Featured

(Via washingtonpost.com.)

Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she’ll have no truck with economists telling her where to put her gas-tax holiday.

Well, now she’s got a truckload of them.

More than 230 economists — Democrats, Republicans, advisers to past presidents and four Nobel laureates — signed a letter today opposing proposals by Clinton and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain to suspend the 18-cent federal gas tax for the summer driving season.

“First, research shows that waiving the gas tax would generate major profits for oil companies rather than significantly lowering prices for consumers,” they wrote. “Second, it would encourage people to keep buying costly imported oil and do nothing to encourage conservation. Third, a tax holiday would provide very little relief to families feeling squeezed.”

Signatories include four Nobel laureates: Joseph Stiglitz (a Clinton White House adviser), James Heckman, Daniel Kahneman and Roger Myerson. Also signing were: President-elect of the American Economic Association Angus Deaton; former AEA presidents Charles Schultze, Alice Rivlin and Peter Diamond; former Reagan administration economist Clyde Prestowitz and former Clinton economic adviser Jeffrey Frankel. Indeed, former president Bill Clinton’s administration is well represented on the list, with the signatures of Jeffrey Liebman of Harvard University, Rebecca Blank of the University of Michigan and J. Bradford DeLong of the University of California at Berkeley.

Others are household names within the smaller household of the economics profession: John Shoven and Lawrence Goulder from Stanford, Alan Auerbach from Berkeley, David Cutler from Harvard, James Galbraith from the University of Texas and Frank Levy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

(Via washingtonpost.com.)

Some Democrats think this is now largely a media-driven story, though a few party strategists say the controversy will hurt Obama today in Indiana and North Carolina. And there is near-universal agreement among strategists in both parties that, if Obama emerges as the Democratic nominee, the Wright issue will continue to dog him through the November election. “This story will continue to drip and seep into the electorate,” one Democrat noted. Another said that “all bets are off if the reverend decides to go on another press tour.” Republicans were adamant that Obama will have to deal with the Wright fallout through the rest of his campaign. They argue that his handling of the controversy has raised questions about his judgment and veracity. But they predicted, and Democrats agreed, that John McCain and the Republican National Committee will try to stay away from the story, though other groups — whether state parties, as happened in North Carolina last week, or independent groups — will put it into the laps of voters. One GOP strategist, however, offered this warning: “The chance that such an attack could backfire, though, seems to be relatively high.”

(Via CNN.com.)

Now that Sen. Barack Obama has denounced his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, many of his critics, especially those who call themselves conservative, are happy he has put the dashiki-wearing, American-criticizing former Marine in his place.

See, these same voices, many that are allegedly Christian, have reacted with glee by calling Wright a prophet of hate and a race baiter.

They hold themselves up to be so concerned about their fellow brother and sister, yet if you looked at their personal lives, I doubt you’d find many with African-American friends and associates (and I doubt their staffs are the most diverse in the world, but that’s another story).

But be careful what you ask for.

Full story here.

(Via New York Times.)

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is waving her fists across Indiana, signing autographs on boxing gloves.

“We need a president who’s a fighter again,” Mrs. Clinton said at a rally on Thursday, adding that the next president must understand what it is like to “get knocked down and get back up: that’s the story of America, right?”

In recent days, Mrs. Clinton has chided the experts for “counting me out” and Senator Barack Obama for his inability to “close the deal” and declared that no one was going to make her quit. “She makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy,” North Carolina’s governor, Michael F. Easley, said in endorsing her, and a union leader in Portage, Ind., praised her “testicular fortitude.”

This kind of language and pugilistic imagery, however, also evokes the baggage that makes Mrs. Clinton such a provocative political figure. For as much as a willingness to “do what it takes” and “die hard” are marketable commodities in politics, they can also yield to less flattering qualities, plenty of which have been ascribed to her over the years. Just as supporters praise her “toughness” and “tenacity,” critics also describe her as “divisive,” “a dirty fighter” or “willing to do anything to win.”

Full story here.

(Via MyDD.)

One of the most effective charges that can be leveled against George W. Bush - beyond the ineptitude, lawbreaking, and destructive policies - is that he surrounded himself with the wrong people. They were either hopelessly incompetent (Condoleezza Rice), completely surrounded by conflicts of interest (Donald Rumsfeld), or simply evil (Dick Cheney - no link required). In fact, of the nine most trusted advisers Bush brought up from Texas with him in 2000, all of them have now resigned in disgrace.

In short, we’ve seen what America under the dubious leadership of an awful man can become, but we’ve also seen what happens when that man surrounds himself with equally awful allies. It should be readily apparent that the people our next President chooses for his or her Cabinet is of the utmost importance.

Given how high-placed campaign staff and policy advisors often move into the White House if their candidate gets elected (see Warren Christopher in Clinton’s administration and Condoleezza Rice in Bush’s for two examples), there is real cause to worry about the people John McCain might appoint if he wins in November.

Full story here.

(Via Washington Post - msnbc.com.

The questions come on cable and radio talk shows, and sometimes from skeptical voters at his own rallies. “Hi, Barack. I am a supporter, a believer and a volunteer for you, and I’m trying to convince my mother to be one also,” a woman said at a campaign event last week in Kokomo, Ind. “. . . One of the issues she has heard is that you do not address the flag.”

As Sen. Barack Obama tries to secure the Democratic presidential nomination and turn his attention to the presumptive GOP nominee, Sen. John McCain — a war hero who survived more than five years in enemy captivity — he is facing a crucial test of one of his driving themes: redefining what it means to be a patriot.

After watching past Democratic candidates wither under Republican attacks, Obama has sought throughout his campaign to present his own vision of patriotism, with a call for uniting the country and restoring its values that is, in its way, as redolent with gauzy American exceptionalism as the “shining city upon a hill” of Ronald Reagan.

Full story here.

(Via USATODAY.com.)

President Bush has set a record he’d presumably prefer to avoid: the highest disapproval rating of any president in the 70-year history of the Gallup Poll.

In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, 28% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing; 69% disapprove. The approval rating matches the low point of his presidency, and the disapproval sets a new high for any president since Franklin Roosevelt.

The previous record of 67% was reached by Harry Truman in January 1952, when the United States was enmeshed in the Korean War.

Bush’s rating has worsened amid “collapsing optimism about the economy,” says Charles Franklin, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who studies presidential approval. Record gas prices and a wave of home foreclosures have fueled voter angst.

Bush also holds the record for the other extreme: the highest approval rating of any president in Gallup’s history. In September 2001, in the days after the 9/11 attacks, Bush’s approval spiked to 90%. In another record, the percentage of Americans who say the invasion of Iraq was a mistake reached a new high, 63%, in the latest poll.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: United States | Iraq | White House | Democrats | Bush | Korean War | USA TODAY/Gallup Poll | University of Wisconsin-Madison | Scott Stanzel | Franklin Roosevelt | Harry Truman | Charles Franklin

Assessments of Bush’s presidency are harsh. By 69%-27%, those polled say Bush’s tenure in general has been a failure, not a success.

Low approval ratings make it more difficult for presidents to maneuver, limiting their ability to get legislation passed or boost candidates in congressional elections.

“The president understands war and the slowdown in the economy weigh down public opinion, but the situation in Iraq is improving and the economy is about to get a big boost from the stimulus package,” said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.

Bush has had dismal ratings through most of his second term. His approval rating hasn’t reached as high as 50% since May 2005. He’s been steadily below 40% since September 2006.

Views of Bush divide sharply along party lines. Among Republicans, 66% approve and 32% disapprove. Disapproval is nearly universal — 91% — among Democrats. Of independents, 23% approve, 72% disapprove of the job he’s doing.

(Via New York Times.)

The mayor of Alaska’s largest city has begun a Democratic run for the United States Senate seat held by Ted Stevens for 40 years.

The mayor, Mark Begich, declared his candidacy here on Monday.

Mr. Begich, 46, has been mayor of Anchorage since 2003, and possesses a well-known political name in Alaska. His father, Nick, was the state’s young congressman in October 1972 when the plane in which he and Representative Hale Boggs, a Louisiana Democrat who was the majority leader, were traveling disappeared over southeastern Alaska.

Mr. Stevens, an 84-year-old Republican, filed in February for re-election. He is popular in Alaska, but his legacy was tarnished last year when the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service raided his home as part of a public corruption investigation. Mr. Stevens’s Senate career, which began with his appointment in December 1968, is the longest ever by a Republican.

Mr. Begich said he decided to run after listening to the concerns of Alaskans he met in the last two months after forming an exploratory committee.

“What I’ve heard over and over again the last two months was hard to ignore,” Mr. Begich said. “Yes, Alaska built up clout in Washington, but, respectfully, what good is clout if it’s not used to solve everyday Alaska problems? We have real challenges in Alaska, and we truly need genuine change.”

(Via Washington Post- msnbc.com.)

The financial gap between Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton has grown increasingly pronounced during the presidential primary season, and the Clinton campaign is now shouldering sizable debts to several key consultants and advisers, campaign records show.

Clinton entered April with about $9.3 million in cash on hand, but she also carried about $10.3 million in debt. In contrast, Obama had $42.5 million available to spend at the start of April and reported $663,000 in unpaid bills.

Clinton strategists confirmed yesterday that the disparity allowed Obama to overwhelm her with television ads in Pennsylvania, which will hold its primary today.

Full story here.

(Via guardian.co.uk.)

There was a heightened sense of anticipation outside the British embassy in Washington yesterday morning. The streets round about were closed off by the police, helicopters hovered overhead and onlookers lined the streets.

They were joined by embassy staff, out with their cameras in hopes of a snap as the motorcade flashed past. But it was not their prime minister they were waiting for but the Pope, leaving the papal residence further up the road.

It has been the story of Gordon Brown’s visit. He has had to compete for attention in the US media in a week dominated by the first visit of a Pope to the White House in almost 30 years.

The difference in coverage was at its starkest today. The US networks provided live coverage all day of the Pope’s departure from Washington for a visit to the United Nations in New York while Brown’s departure from the capital for Boston, where he delivered a speech about reshaping the UN and other major international institutions, went unrecorded.

Brown will arrive back in the UK tomorrow as little known in the US as he was before the trip. The influential website, the Drudge Report, carried a picture of Brown at the White House yesterday against a backdrop of the Stars and Stripes and Union Flag and asked: “Who’s that man?”

In contrast with prime ministerial visits by the likes of Tony Blair or Lady Thatcher, both well-known in the US, Brown’s media coverage was about on par with that generated by predecessors such as John Major: minimal.

At his press conference with George Bush in the White House yesterday, there were, unusually, empty seats and, among the US television crews, only the Fox News correspondent bothered to do a live report.

The Newshour with Jim Lehrer had been planning a special on Brown but dropped the idea after listening to the press conference.

The Washington Post carried a banner headline about the Pope on the front but nothing about Brown. Inside, the sketch-writer Dana Milbank attended the press conference, noting the empty seats and the shrunken status of the two men: “You know times are tough when the American president and the British prime minister start talking about the good ol’ days of the Blitz.”

Full story here.