The Washington Post reports this morning that 20 "top fundraisers" for Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign yesterday "upbraided" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for suggesting last week that Democratic superdelegates "should back the candidate with the most pledged delegates and urged her to respect the right of those delegates to back whomever they choose at the end of the primary season." The AP reports that in a letter to Pelosi, Clinton's supporters "said superdelegates 'must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party's strongest nominee in the general election.'"
The New York Times adds that the letter, "which carried threatening overtones in noting that many signatories were major Democratic donors, highlighted the deepening rift inside the party among supporters for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama." Roll Call reports the "donors also pointedly noted their own contributions to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. 'We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August.'"
"Brazen" Move Said To Have "Stunned" Democrats The New York Daily News reports that the "brazen move by Camp Clinton stunned veteran Democrats, particularly because at least eight of the letter's authors have not donated to" the DCCC since Pelosi became speaker. One unnamed Democrat is quoted saying Clinton "looks desperate. There is no way they should have threatened to do this. It is terrible. ... I am sure Obama is raising money off of it already."
McCain Competitive In General Election A new Wall Street Journal /NBC News poll shows the Democratic primary race a dead heat, with Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton each backed by 45% nationally. In general election trial heats, Obama is slightly more competitive than Clinton against Sen. John McCain. Obama tops McCain 44%-42%, while McCain leads Clinton 46%-44%. The WSJ says this survey shows a "slight improvement" for Obama from two weeks ago, when he trailed Clinton 43%-47%.
On NBC Nightly News, Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said Clinton "has taken a hit for those exaggerated claims on the tarmac in Bosnia. Her positive rating is down to 37, down 8 points in just two weeks. Her negative is 48. And...only 24% of independents give her a positive rating. Barack Obama, a slight dip from 51 down to 49 percent positive. His negative is 32." In addition, Russert said, "20% of Obama supporters, 20% of Clinton supporters say they would be open to voting for John McCain in the general election -- an indication how bitter this fight has gotten."
Meanwhile, a Gallup Poll released yesterday showed that 28 percent of Clinton supporters would back" Sen. John McCain in the general election if Obama is the Democratic nominee, while 19 percent of Obama supporters would vote for McCain over Clinton. Citing the Gallup poll, ABC World News reported, "Many Democrats have been worried the protracted fight between Sens. Clinton and Obama, might start alienating voters and hurt the party's chances against John McCain in the fall. Now, there is evidence that may, indeed, be the case." The Washington Times reports the contest "is inflaming Democrats' emotions as it spills over into the electorate with more voters threatening to defect from the party should their candidate lose the presidential nomination."
Bill Clinton Dismisses Calls For Wife To Leave Race However, at least one prominent Democrat is not convinced the primary is hurting the Democrats. The AP reports that former President Bill Clinton, speaking in Parkersburg, WV, "had tough words for those who say his wife should drop out of the Democratic presidential race for party unity. 'Let's saddle up and have an argument,' he said. ... 'What's the matter with that?'" Clinton "dismissed" concerns about the contest aiding McCain, portraying "such qualms as attempts to disenfranchise voters in the remaining primary states. 'When Hillary's gaining on him, they say, 'Oh, let's shut this down, let's not be divided,"' he said. 'Don't you think your vote ought to count as much as the votes of people in Iowa?'"
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
With both Democratic candidates sparring over who would be stronger in a general election contest, a new poll out this morning from California's Public Policy Institute provides ammunition for Sen. Barack Obama's camp. In California, the biggest prize on the electoral calendar, the poll shows Obama leading Sen. John McCain 49%-40%. However, in a trial heat matching Sen. Hillary Clinton against McCain, the race is far more competitive Clinton leads McCain 46%-43%.
Another poll out this morning shows a similar split in Connecticut. The Quinnipiac survey shows that in Connecticut, long a "blue" state, Obama trounces McCain 52%-35%. In contrast, Clinton leads by only 45%-42%. Independent voters go for Obama over McCain 45%-38%, while they go for McCain over Clinton 48%-36%. The Quinnipiac poll surveyed 1,697 registered Connecticut voters from March 19-24, while the PPIC poll surveyed 1,077 likely voters from March 11-18.
Sen. John McCain yesterday delivered a speech on foreign policy before the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles. Most reports are describing the address as an attempt by McCain to distance himself from President Bush. The Los Angeles Times, for example, reports on its front page that McCain, "carefully distancing himself from President Bush and seeking to sound a moderate tone, called Wednesday for stronger ties with allies and cautioned that American power 'does not mean we can do whatever we want, whenever we want.'" NBC Nightly News reported that while McCain "did not criticize President Bush by name, clearly he set out to distance himself in key areas, rebuffing what critics have described as cowboy diplomacy."
Similarly, the New York Times reports that McCain "sought Wednesday to distance himself from the unilateralism that has been a hallmark of the Bush administration, saying Americans must, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, show 'decent respect to the opinions of mankind.' The Washington Post, noting that McCain's "foreign policy speech yesterday was designed to both embrace the overall direction set by President Bush and subtly distance McCain from the elements that have turned off moderate voters," offers "a guide to" McCain's "balancing act." For example, in assessing McCain's Wednesday address, the Post says, "McCain embraces Bush's push for greater democracy in the Middle East, yet appears critical of it at the same time."
Some in the media also noted a change in McCain's tone, with the Wall Street Journal adding that McCain "displayed a softer tone as he laid out his view of America's place in the world, emphasizing diplomacy over force but reiterating his support for an indefinite troop presence in Iraq. ... While many of the views expressed weren't new," McCain "adopted a more moderate tone."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
The New York Times reports the Justice Department said Wednesday that Saddam Hussein's "principal foreign intelligence agency" and Iraqi-American charity official Muthanna al-Hanooti "had organized and paid for a 2002 visit to Iraq by three House Democrats whose trip was harshly criticized by colleagues at the time." The arrangements were described in an indictment of al-Hanooti charging him with "accepting millions of dollars' worth of Iraqi oil contracts in exchange for assisting the Iraqi spy agency in projects in the United States." The indictment "did not claim any wrongdoing" by Reps. Jim McDermott and Mike Thompson and then-Rep. David Bonior. The Detroit Free Press says al-Hanooti "was charged with several counts, including conspiracy to work on behalf of a foreign government and making false statements to the FBI. ... According to the indictment, Al-Hanooti would travel to Iraq and meet with conspirators of the Iraqi Intelligence Service."
The AP says the three Democrats "made the trip in October 2002, while the Bush administration was trying to persuade Congress to authorize military action against Iraq." The Washington Times says a McDermott spokesman "yesterday said the trip had been billed as an opportunity to 'see the plight of the Iraqi children.' He said Mr. McDermott was invited by a Seattle church group and was unaware of any other funding." Bloomberg News adds, "Thompson said in a statement that he went to 'learn as much as I could before voting on whether or not to commit U.S. troops to war.'" The Politico says the indictment "calls attention to the problem of Iraqi spies operating within the United States before the invasion." DOJ "has brought charges against roughly a dozen of Saddam's agents operating within the United States" since the 2003 start of the war.
The Wall Street Journal notes, "An earlier visit in mid-September included Democratic Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia and former Democratic Sen. James Abourezk of South Dakota. The Institute for Public Accuracy, a public-policy and media think tank, paid all expenses for that trip, according to Norman Solomon, the institute's executive director," who "says he doesn't know Mr. al-Hanooti."
The New York Times reports that an "assault by thousands of Iraqi soldiers and police officers to regain control" in Basra "stalled Wednesday as Shiite militiamen in the Mahdi Army fought daylong hit-and-run battles and refused to withdraw from the neighborhoods that form their base of power there." US officials "have presented the Iraqi Army's attempts to secure the port city as an example of its ability to carry out a major operation against the insurgency on its own." ABC World News called it "a real test of the new Iraqi government in progress," noting it is the "biggest offensive" Iraq's government has undertaken. NBC Nightly News said, "There is no question that this current fight in Basra is critical to both Iraq and the US, militarily and politically." The Bush Administration "sees the battle for Basra as a decisive moment in the war, a test to see if the Iraqi government and military can stand up."
The Washington Times reports "US military and counterterrorism officials say they expect clashes with Shi'ite militias in Basra to escalate in the upcoming weeks, but US commanders are not likely to move forces into the region, leaving the Iraqi army to lead the fight." The Washington Post notes "the operation in Basra won praise Tuesday from the White House, where spokeswoman Dana Perino referred to it as a 'brave decision' by Maliki to assert Iraqi government control over an important port city that serves as the country's gateway to the Persian Gulf." McClatchy, meanwhile, says "the White House and Pentagon claimed partial credit for the Iraqi government's new military offensive in Baghdad and the port city of Basra, calling it a 'byproduct of the success' of the U.S. troop surge."
But the Los Angeles Times reports "the level of resistance to the crackdown represented a major challenge to Maliki's authority and deepened fears that a cease-fire declared last year by Sadr may be in danger of collapse. The truce by his Mahdi Army militia has played a key part in the significant decline in violence since a U.S. troop buildup reached its peak in June." McClatchy reports Iraq's government "expanded its offensive" from Basra "to the capital of Baghdad -- and many of the provinces in between." The Christian Science Monitor says that in Sadr City, "in a place where the US has done battle many times before, a sense of siege and helplessness has replaced some of the flickers of optimism that emerged over the past few months."
The Financial Times says the US "is sending in the cavalry to fight the crisis in the credit and housing markets" by "unleashing government-sponsored enterprises to buy and hold mortgage-backed securities (MBS) for which there is little private demand." The move "marks a new stage in the policy response to the credit crisis." JPMorgan economist Michael Feroli called the move "an expansion of...the 'socialisation of housing finance' in the US." The Wall Street Journal says "wariness about lending remains in bond and loan markets" despite the government's recent efforts," since the "root causes of the credit crisis -- worries about mounting mortgage defaults and a desire among many investors and financial institutions to reduce their debt loads -- still hang over the market."
Meanwhile, the AP reports Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson declared Wednesday that "if big Wall Street investment houses are allowed to run to the Federal Reserve for emergency lending, they must face stepped-up regulation." Paulson added "the demise of once-mighty Bear Stearns proves 'the world has changed,' underscoring a need for the government to adapt, too, he said." Paulson, in a speech to the US Chamber of Commerce, said the Administration "will soon put forth an oversight blueprint in an effort to promote smoother functioning of financial markets." The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and The Hill run similar stories.
Senate Panels To Probe Bear Stearns Deal The New York Times reports, "Leaders of two Senate committees said Wednesday that they would investigate the taxpayer-backed takeover of the foundering Bear Stearns investment firm -- an arrangement that...Paulson Jr. defended even as he called for more transparency on the part of Wall Street." Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, "asked Mr. Paulson to appear before his panel on April 3, along with Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the top executives of Bear Stearns and JPMorgan Chase, which has moved to acquire Bear Stearns." Meanwhile, the Senate Finance Committee "will investigate 'just how the government decided to front $30 billion in taxpayer dollars for the Bear Stearns deal,' in the words of Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who is chairman of the panel. He and the committee's ranking Republican, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, wrote a letter asking for extensive details of the transaction." The Washington Post, Washington Times, The Hill and Wall Street Journal also note the story this morning.
Past 10 Days Have "Changed Capitalism" The Wall Street Journal today runs a front-page piece titled "Ten Days That Changed Capitalism" which argues that the "past 10 days will be remembered as the time the U.S. government discarded a half-century of rules to save American financial capitalism from collapse. On the Richter scale of government activism, the government's recent actions don't (yet) register at FDR levels." But "something big just happened." A "Republican administration, not eager to be viewed as the second coming of the Hoover administration, showed it no longer believes the market can sort out the mess."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Jay Leno: "Hillary and Barack are really going at it. They're insulting each other, trading barbs, attacking each other's credibility. In fact, the only break they take from attacking each other is when they promise the American people, if elected, they can unite the country."
Jay Leno: "Hey, McCain is moving up in the polls. In fact, he appears to be getting support from younger voters. How young, you say? Well, yesterday, he was endorsed by Nancy Reagan."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Copyright © 2008 by the Bulletin News Network, Inc.
11190 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 130 • Reston, VA 20191
advertisement
Get your POLITICALBULLETIN
Best Careers 2008
In a shifting job landscape, we've identified where the growth lies.
advertisement
Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
