Quoted Text

Oprah hosts Obama in star-studded event  
  
By ALLISON HOFFMAN, Associated Press
Saturday, September 8, 2007

MONTECITO, Calif. -- Oprah Winfrey rolled out the red carpet Saturday for Barack Obama at a gala fundraiser attended by high-wattage stars that was expected to raise $3 million for the Democratic presidential candidate.
  
The most powerful woman in show business celebrated her favorite candidate with 1,500 guests at her palatial estate in this coastal enclave south of Santa Barbara. Tickets to the sold-out private event went for $2,300 apiece, keeping them within campaign finance limits.

Stevie Wonder performed for guests, who included Sidney Poitier, Forest Whitaker, Chris Rock, Cindy Crawford, Jimmy Connors, Linda Evans, Dennis Haysbert and many others. Will Smith, Jamie Foxx and Halle Berry also were expected, though it was unclear if they were in attendance. The media were barred from the fundraiser.

Visitors were bused to Winfrey's secluded home from an equestrian center about 10 miles away. A solid line of limousines, BMWs, Bentleys and a few hybrid Priuses disgorged well-dressed guests. Some sported stiletto heels despite official instructions to wear flat shoes for walking on Winfrey's meadow.

Visitors were subjected to strict security procedures and relieved of cameras and recording devices. Instructions sent to guests noted that Winfrey and Obama would not be accepting gifts.

Earlier in the day, Obama made a quick, lunchtime stop to speak to a crowd of about 1,000 eager supporters who gathered on a hillside overlooking the Pacific at Santa Barbara City College. It was his only public appearance of the day.

Obama, wearing his usual white shirt open at the collar and sleeves rolled up, shook his way down a line of outstretched hands as the song "Ain't No Stopping Us Now" blared from speakers.

He spoke for about 20 minutes, hitting his core themes of optimism and accountability.

"What's called for is a level of responsibility and seriousness that we haven't seen in a very long time," he told the cheering crowd, which included college students in short sundresses and big sunglasses and older couples in peace symbols.

A woman standing in front of the stage appeared to faint as Obama spoke about Iraq. The candidate paused and asked the crowd to make way for firefighters.

One supporter shouted, "You're a good man," leaving Obama momentarily at a loss for words.

"Well, I'm not the only one stopping to help her," he said, sounding almost embarrassed.

He talked briefly about his last trip to California in August, when he spent a morning helping a home health care worker clean a house, wringing out mops and making breakfast through a program sponsored by SEIU, the Service Employees International Union.

"Listening to her talk about the hardships of her life, talking about her struggles without a trace of self-pity ... I thought, there is the essence of what America is about, this generosity of spirit," Obama said.

Then it was off to a private luncheon and on to Winfrey's cocktail-hour shindig, where a different brand of very American generosity would be on display.
Obama already enjoys the support of Hollywood moguls like David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg, and Winfrey's fundraiser is another chance for him to tap California, which was his top donor state from April through June with a total take of $4.2 million.
Obama has raised more than $58 million for his White House bid. Forbes magazine estimates that Winfrey, the Chicago-based talk-show host, is worth about $1.5 billion.

Winfrey is a well-known fan of Obama, calling him "my favorite guy" and "my choice" on CNN's "Larry King Live" last year before he announced he would run for president.

Quoted Text

Few big differences between Democrats
E.J. Dionne
E.J. Dionne is a nationally syndicated columnist.

   Here is why the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination seems so peculiar: Political campaigns are normally about highlighting differences, but never have the philosophical distinctions among Democratic candidates been so small.
   There’s a reason for this. “Sometimes,” Barack Obama said in an interview this week, “being in the wilderness focuses attention.”
   The campaign’s daily back-and-forth has obscured the remarkable overlap among Democrats in their plans, proposals, themes and even rhetoric, particularly on domestic policy. The old splits that tore the party apart — “reformer” versus “regular,” “New Democrats” versus the “Old” kind, “pro-business” versus “pro-labor” — are nowhere to be seen.
   Because the contest has been organized around personality and history rather than ideological passion, the presidential preferences of Democratic primary voters have been remarkably stable. But they also may prove to be fragile. Thus has Hillary Clinton maintained her steady and substantial lead in the national polls, but her advantage could be vulnerable to relatively small changes in the political environment.
   There is no issue on which the convergence is more obvious or important than health care. As Obama says candidly, “The differences between my plan, Hillary’s plan and Edwards’ plan are relatively modest.”
   This is a big change. When President Bill Clinton proposed health care reform in the early 1990s, Democrats were badly split and deeply mistrusted each other’s approaches. Fights among Democrats were nearly as responsible for the Clinton plan’s failure as opposition from Republicans.
   Now, former advocates of Canadianstyle single-payer plans, supporters of employer mandates, and pro-market reformers have come together around proposals for universal coverage that are resolutely prudent and incremental in the way they get there.
   The same is true on taxes, Obama’s focus last week. Democrats are no longer spooked by the prospect of raising taxes because the increased concentration of income and wealth at the top of the class structure — and the sharp tax cuts on capital enacted under President Bush — would allow the government to collect a great deal of money by increasing taxes on a very narrow slice of the electorate.
   Obama’s plan, issued on Tuesday, was a model for how any Democrat will approach the tax issue next year. He led not with his list of tax increases, but with $80 billion to $85 billion in tax cuts for middle- and lower-income workers, homeowners who do not itemize their deductions, and senior citizens with annual incomes of less than $50,000. He also proposed simplifying fi ling for non-itemizing taxpayers.
   Obama would pay for this by raising taxes on dividends and capital gains — but only for those in the top tax bracket — and by closing down loopholes in the tax code that benefit very particular (and mostly corporate) interests.
   In the interview after his speech, Obama freely acknowledged that his ideas build on a consensus. “Democrats were so scared of the tax issue that they got steamrolled on some very bad policy,” he said. “My hope is that Democrats have regained their voice and lay out a case not for confiscatory taxes that get in the way of economic growth, but for policies that are sensible and fair.”
   Note that caveat about “confiscatory taxes.” The new Democratic populism is carefully tempered. “We don’t resent people who are doing well,” Obama insisted.
   Notice also how carefully Obama weaves the old and the new — and here again, his approach is more typical than atypical inside his party. “Over the last seven or eight years,” he says, “Democrats have recognized that the economy is out of balance and it is not sufficient for us just to defend the old New Deal programs. We have to take those principles and adapt them to new times.”
   In talking about how the party’s new consensus would not have been possible had Democrats not “fully wrung out the excesses of the ’60s,” Obama pays unprompted tribute to a leader who happens to be supporting one of his opponents. “Bill Clinton,” says Obama, “deserves some credit for breaking with some of those dogmas in the Democratic Party.”
   Obama’s promise to transcend the Clinton-Bush years while subtly presenting himself as Bill Clinton’s true heir has been one of the central dramas of his candidacy since its inception. This underscores that the Democrats’ 2008 struggle is not about how to shape a new consensus, but over who can take charge of the one that already exists.

Quoted Text

Edwards: 'Pretty Soon We’re Not Going to Have a Young African-American Male Population in America.'
“We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating — pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.”

Quoted Text

It's official: Terrorists endorse Hillary in '08
On the record, Mideast jihadi leaders say she's best hope for victory in Iraq

Posted: October 7, 2007
10:29 p.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


WASHINGTON – With presidential primaries approaching and the race for the White House heating up, Muslim terrorist leaders in the Middle East have offered their endorsement for America's highest office, stating in a new book they hope Sen. Hillary Clinton is victorious in 2008.

"I hope Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq," stated Ala Senakreh, West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group.

Senakreh is one of dozens of terror leaders sounding off about American politics in the new book, "Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans – to a Jew!" by WND Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein.

Abu Hamed, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in the northern Gaza Strip, explained in "Schmoozing" Clinton's repeated calls for a withdrawal from Iraq "proves that important leaders are understanding the situation differently and are understanding the price and the consequences of the American policy in Iraq and in the world."

"The Iraqi resistance is succeeding," stated Hamed. "Hillary and the Democrats call for withdrawal. Her popularity shows that the resistance is winning and that the occupation is losing. We just hope that she will go until the end and change the American policy, which is based on oppressing poor and innocent people."

The Brigades, together with the Islamic Jihad terrorist group, took responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past three years. The Brigades also has carried out hundreds of recent shootings and rocket attacks.

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by Clinton's calls for an eventual withdrawal from Iraq.

"It is clear that it is the resistance operations of the mujahideen that has brought about these calls for withdrawal," boasted Abu Ayman.

Nasser Abu Aziz, the West Bank deputy commander of the Al Aqsa Brigades, declared it is "very good" there are "voices like Hillary and others who are now attacking the Iraq invasion."

In "Schmoozing," every terrorist leader out of dozens interviewed stated they hope a Democrat becomes president in 2008. Some terror leaders explained their endorsement of Clinton is not necessarily at the expense of other Democratic presidential candidates, whose policies are not as well known to them.

"All Americans must vote Democrat," stated Jihad Jaara, an exiled member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity.

Some Palestinian terrorist leaders stated their support of Clinton, in part, stems from hopes she will apply some of her husband's foreign policies, particularly toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"I hope also she will maintain her husband's policies regarding Palestine and even develop that policy," stated Brigades chiefton Senakreh.

"President Clinton wanted to give the Palestinians 98 percent of the West Bank territories. I hope Hillary will move a step forward and will give the Palestinians all their rights. She has the chance to save the American nation and the Americans life.”

Ramadan Adassi, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in the Anskar refugee camp in the northern West Bank, said he, too, backs Hillary and hopes she will continue the "legacy of her husband" regarding support for a Palestinian state.

President Clinton was "pro-Israel but [he] understood that the Palestinians must live in their independent state like the other nations of the world," stated Adassi.

But the terror leader commented he was "worried" if Hillary "defied Israel" she would be "brought down like her husband," claiming White House intern Monica Lewinsky really was an Israeli Mossad implant sent to destroy President Clinton's career after he pressured the Jewish state to evacuate territory to the Palestinians.

"If Hillary goes too much against the Zionist interests, she will face the same conspiracy like her husband who fell into the trap of Lewinsky. I have no doubt [Lewinsky] was planted by the Zionists, who wanted to send a message to all future American presidents – do not go against the Israeli policy. Bill Clinton made the Oslo agreement and promoted peace but the Israelis did not give him a chance," Adassi said.

Abu Abdullah, a senior operational member of Hamas' so-called "military wing" stated he wants a Democrat in the White House but said once Democrats are in power "the question is whether such a courageous leadership can [withdraw]."

Quoted Text

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Clinton's Iran Vote Prompts A Harsh Back-and-Forth

Randall Rolph said he came to New Hampton, Iowa, on Sunday to see Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) with an open mind about whether to support her candidacy. After a tough exchange over Iran, he left saying he had ruled her out.

Rolph was one of several hundred people who turned out in this small town in northern Iowa for Clinton's appearance. When she called on him for a question, he pulled out a piece of paper and read a question about Iran.

Rolph asked Clinton to explain her Senate vote Wednesday for a resolution urging the Bush administration to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Rolph interpreted that measure as giving Bush authority to use military action against the Iranians.

"Well, let me thank you for the question, but let me tell you that the premise of the question is wrong and I'll be happy to explain that to you," Clinton began.

She offered a detailed description of the resolution, which she said stressed robust diplomacy that could lead to imposing sanctions against Iran, and then pointedly said to Rolph that her view wasn't in "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you."

"I take exception," Rolph interjected. "This is my own research."

"Well then, let me finish," Clinton responded.

Rolph, from nearby Nashua, fired back that no one had sent him the material.

"Well, then, I apologize. It's just that I've been asked the very same question in three other places," she said.

Clinton then explained that she had gone to the Senate floor in February to state that Bush does not have the authority to use military action against Iran and that she is working on legislation to put that into law. Rolph once again challenged her recent vote, suggesting that it amounted to giving Bush a free hand..

"I'm sorry, sir, it does not," she said, her voice showing her exasperation. "No, no, let me just say one other thing because I respect your research. There was an earlier version that I opposed. It was dramatically changed ... I would never have voted for the first version. The second version ripped out what was considered very bellicose and very threatening language."

The campaign said later that the excised language stated that "it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran," and "to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including ... military instruments, with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

The New Hampton audience gave Clinton a round of applause. Some said later that she was right to stand her ground.

When the event was over, Rolph was surrounded by reporters and said he felt the need to stand his ground when Clinton challenged him: "She tried to ... accuse me of using someone else's words and being stupid. And that offended me. I felt the need to defend myself in view of that kind of comment."

Had he come to the meeting supporting any candidate? "I came here with an open mind, that's why I had to ask this question. By asking this question, that was going to be the defining moment for me. But it has been a defining moment," Rolph said.

-- Dan Balz

Quoted Text

Restore U.S. manufacturing strength
U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter
As U.S. forces fought their way to victory during World War II, America demonstrated unprecedented manufacturing power at home. Our manufacturers quickly became one of our nation's greatest assets and represented what became known as the "Arsenal of Democracy."
Today, the Arsenal of Democracy is no longer what it once was. In fact, while serving as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, I sent my team to locate more steel to protect our troops in Iraq against roadside bombs. They found one company left in the United States that could still make high-grade, armor plate steel.
The enticements and effects of a global, free market economy have exported the Arsenal of Democracy to countries around the world. U.S. corporations that once offered high-quality, high-paying jobs have either shifted their production overseas or closed their doors altogether due to the fact that they are incapable of maintaining their competitive edge.
Primarily to blame are international trade agreements promoted by successive U.S. administrations. While these policies have inarguably increased the quantity and availability of cheap imports, they have also fueled the deterioration and displacement of America's manufacturing base. In Michigan alone, nearly 55,000 manufacturing jobs have gone to China since 2001.
In accepting these trade deals, we have acquiesced to one-way policies that benefit our trading partners rather than our own manufacturers. For nearly two decades, we have been buying more from the rest of the world than we have been selling. And we continue making up the difference by borrowing from other countries, including China.
Take for example that when we enter into a trade deal with China, their manufacturers are given a 17 percent subsidy for exporting their products to the United States.
When American products arrive on China's shores, they are immediately levied with a 17 percent tax. Then, to guarantee that American products will not be given a second look when sitting on storeroom shelves, China devalues its currency by 40 percent.
To remain competitive, we must eliminate this disparity and level the playing field for our manufacturers. I have introduced legislation in the House of Representatives with my colleague Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, which defines currency manipulation as an illegal export subsidy. The Fair Currency Act allows American manufacturers to seek relief against goods entering the U.S. from countries that devalue their currency.
In addition, I will be introducing legislation that zeroes domestic federal taxes on U.S. manufacturers.
On Tuesday, I will be joined in Michigan by the other Republican candidates running for president at the next nationally sponsored debate. I can think of no better location where we can discuss our declining industrial competitiveness and our ideas for reinvigorating America's manufacturing base.
U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., is a candidate running for president. Please e-mail comments to letters@detnews.com or fax them to (313) 222-6417. Paul W. Smith's column will return.

Quoted Text

Why I Decided Not to Run for President
Human Events Online  September 2 2007
Newt Gingrich
Last Saturday, my family and I faced a big decision about how we can best serve America.

Before the opening of Solutions Day on Thursday, the success of Solutions Day and the American Solutions movement to create real change with real solutions was unknowable. But by Saturday morning, the verdict on the American people's desire to actively participate in creating the next generation of solutions to the daunting challenges America faces was in.

American Solutions had resonated with and had captured the imagination of the American public, and it became clear Saturday that American Solutions would be an active and successful voice in the American dialogue going forward.

That left us with a choice on how best to serve: Move forward with assessing a Gingrich candidacy for President of the United States with its uncertain outcome; or remain the citizen leader of American Solutions for Winning the Future, which has now proven to be an organization that will play a major role in shaping the 2008 election debate and beyond by offering solutions and representing millions of Americans who want real change.

Some have asked why I couldn't have explored the possibility of running and remained the Chairman of American Solutions. The fact is -- because of the current, misguided and destructive campaign finance laws, as well as the willingness of some to make misguided allegations without knowing all the facts -- if I had decided to explore being a candidate, it would have become necessary to sever my relationship with American Solutions to protect it from false allegations of being used as a device to promote the feasibility of my candidacy, which is not permissible under the law. Moreover, under those same destructive campaign finance laws, I would have had to absolutely sever all ties with American Solutions to guard against allegations that I was "coordinating" with the group I had help found. This would have left American Solutions which is less than a year old, without a leader and, therefore, extremely vulnerable to failure.

As of Saturday, thousands of people from all across the nation came together to make Solutions Day the incredible success that it was. That would not have happened without the untold number of volunteer hours spent, the talent of the board, the millions of dollars donors invested and the incredible professionalism of the American Solutions staff led by Dave Ryan and Pat Saks.

I was not willing to sacrifice American Solutions and its future potential to change America for the better for what would have been an uncertain run to be President.

I have said all along that the agent of change was not the presidency but the more than 513,000 elected officials and millions of citizen activists. I still believe that change will not come from Washington but from the American people, and we proved it over the weekend. Let me just share with you what would have been sacrificed if I had abandoned leadership of the American Solutions movement.

Quoted Text

4 Democrats out of Michigan primary

By KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN, Associated Press Writer
8 minutes ago

LANSING, Mich. - Four Democratic candidates have withdrawn from Michigan's Jan. 15 presidential primary, undercutting the validity of the contest.

Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson filed paperwork Tuesday, the deadline to withdraw from the ballot, said Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for the Michigan Secretary of State's office.

A fourth candidate, Joe Biden, said in a statement that he was bypassing Michigan's primary, calling it a beauty contest.

"Today's decision reaffirms our pledge to respect the primary calendar as established by the DNC and makes it clear that we will not play into the politics of money and Republican machinations that only serve to interfere with the primary calendar," said Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro.

All of the Democratic candidates already have agreed not to campaign in Michigan because it broke Democratic National Committee rules when it moved its primary ahead of Feb. 5.

Other Democratic candidates had until the end of the day to decide if they'll stay on the ballot.

Party rules say states cannot hold their 2008 primary contests before Feb. 5, except for Iowa on Jan. 14, Nevada on Jan. 19, New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and South Carolina on Jan. 29.

The calendar was designed to preserve the traditional role that Iowa and New Hampshire have played in selecting the nominee, while adding two states with more racial and geographic diversity to influential early slots.

As punishment, the DNC has vowed to strip Michigan and Florida, which scheduled its contest on Jan. 29, of their delegates.

"We're very disappointed and this is another example of why the monopoly that Iowa and New Hampshire have needs to end," said Michigan Democratic Party spokesman Jason Moon.

He declined to speculate about whether the party may decide to move back its primary, or to hold a caucus instead.