have time.

…

The dead horse of supposed dead-end Hillary supporters is flogged into a pulp by the authors. They begin on a note that had me hopeful: “Neither Sen. Barack Obama nor Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has any possible sane, rational reason for wanting tensions to continue.”

How true–but then the authors take a 180-degree turn toward insanity. Take a look at whom they cite when it comes to evidence of this supposed disunity: other journalists. There’s John F. Harris of The Politico, the AP’s Scott Lindlaw, Susan Page of USA Today, Patrick Healy of the New York Times, Anne Kornblut of the Washington Post, Geoff Earle and Maggie Haberman of the New York Post. Each offers evidence that is either purely editorial and unsourced, or sourced anonymously. For example, Harris: “For the next two days, a convention that belongs to Obama will be dominated by the same two people who dominated the Democratic Party for the last generation and who have come to Denver in much different roles than they wanted”; Page: “Clinton-watching has become the mesmerizing sideshow of the Democratic National Convention that will nominate Barack Obama”; Kornblut: “Obama’s decision to pass her over [for Vice President] remains central to the ongoing story of their strained relationship. It has also contributed to what associates say has been a difficult emotional period for the former first lady in the two months since ending her bid.”

It’s all “associates say,” or “some Clinton delegates,” or “an official familiar with conversations,” or “one adviser.” Can we actually get some names and positions, so that we can judge the (dubious) veracity of a Clinton-Obama war? Mostly, all we have are the mealy-mouthed assertions from other journalists–”Clinton, if sour, is pouting passively,” write Earle and Haberman. That means, Hillary is acting normal, but we’re pretending that maybe she’s mad on the inside.

The only non-journalist voices expressing anything close to a sense of disunity belong to Mary Boergers, a Maryland delegate who wants to cast a vote for Clinton; L. Douglas Wilder, the mayor of Richmond, Virginia (“The question is, are the Clintons ready?”), and Leon Panetta (“Sometimes dealing with the Clintons is like dealing with Brett Favre”). Wilder and Panetta’s comments are somewhat obtuse, and then there’s one delegate. This is what The Note describes as “the rivalry for the ages”?

…

Read the rest at Media Gone Mad

DENVER, Aug. 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — With certification of all delegates for the 2008 Democratic National Convention now complete, the Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) announced today that 44.3 percent of the delegates elected to attend the Convention in Denver represent minority communities, 50.1 percent are women and 31.4 percent are either seniors or youth, making this the most diverse Convention in Party history.

“Opening the door of the political process to people who have never taken part in the past has been the bedrock of our planning for this Convention since we arrived in Denver one year ago,” said Leah D. Daughtry, CEO of the DNCC. “Twelve months and 56 primaries and caucuses later, it’s only fitting that our delegates represent that same core value and Barack Obama’s unparalleled ability to bring more new people in to the electoral process than ever before. Young and old, first-timers and Convention veterans, all representing a broad spectrum of backgrounds and communities, this is a delegation that will bring America’s voices to Denver.”

According to statistics compiled by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), more women, African Americans, Asian and Pacific Islander Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, GLBT delegates and delegates with disabilities will attend the Convention than ever before.

“In just days, delegates will come together in Denver to conduct the most important business of the Convention – nominating Barack Obama as our Party’s nominee for the next President of the United States,” said Alice Germond, Secretary of the DNC. “As we gather in Denver to change the course of our nation, we will truly represent the strength and diversity of our Party and our country.”

The DNCC also announced the oldest delegate to the Convention is Sophie Masloff, 91, from Pennsylvania. Ms. Masloff is an unpledged delegate. The youngest is David Gilbert Pederson, a 17-year-old at-large delegate from Minnesota — one of two delegates under the age of 18.

Seniors, age 65 or older, make up 16.9 percent of the total delegation and delegates age 36 or younger comprise 14.5 percent.

Delegates and alternates to the Democratic National Convention are selected over several months by various methods outlined in each state’s delegate selection plan. In most states, the selection process begins with the state’s presidential primary or caucus and concludes in late spring at state party meetings and conventions. The certification of all delegates, alternates, standing committee members and pages is managed by the Secretary of the DNC.

Each state has several types of delegates based on both how the delegate is selected and whether that delegate is pledged or unpledged. The number of delegates allocated to each state, the District of Columbia, Democrats Abroad and the territories (Puerto Rico, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam) is based on a formula that incorporates the state’s population and Democratic voting strength.

For more information on the makeup of the delegation to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, visit http://www.demconvention.com/diversity.

I really just don’t get it. McCain, from what I can see, still desperately needs to win over a big chunk of the social conservative segment of his party. How that is going to happen when one of his top advisors was Al Gore’s running mate?

Lieberman felt comfortable enough with Mr. Gore’s platform to accept the vice presidential spot on the ticket. If conservative Republicans are a group that John McCain wants to court and cement their support, should he be campaigning with someone who ran for Vice President of the United States on a platform that included:

• Support for a woman’s right to choose on the issue of abortion.
• Ensuring that new U.S. trade agreements to protect workers and the environment.
• Changing the political culture in Washington that puts the interests of the gun lobby ahead of the needs of American families.
• Expand access to high quality, affordable health care to all Americans, focusing first on our seniors and our children.
• Devote $115 billion of the budget surplus to create an Education Reform Trust Fund which will fund new education investments: including universal preschool.
• Commitment to never privatize social security or destroy it by diverting funds intended for social security. I will strengthen social security, not undermine social security.
• To raise the minimum wage – as much as needed, so work always pays more than welfare.
• Keep affirmative action; while rejecting numerical quotas.
• Eliminate ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’; let gays serve in army.

I know Joe Lieberman did not agree with everything Gore proposed but he agreed with enough of it to share a national campaign and ticket with Al Gore.

Foreign policy pulls in ‘Obamacans’

By Edward Luce by Washington
Published: August 12 2008 20:08 | Last updated: August 12 2008 21:17

Barack Obama on Tuesday netted the endorsement of three prominent Republicans, including Jim Leach and Lincoln Chafee, both of whom lost their congressional seats to Democratic opponents in the 2006 mid-term elections.

The announcement boosts the ranks of so-called “Obamacans” and is likely to fuel speculation about the possibility of bigger names – such as Colin Powell, former secretary of state, and Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska – also endorsing the Democratic nominee.

Describing Mr Obama’s call for change as “more renewal than departure” and thus in line with traditional conservative principles, Mr Leach said: “This is simply not a time for politics as usual . . . I have no doubt that a lot of Republicans will be attracted to Obama in spite of the flaws in this year’s primary process.”

The two Republicans, along with Rita Hauser, a former White House intelligence adviser, stressed foreign policy as their principal motivation for endorsing Mr Obama.

Ms Hauser described as “bellicose” the response of John McCain, the Republican nominee, to Russia’s conflict with Georgia.

Most “Obamacans” come from the so-called realist wing of the Republican party which has fallen into deep disenchantment with president George W. Bush’s foreign policy.

Some have also stressed their hope that Mr Obama would take a more aggressive approach to solving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis even though the Democrat has taken a strongly pro-Israel line. All said they supported Mr Obama’s pledge to talk to US adversaries, including Iran.

“There is a deepening split between the traditional Nixonian realist wing of the Republican party and the neo-conservatives that has become more pronounced with John McCain’s hardline anti-Russia rhetoric,” said Steve Clemons at the New America Foundation.

“I have good reason to believe that there will be other Republicans, such as James Baker [the former secretary of state], who may withhold endorsement from McCain rather than endorse Obama directly.”

Electoral analysts say there is unlikely to be a large switch of Republican voters, although Mr Obama’s endorsement by prominent Republicans could help sway independents into the Democratic column or encourage others to stay at home.

Mr McCain is working hard to win over hawkish Democrats to his camp, following his endorsement by Joe Lieberman, the former vice-presidential candidate, earlier this year.

There is a possibility that both Mr McCain and Mr Obama could choose running mates from opposition ranks in a bid for centrist voters. Mr Hagel is thought to be an outside choice for Mr Obama’s ticket and Mr Lieberman is on Mr McCain’s shortlist.

Its well worth the read

Obama Gets High Marks for New Energy Plan By Joseph Romm, Huffington Post. Posted August 5, 2008.

McCain campaign takes the low road

Published: August 3 2008 18:42 | Last updated: August 3 2008 18:42

The US presidential election has taken a nasty turn and the fault is all on one side.

John McCain, the Republican candidate, has recently launched a series of campaign advertisements that attack Barack Obama’s character and misrepresent the Democrat’s positions to an extreme degree, even by the standards of presidential elections. For intelligent independents who had believed that Mr McCain was a cut above all that, it is a sadly disillusioning thing to see. Even sadder would be if Mr McCain’s decision to play dirty works – as perhaps it might.

Negative advertisements are not in themselves a bad thing. It is legitimate and indeed desirable that political opponents should attack each other’s policy positions and fitness to lead – and that second test makes the question of character fair game too. In fact, a critic of Mr Obama’s campaign so far might reasonably argue that he has spent too little time confronting his rival. He has been inclined to dismiss the Republican (“four more years of George W. Bush”) and even to ignore him. Whereas Mr Obama’s campaign is mostly about Mr Obama, Mr McCain’s is very much about his opponent.

In itself, that is fine. There is nothing wrong in Mr McCain hammering away at Mr Obama’s policies or lack of experience. What is so disappointing in Mr McCain’s new strategy is the derisive and debased tone of the attacks.

One advert portrays Mr Obama not as a politician with weak qualifications but as a vapid celebrity akin to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, whose images are intercut with his. Another says that Mr Obama sees himself as a messiah: cue images of Charlton Heston in The Ten Commandments. Mr McCain has accused Mr Obama of preferring to lose the war in Iraq to losing the election, and (falsely, it appears) of refusing to visit wounded soldiers because he was denied a photo opportunity. (Had the visit gone ahead, he would no doubt have accused Mr Obama of using the soldiers for campaign purposes.) He says that Mr Obama will tax electricity (both propose a scheme to limit greenhouse gases that would have this effect). Another advert absurdly tells voters to blame Mr Obama for high petrol prices.

Mr McCain promised a respectful campaign. Early on he suggested that the two embark on a national tour of unmoderated debates, allowing them to talk through the issues in a way that US campaign orthodoxy forbids. Mr Obama rejected the idea — as any frontrunner would have been inclined to — but Mr McCain, renowned for his willingness to work with political opponents, impressed voters with his view that candidates can disagree courteously and even learn from each other. How far he has moved from that stance. The prevailing tone of his new campaign adverts is contempt: they sneer, they mock and they outrageously misrepresent.

Now Mr McCain has accused Mr Obama of “playing the race card”. Mr Obama has often remarked that his opponents want voters to notice his “funny name” and the fact that if he became president he would look different from his predecessors. Recently, for the first time, and perhaps unfairly, he linked that observation directly to the McCain campaign. Affecting outrage, the campaign said that this amounted to a charge of racism. Given the angry tone that Mr McCain and his team have injected into the campaign, it was a case of protesting too much.

Some speculate that this new turn in strategy could succeed and may indeed already be working. Mr Obama’s still narrow lead in the polls appeared to wobble last week under the onslaught. That makes it no easier to watch Mr McCain, of all people, descend to gutter politics. The Republican spent years gaining the respect of allies and opponents alike for his integrity and plain speaking. Now, it seems, he would rather lose a reputation than lose an election.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

The GOP is at it again

This is nothing new for the GOP. FactCheck.org debunked a similar claim the GOP made against Senator Kerry back in 2004. Back the claims ran all over TV but the lies and misleading parts of that claim were never properly exposed at the time.

The President misled voters and reporters in a March 20 speech when he claimed that Kerry “voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people” during his 20-year Senate career. Bush spoke of “yes” votes for “tax increases.”

But in fact, Kerry has not voted 350 times for tax increases, something Bush campaign officials have falsely accused Kerry of on several occasions. On close examination, the Bush campaign’s list of Kerry’s votes for “higher taxes” is padded. It includes votes Kerry cast to leave taxes unchanged (when Republicans proposed cuts), and even votes in favor of alternative Democratic tax cuts that Bush aides characterized as “watered down.”

They are using the same technique this time to try to make it look like Senator Obama has voted to increase taxes every time he has had the chance. Just like in 2004, the math used is not remotely accurate and takes huge stretches of one’s imagination to come up with the inflated “94 votes” they claim.

From FactCheck.org

The McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee both claim that Obama has voted 94 times “for higher taxes.” We find that their count is padded.

After looking at every one of the 94 votes that the RNC includes in its tally, we find:

• Twenty-three were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all; they were against proposed tax cuts.
• Seven of the votes were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals.
• Eleven votes the GOP is counting would have increased taxes on those making more than $1 million a year – in order to fund programs such as Head Start and school nutrition programs, or veterans’ health care.
• The GOP sometimes counted two, three and even four votes on the same measure. We found their tally included a total of 17 votes on seven measures, effectively padding their total by 10.
• The majority of the 94 votes – 53 of them, including some mentioned above – were on budget measures, not tax bills, and would not have resulted in any tax change. Four other votes were non-binding motions related to conference report negotiations.

It’s true that most of the votes the GOP counts would either have increased taxes for some, or set budget targets calling for such increases. But by repeating their inflated 94-vote figure, the McCain campaign and the GOP falsely imply that Obama has pushed indiscriminately to raise taxes for nearly everybody. A closer look reveals that he’s voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers. That’s consistent with what he’s said he’d do as president, which is to raise taxes only on those making more than $250,000 a year.