Month: January 2008

Another False Clinton Mailer.

Another state, another patently false mailer. According to TPM‘s Greg Sargent, the Clinton campaign has now blanketed Nevada with the negative mailer above, one which (once again) falsely distorts Senator Obama’s record. It reads: “Nevada families need to keep more of their hard-earned dollars not less…we need a president that will help hard-working families keep more of what they earn.”

It then goes on to read: “Barack Obama. A plan with a trillion-dollar tax increase on America’s hard-working families. Lifting the cap on Social Security taxes to send more of Nevada families’ hard-earned dollars to Washington. Senator Obama said “I think that lifting the cap [on Social Security taxes] is probably going to be the best option.“

So, what’s the problem here? Mainly this: Only somebody who hangs out with the monied likes of Robert Johnson all day could honestly think Senator Obama’s plan involves a tax increase for “hard-working families.” Let’s let Senator Obama explain it:

“Now there’s one more way of solving the problem. And that is raising the cap on the payroll tax. Now what that means is, currently, you only pay Social Security on the first $97,000 of income. Now it turns out that here in Nevada, 97% of the people in Nevada make $97,000 a year or less. So essentially, everybody except 3% — if this was a random sample of Nevada, there are only about 3% of you who make more than that, everybody else, you gotta pay payroll tax on 100% of your income.

Now, what I’ve said is that what we should do is we should adjust the cap, so that billionaires like Warren Buffett are paying more, because right now they’re paying a fraction of 1% of their income to payroll tax. And my answer is, that’s not fair. Why would we have the wealthiest Americans pay such a smaller percentage of the payroll tax when everyone else is
paying basically 100%?

So I propose raising the cap. We might exempt middle class folks for maybe $97,000 for up to $200,000; there might be some exemptions, but those people are making over $200, $250,000, they can afford to pay a little more on payroll tax. So this is what I propose, this is what Senator Clinton is calling a trillion-dollar tax cut on hard-working Americans.”

So, which is it, then? Does Senator Clinton think the top 3% of Nevadans represents the “hard-working families” of the middle-class, or is this another blatant attempt at misinformation disguised to confuse voters about Obama’s real record? If I had to guess, I’m thinking this is the latter, and it’s another disgusting, GOP-worthy lowball.

Back from the Brink.

Despite the best efforts of Tim Russert, who asked rinky-dink meta-questions about the past week for most of the first segment, the Democratic debate in Los Vegas was a pause for breath tonight, with Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton all going out of their way to dial back the heat and try to bridge the identity politics chasms that have yawned open of late. As such, with all three candidates on their best behavior and looking to avoid direct confrontations that might get nasty, it was the type of debate that made the party and all three contenders look good, but also probably didn’t change very many votes.

From where I sat — and this will surprise exactly no one — I thought Barack Obama came off the best of the three. He seemed gracious in his call to move past last week’s racial firestorm and deflected the — many — attempts by Russert to re-inject race into the debate. He offered the only funny moments of the evening (Brian Williams thinking he was in LA notwithstanding) and seemed convincing and natural. And, perhaps most importantly, he displayed a command of policy specifics and a capacity for nuance, which once again belies the argument that he’s just a oratorical Hope machine. He seemed, in a word, presidential. (Although I do wish, when asked when he’d first decided to run for president, he’d simply said “kindergarten.”)

John Edwards was as good and on-message as always, but it didn’t seem like he managed to do anything tonight that would be a game-changer. (Then again, in an atmosphere of such explicit convivality as tonight, Edwards’ central message — I will fight for you! — didn’t have much of a chance to gain traction anyway. That being said, he did manage to trump Clinton’s dubious “35 years of experience” claim by announcing that “for 54 years I’ve been fighting with every fiber of my being.” 54 years of fighting? Hey, let’s not forget those nine months in the womb, there.) Edwards also brought up one of the first campaign finance questions we’ve heard in awhile — one in which Obama announced he’d ultimately be for public financing, which made me happy — but due to the moderators not seeming to understand their own rules, it never got around to Senator Clinton, where it was likely — and should have been — directed.

Hillary Clinton came across better tonight than she did in New Hampshire, and, to her credit, she also did her part to uphold the truce (at least in public.) But — again, not a shocker here — I still found her dismayingly evasive on several questions: on Robert Johnson (do you believe his ridiculous clarification or do you think his comments were “out of bounds”?), on whether her opponents were qualified (she couldn’t just say yes?), on the bankruptcy bill (you voted for it in 2001 but was glad it didn’t pass?), and of course, on the politics of fear question, to take a few examples. But, as always, she had done her homework, she smartly went after Dubya a few times, and she had the talking points ready to attack on the Yucca Mountain question. (Without meaning to dismiss the important issue at hand, it’s safe to say “Yucca” is apparently Nevadan for “ethanol.”)

So, at any rate, I’d say Obama came off the best tonight, but Edwards and Clinton were both solid as well. (And I would presume supporters of the other two candidates would say the same, with perhaps the names rearranged.) More than anything, tonight was a chance for tempers to cool and for the party to show it was ready — despite the best efforts of Mr. Russert — to discuss matters of substance again. Still, with Nevada this Saturday and South Carolina right around the corner, I wouldn’t expect the next debate to be so congenial.

Clinton’s Detroit Hustle.

Sigh…what manner of shadiness is this? As with the Nevada caucus lawsuit, it now seems Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign is threatening to change the rules in Michigan. Last September, when Michigan and Florida tried to jump the gun on their primary process, all major candidates — including Clinton — pledged not to campaign there, and the DNC later stripped both states of their delegates. In accordance with the pledge, Barack Obama and John Edwards removed their names from the ballot (as did Joe Biden and Bill Richardson)…but Hillary Clinton did not. And so, today Michigan voters had the chance to vote Clinton or “Uncommitted” in a theoretically meaningless primary.

But now Senator Clinton seems to be looking to alter the deal. (Pray she doesn’t alter it any further.) From Salon‘s Tim Grieve: The Clinton camp now “seems to be hinting that it may fight to have delegates from Michigan and Florida seated at the convention after all. ‘The people of Michigan and Florida have just as much of a right to have their voices heard as anyone else. It is disappointing to hear a major Democratic presidential candidate tell the voters of any state that their voices aren’t important…Sen. Clinton intends to be president for all fifty states.‘” Once again, when in doubt, change the rules. One hopes the DNC stands firm on this issue, or this convention could get nasty.

Update: Speaking of the Nevada caucus lawsuit, President Clinton embarrasses himself further by vocally backing the attempt to remove casino caucus areas. Said the president: “Why ‘make a special rule only for these workers. For the rest of you other workers, tough luck. I think the rules ought to be the same for everyone,’ he said.” I repeat: “Going back to last spring, every presidential campaign was involved in setting up the unusual casino caucus sites while state party officials and the Democratic National Committee ironed out the details.” Where was this outrage in the many months before the Culinary Union’s endorsement of Obama? Unbelievable. Update 2: Clinton also referred to Obama as the “establishment” candidate (in this union case) who’d only provide the “feeling of change.” Sigh…I’m getting the feeling of more of the same.

Update 3: Some angry teachers respond to the suit filed by their union: “These at-large locations were approved back in March of 2007, and no one raised any concerns about them for nearly a year…This lawsuit is all about politics…[T]hey’re using our union to stop Nevadans from caucusing for Senator Obama.” Meanwhile, the DNC files a motion to intervene on behalf of the State Party (i.e. against the suit), and Sen. Reid remains conspicuously silent. Update 4: Bill Clinton angrily backs the suit again…while offering misleading statements about it. (The problem with the “five times”…uh, obfuscation…is explained here.)

My God, It’s Full of Brains.

“It could be the weirdest and most embarrassing prediction in the history of cosmology, if not science. If true, it would mean that you yourself reading this article are more likely to be some momentary fluctuation in a field of matter and energy out in space than a person with a real past born through billions of years of evolution in an orderly star-spangled cosmos. Your memories and the world you think you see around you are illusions.“

In today’s NYT, Dennis Overbye attempts to explain the Boltzmann Brain problem, a theoretical puzzle causing consternation among cosmologists. “‘It is part of a much bigger set of questions about how to think about probabilities in an infinite universe in which everything that can occur, does occur, infinitely many times,’ said Leonard Susskind of Stanford, a co-author of a paper in 2002 that helped set off the debate. Or as Andrei Linde, another Stanford theorist given to colorful language, loosely characterized the possibility of a replica of your own brain forming out in space sometime, ‘How do you compute the probability to be reincarnated to the probability of being born?’”

Um, yeah. The graphic sorta helps explain what may be going on: Minute fluctuations in the universe’s general move towards entropy create random pockets of order, some of which could hypothetically organize as floating brains, or pocket universes or whales and flowerpots too, I suppose. Or something like that…Now my brain hurts.

Who monitors the monitors?

“‘People should be very careful to make sure that monitorships do not become political plums,’ said Breeden, who stressed that he was not speaking about specific cases. ‘The key is the person who is monitor has to have a very good understanding of the business they’re dealing in.‘” It’s gotten so bad in Washington, even the government-appointed watchdogs might be on the make. According to a page 1 story in today’s WP, “[f]ederal prosecutors are steering no-bid contracts to former government officials who earn millions of dollars by monitoring companies accused of cheating investors and other schemes…The lucrative arrangements are known as ‘monitorships,’ unusual contracts in which an outsider comes into a troubled company with vast power to expose corruption and change business practices.“

Among the former officials in question, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was recently put in charge of a $25 million deal to clean up kickbacks happening at the medical supply company Zimmer — no doubt because of his wide-ranging understanding of medical implant devices. “To prepare for the assignment and learn more about the business, Ashcroft said he recently watched as a replacement knee made by Zimmer was implanted in a cadaver.” Well, now he’s an expert…give him the check.

Can the Indy Card Trump the Joker?

“‘Harvey Dent is a tragic figure, and his story is the backbone of this film,’ says Christopher Nolan…’The Joker, he sort of cuts through the film — he’s got no story arc, he’s just a force of nature tearing through. Heath has given an amazing performance in the role, it’s really extraordinary.’” With the next Democratic debate tonight at 9pm EST on MSNBC, one that will hopefully help defuse the tone of the past few days, now seems as good a time as any to check on the big box office rivalry of the summer, Batman v. Indy. (Well, and the forgotten man, Iron Man.) Last we checked, the Jones camp had suggested Bruce Wayne was too wealthy and privileged to understand ordinary people’s concerns, while Batman surrogate Alfred told The Daily Planet‘s Clark Kent that Jones was too “pointy-headed and academic” to save anyone but upscale, overeducated professionals. (The missed rejoinder: The Batman camp is calling people pointy-headed?) Also, scurrilous rumors abound that Shia LaBoeuf was added to the Indy ticket merely to siphon the youth vote away from Batman’s running mate, Dick Grayson…Yep, it’s getting ugly, folks.

Anyway, as the quote above attests, Dark Knight director Chris Nolan recently checked in briefly with the L.A. Times about his two main villains: “Don’t expect a lot laughs in this summer’s return to the cave. ‘It’s a dark and complex story,’ Nolan said, ‘and the villains are dark and complex as well.’” Meanwhile, on the Spielberg side of things, we have this new still from Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls. (Note Ray Winstone lurking in the corner.)

Lisa Gherardini musta had the highway blues.

“‘All doubts about the identity of the Mona Lisa have been eliminated by a discovery by Dr. Armin Schlechter,’ a manuscript expert, the library said in a statement on Monday…’There is no reason for any lingering doubts that this is another woman,’ Leipzig University art historian Frank Zoellner told German radio. ‘One could even say that books written about all this in the past few years were unnecessary, had we known.’“

After studying notes scribbled in a 1503 book, German art historians argue they’ve definitively pinned down the identity of the Mona Lisa. “Lisa Gherardini, the wife of a wealthy Florentine merchant, Francesco del Giocondo, has long been seen as the most likely model for the 16th-century painting…[the notes] confirm once and for all that Lisa del Giocondo was indeed the model for one of the most famous portraits in the world.” [Via Daily Dish.]

Payne was Prescient.

“It’s like my mom says, ‘The weak are always trying to sabotage the strong.’” While contemplating the Democratic primary race, Slate‘s Andy Bowers uses a monologue by Election‘s Tracy Flick to eerie effect.

1.4 Trillion, and Rising.

“Today’s American system values upheaval; it’s been a while since we’ve seen too much of it. But Americans who lived through the Depression knew the pain real disruption can bring. Today’s Chinese, looking back on their country’s last century, know, too. With a lack of tragic imagination, Americans have drifted into an arrangement that is comfortable while it lasts, and could last for a while more. But not much longer.” The Atlantic‘s James Fallows examines the unstable financial codependence between China and the United States, and how it could all too easily unravel. “Lawrence Summers calls today’s arrangement ‘the balance of financial terror,’ and says that it is flawed in the same way that the ‘mutually assured destruction’ of the Cold War era was…With allowances for hyperbole, something similar applies to the dollar standoff. China can’t afford to stop feeding dollars to Americans, because China’s own dollar holdings would be devastated if it did. As long as that logic holds, the system works. As soon as it doesn’t, we have a big problem.” Update: Make that 1.53 trillion.