Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton's Speechwriters

By Anne E. Kornblut
DENVER -- The line Hillary in Rodham Clinton's speech "No way, no how, no McCain" was written by one of Clinton's most junior writers, Jon Lovett. He joined Lissa Muscatine and Jim Kennedy in crafting her remarks, which they shared with the Obama campaign late Tuesday -- even soliciting changes.

By Web Politics Editor  |  August 26, 2008; 11:03 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Chaos on the Convention Floor
Next: Live Online Today

Comments

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have a clue what will repair the economy. The deficit spending by both parties has led to a dollar on the dive. The ensuing inflation cannot be stopped by more government spending. The financial retrenchment necessary is so vast that only a depression can proceed from a major correction. The constant intrusion of government into the economy has brought us to a no win situation where more government only exacerbates the issue. The trend to a free economy with a gold standard to stabilize the dollar and restrict deficit spending is a long way off in the vision of today's politicians. These are the necessary credentials and vision needed. Don't expect change from either candidate that will address what needs to be addressed.

Posted by: Dale Netherton | August 27, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

I will never vote for an unqualified, inexperienced candidate for President. That rules out Obama. The only thing I have against Obama is that he is not ready to be President. It is that simple for me.
Posted by: Madeline E Jackson
*******************************************
Madeline, consider this:
How old and experienced was Bill Gates when he started Microsoft?? He was in his 20's and dropped out of Harvard to start the compnay with his friend Pauil Allen. Young and unincumbered by how things SHOULD be, he changed the very way we live today.
Now, let's look at Google. From Wiki:
"Larry Page and Sergey Brin while they were students at Stanford University and the company was first incorporated as a privately held company on September 7, 1998. The initial public offering took place on August 19, 2004, raising US$1.67 billion, making it worth US$23 billion."

Barack Obama is a strategist and a visionary. With incredible tacticians like Joe Biden to carry out his strategies, I suggest you take these other succesess into consideration.

Our country is like a failing company - standard operation proceedures ARE NOT WORKING! So - you would keep the old guard rather than vote for change? Seems kind of silly to me, especilly if you are inded PROUD of your country.

Posted by: sheridan1 | August 27, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

g,

If you are still following this thread I'll have you know that I stand by my analysis that Republicans' m.o. is to lie, cheat and steal.

Reagan: Iran/Contra/Crack Cocaine. One of the dirtiest scandals ever. We sold arms to a theocracy and sent the money to crack cocaine mfg's so they could flood the streets of America with crack. It was greedy and it was wrong. Reagan shouldn't have just been impeached, he should have been strung up, drawn and quartered.

Bush I: The savings & loan scandal was reverse Robin Hood. A massive transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to crooked businesspeople like Neil Bush and McCain's network pal, Charles Keating. It was STEALING, pure and simple, on a very large scale.

I could go on and on, but they should rename the Republican party "Thievery Corporation."

Democrats may be idealists who want to save the world - and provide education and health care so we can be competitive in the 21st century and not get our clocks cleaned by China and India - but Republicans lie, cheat, and steal.

Anyone who willingly joins that party is scum, and a traitor to the American people.

Posted by: Deep Blue | August 27, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

I will never vote for an unqualified, inexperienced candidate for President. I will only vote for a person who is qualified. That rules out Obama. The only thing I have against Obama is that he is not ready to be President. It is that simple for me.

Posted by: Madeline E Jackson | August 27, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Bush and McCain are one and the same.

Posted by: DF | August 27, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

What a normal ,smart and beautiful First lady American can have. And to see a President possible, telling his children he loves them. Now you have a chance the people. I am disappointed in the dead beat Clintonites whom most likely don't have children in Iraq, are more concerned with gas prices than there children. Just pissed because a women did not win, and a Black man did . Give the world a break and give it up, she lost, they are both crooks and heartless. They both believe your Country owes them something. God Bless you America.

Posted by: justadad55+ | August 27, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

so the speech writer stole the

No way, No how, Nobama

and wants a salute?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 27, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Would somebody please look under the table and see if Chris Mathews leg in vibrating and if the fron of his pants are dry. While you are down there, please check and see if Keith Oberman is still down there advancing his career.

Thanks

Posted by: Skeeter | August 27, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse


"HILLARY'S CHOICE": AMBITION OVER PRINCIPLE?

• She could have said, "Hell, no!" Instead, she's looks to be putting ambition first.

• More Clintonian calculation than Hillarian courage?


Hillary Clinton delivered a gloriously powerful speech Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention, an obligatory call for unity that in the end assured her political future while furthering the likelihood of defeat for her party in November.

Was it a "full-throated call" for support of Barack Obama, as was declared by CNN the morning after? Hardly. Nor was it a defiant, "Hell, no!", a clarion call for a valiant last stand.

And perhaps that was Hillary's choice -- once again, trying to have it both ways.

Not once did Hillary tout Obama's qualifications or readiness for the nation's top job. That, combined with her use of Harriet Tubman's "Underground Railroad" entreaty to "keep on going," telegraphed a carefully nuanced message that diehard Hillarians wanted to think that the heard: "He's not ready, I am, and now you must do the right thing and nominate someone who can actually win."

That's an appeal to a higher purpose; but Hillary put it between the lines because she had another priority -- her own ambition, her own career. And in the end, Hillary's concern for Hillary trumped the noble cause.

She could have been more to the point, provoking a roll call revolt that could have denied Obama a nomination that many would argue he does not deserve and has not truly earned. We're cited in this space many of the reasons: His flagging performance in the final primaries; his policy vacillations; his inability to connect with the broader electorate; his soaring but non-specific rhetoric; his questionable personal associations.

A clarion call to a higher purpose -- nominating a candidate who can win in the fall -- would have entailed a measure of political courage and risk that the politician we call Hillary chose not to muster. Because, if her call to arms failed to result in victory, she surely would be the one to be blamed, dooming her political fortunes.

So Hillary lied when she told the convention that the election is "not about me."

Oh yes it is, Hillary -- otherwise you would have been willing to put your own career on on the line to fight for the cause. If you truly believe that the nation's fate is at stake in this election -- not the 2012 election, but this election -- you would realize that you must to everything in your power -- even at the risk of personal sacrifice -- to prevent Obama from securing the nomination.

We believed you when you told confidants that Obama cannot win, that the Democrats risk political suicide by anointing "Him" as their nominee. But in end, Hillary, you were unwilling to really put your a** on the line.

You posed as a vanquished warrior who nobly accepts defeat; but in reality, you chose to make a strategic retreat that served your own ambitions at the expense of that higher cause -- preventing that Bush "third term" that you and others so fear. Perhaps, in terms of your own ambitions, that third GOP term wouldn't be so bad after all; is that it?

Now, perhaps it was another feint. Perhaps the word went out on the grapevine that Hillary wants her followers to hold firm despite the unity call. As this is being written, the vote is about eight hours away; there seems little doubt that Obama will secure the nomination.

If the roll call is suspended, some will consider Obama's nomination illegitimate, wondering if he really could have prevailed in a fair vote. Apparently, the Democrats appear to be ready to accept the suspension of the democratic process in favor of a Stalinistic acclamation proclamation.

But Hillary's message was too nuanced for us to believe that backroom maneuvers will result in Hillary snatching the nomination away later today. No, Hillary has shown herself to be more of a cunning politician than selfless martyr.

And "Hillary's choice" very well may seal the Democrats' November fate -- a stinging but predictable defeat for Barack Obama in a year that should have been theirs for the taking.

BUT WILL THE ELECTION EVEN MATTER? Not when government-supported "vigilante injustice" squads are "gang stalking" American citizens, making a mockery of the rule of law:
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/get-political-vic-livingston-opinion-expose-state-supported-vigilante-squads-doing-domestic-terrorism

WHAT IF THEY COULD SHOOT YOU WITHOUT LEAVING A TRACE? THEY CAN.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/zap-have-you-been-targeted-directed-energy-weapon-victims-organized-gang-stalking-say-its-happening-usa-1

Posted by: scrivener | August 27, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

I enjoy reading bolgs just as you do, but this is 2008 and we have resources at our finger tips that were never available before. You read a lot of suspect information in these blogs, some on it's face is completely ridiculous. You don't have to take anything at face value. You can check for yourself and not be fed lies by unscrupulous bloggers. They no longer have the power, truth is your power. Below are a couple of the very good fact checking web sites available.
Be an informed voter.

http://www.factcheck.org/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

Posted by: Anonymous | August 27, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Not even the same name. His name is Jon Lovitz

------------
Interesting is it not folks, the Republicans who posted on the blog as Hillary supporters against Obama? Oh well. I say to all Democrats, as a Hillary supporter, rembember the 2007 Republican against her and then tell me you are voting for that clone of Fearless Leader.

On topic, I take it the Jon Lovett who helped write the speech is not SNL Lovett. Anyone know. Victory to Obama!!

Posted by: A Hardwick | August 27, 2008 9:41 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 27, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

I do look forward to learning which of Sen McCain's speechwriters deserve the credit for various catchy phrases they write for his speeches. Unfortunately, I expect this particular treatment is reserved for Sen Clinton. Why is that?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 27, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Interesting is it not folks, the Republicans who posted on the blog as Hillary supporters against Obama? Oh well. I say to all Democrats, as a Hillary supporter, rembember the 2007 Republican against her and then tell me you are voting for that clone of Fearless Leader.

On topic, I take it the Jon Lovett who helped write the speech is not SNL Lovett. Anyone know. Victory to Obama!!

Posted by: A Hardwick | August 27, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Please be aware that many of the posts on these blogs come from McCain operatives who are paid to distort the facts and divide the country.

Republican-backed FOX and CNN will continue to fan the flames of "angry Hillary supporters" while at the same time undermining Obama so that another corporation-friendly president will occupy the White House.

C-Span, onscreen and online, is the best source for unbiased information. MSNBC is moving in that direction.

Hillary supporters who think that if McCain wins, Hillary will have a chance in 2012 should think about the likelihood that Hillary wouldn't even survive the primaries in 2012. Because of her lowball primary attacks on Obama, which will be replayed ad nauseum by McCain, many Democrats will attribute an Obama loss to Hillary. Young people and African-Americans won't vote for her, and her (older) demographic will have shrunk, while current teens will have come of voting age and won't connect with her.

Hillary's best bet for political advancement is Obama's success in November. I hope her supporters see it before they wreck the country and the planet.

Posted by: Barbara Campbell | August 27, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

The speech was a winner, but there will be some anger within the Obama camp that Hillary never personally vouched for the nominee.

She told her supporters to vote for him, but there was nothing much to really sway them or any moderates or independents tuning in.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | August 27, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

I can't tell you how much I want John McBush to pick Mittens as his running mate.
Mitty is a horrible candidate, even worse than McBush is.


Romney is the embodiment of the country club Republican and things on that front are bad enough for McCain right now. Making matters worse, Mitt's all-out January 2008 attack on John McCain's incendiary temper gives Democrats a handy road map to follow.


*Mitt's Mansions*
To be sure, Mitt Romney may not have as many houses as John McCain, but he does have more money. The son of auto magnate George Romney, the former Massachusetts governor is worth an estimated $500 million. His stable of homes includes his tony Belmont, Massachusetts estate in addition to "two vacation homes, a lake house in New Hampshire and a ski house outside Park City, Utah." (Mitt's declaration of his Utah property as his primary residence almost disqualified him from his 2002 gubernatorial run in Massachusetts; the crisis was resolved when he paid Utah back the $54,000 his earlier claim had saved him.)


*Mitt's Illegal Immigrant Workers*
During the Republican primaries, Romney's tough talk on immigration was undermined by the presence of illegal aliens working at his home. As the Boston Globe reported in December 2006, Romney hired a landscaping firm that routinely utilized illegal alien workers to tend to his 2-1/2 acre family residence just outside of Boston. The firm also tended to the grounds of his one of his five sons, Taggart. The Globe team interviewed four undocumented workers in Guatemala who confirmed that Romney never asked for them or their employer to produce immigration papers. Confronted by Globe reporters at the Republican Governors Association conference in Miami, Romney simply said, "aw geez," and walked away. Given John McCain's own confused position on illegal immigration, the addition of Romney to the ticket would only further cloud the issue.


*His Sons Serve America By Serving Mitt*
The image of the Romney clan doesn't merely communicate "idle rich," it represents incarnate a rejection of John McCain's supposed "Country First" campaign theme. In Iowa in August 2007, Romney answered a question about why none of his five sons were serving in Iraq by responding that they served America by serving him:


"My sons are all adults and they've made decisions about their careers and they've chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."


As for Mitt's own military service, he avoided duty in the rice fields of Vietnam while performing his Mormon mission outside Paris.


*Swallowing $45 Million in Campaign Loans*
Speaking of Mitt's sons, a large part of their massive inheritance has already been spent. In a sign of both his immense wealth and his desperation to be John McCain's running mate, Mitt Romney in July decided against recouping the staggering $45 million he personally loaned his own campaign. While that frees Mitt to raise money for McCain and McCain alone, voters can only wonder in amazement what they might have with that $45 million.


*Downsizing Workers in Indiana*
Romney would also be a liability for John McCain in the hard-fought but usually Republican state to Indiana. Romney's ostentatious wealth is one thing, but his 1990's business deals that drove layoffs in the Hoosier State is something else. The tale of SCM, a northern Indiana-based stationery company purchased by Ampad, a firm owned by Romney and a group of investors, came to dominate his failed 1994 campaign against Ted Kennedy:


Management has shed 41 of 265 blue-collar jobs, cut wages, tripled some workers' health insurance payments, abolished most of their seniority rights and junked the prior management's union contract, which had two years to run.


*Losing the Dog Vote*
There are roughly 60 million dogs in the United States and their owners will be none too happy with Mitt Romney. Even Fox News' Chris Wallace took Mitt to task for taking family vacations with his Irish Setter Seamus in a kennel tied to the roof of his car. After an incredulous Wallace said of his own Yellow Lab, "I would no sooner put him in a kennel on the roof of my car than I would one of my children," Romney claimed ignorance of the Massachusetts law he had violated with his penchant for rooftop canine waterboarding.


*Romney's Mac Attack*
During the GOP primaries, the man who would be John McCain's running mate decried "the McCain way" of uncontrolled fury towards friends and foes alike. As his make-or-break Florida primary contest against John McCain approached in late January, Mitt Romney abandoned his pledge that "I'm not going to talk about the character of the people I'm running against." Instead, the Romney campaign produced a video and an accompanying memo titled, "The McCain Way: Attack Republicans - A Top 10 List." Echoing many of the episodes detailed in an April Washington Post piece, Mitt Romney refuted John McCain's past claims of serenity ("Do I insult anybody or fly off the handle or anything like that? No, I don't.") going back to 1999.

Posted by: No Way. No How. NO MCCAIN! | August 27, 2008 4:16 AM | Report abuse

If your answer to the question of whether you would vote for McCain is anything but an unqualified NO, as your own candidate, Hillary Clinton, herself says, then you are a traitor to not only the Democratic Party, but also your lifelong principles.


You are also a traitor to Hillary Clinton. Indeed, wasn't it James Carville, noted Clinton advisor and supporter, who said last night that all Democrats needed to attack McCain more?


John McCain is not an honorable man today. He is using lies and deceit to win this election.


That is not honor.


He jokes about the rape of women.


That is not honor.


He calls his wife a #unt.


That is not honor.


He desparages Barack and Michelle Obama's patriotism and character at every opportunity.


That is not honor.


If you would vote for McCain it not only means you're dishonorable but it also means you are a stinking Republican.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnb2IrsU1Cg
.

Posted by: Hillary: "No way, No how, NO MCCAIN"! | August 27, 2008 1:47 AM | Report abuse

HILLARY'S SPEECH: AN ENDORSEMENT, BUT NO ENDORSEMENT OF BARACK'S QUALIFICATIONS.

Did you notice that the McCain campaign statement was correct?

She endorsed Obama, and said it was critical that the Democrats win.

But she never spoke to Barack's unique talents or qualifications.

Posted by: scrivener | August 27, 2008 12:15 AM
=====================
Barack and Michelle have already covered all of his unique talents or qualifications. Do we really need to hear them over and over and over again?

Posted by: Michael | August 27, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

Good grief ... the Obama supporters are such a sore bunch of winners!! How much butt-kissing does it take to convince you guys that your guy won the nomination? All of this "Hillary's trying to steal the nomination" and "she didn't speak forcefully enough about his talents" nonsense is what's going to keep your guy from getting elected.

Posted by: TLC20011 | August 27, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

It may seem like McCain is, yet again, pulling out the ole "Noun, Verb, POW" card to shield himself from any criticism over any subject. But this is simply not the case. Instead, McCain suffers from PTCRHMHIOD, or Post Traumatic Can't Remember How Many Houses I Own Disorder. This horrible condition has forever altered the lives of countless Vietnam Vets after their return to the States. In fact, it is the number one cause of divorce between former POWs and their millionaire liquor-heiress wives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxT0s_I5WtA
.

Posted by: PUMA's are Republican's and have been all along | August 27, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

Hillary NAILED that speech! Thank you Hillary! She told it exactly how it is! Way to go Hillary! That's what I'm talking about!

Go Hillary! Go Democrats!

Posted by: Obama2008 | August 27, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

Who Is Eldon Smith?


Why, that would be none other than John McCain:


It turns out that this isn't the first time the issue of John McCain's lavish multiple residences has emerged in the heat of a campaign.


"In 1986, when then-Rep. McCain was running for the Senate seat vacated by Barry Goldwater, he quietly began remodeling a $500,000 house in central Phoenix owned by his wealthy father-in-law James Hensley. The $225,000 project -- which included the construction of a 4,000-square-foot addition, swimming pool, jacuzzi, cabana and barbecue -- held political peril for McCain, who was already fighting charges that he was as an opportunistic carpertbagger."

"The new house was located in Phoenix's fourth congressional district -- outside of the first district in Tempe which he represented at the time."

"AP caught wind of the work at 7110 North Central Ave. shortly before the general election and dispatched a reporter to examine blueprints at the planning department. They found the permit applicants were listed as Hensley and a mysterious "Mr. Smith."

"The reporter tracked down McCain's plumber, who told him he'd been told Mr. Smith's first name was "Eldon."

"Eldon Smith, it turned out, was John McCain."


story here:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0808/The_GOPs_2008_nominee_isEldon_Smith.html


Good old "Eldon"...I mean John, didn't want people to know that he was planning to leave his congressional district - and also wanted to hide the cost of his lavish quarter-million dollar rennovation plans - so he came up with a ridiculous nom de maison, hoping to keep his plans buried under a sockpuppet. Of course, this might help explain why he lost track of the number of homes he's got.


Barack Obama has been remarkably open about his entire life story - a bio which has been subjected to endless scrutiny. But if there's anyone whose background we should be "unsure" of, it's John McCain's. I, for one, would like to learn about what else he's done in his life under an assumed name.

Posted by: McCain = Bush/Cheney | August 27, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

There is almost zero connection between today's John McCain and the authentic Barry Goldwater whom the "OLD" John McCain version was more like.
.

Barry Goldwater would be considered far left and unwelcome in today's far right fascist theocratic leaning Republican Party full of pastey white old rich guy hypocrites, starting with George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain and all their accolytes.

Posted by: Karl Roves runs PUMA | August 27, 2008 12:36 AM | Report abuse

Eight years ago, then Governor George W. Bush revealingly joked about his backers at the 2000 Al Smith Dinner. "This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores," Bush said, adding, "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base." With his own quip Saturday night that "$5 million" is his definition of "rich," John McCain made no mistake that he is Bush's natural heir.


Now, there is nothing wrong with being happily stinking rich and utterly detached. Nothing, that is, unless you make criticizing your political opponent as "elitist" and "out of touch" a centerpiece of your campaign.

Rick Davis, speaking on behalf of his $100 million man John McCain, earlier this month offered the latest formulation of Barack Obama as an effete, aloof denizen of the upper class:

"Only celebrities like Barack Obama go to the gym three times a day, demand 'MET-RX chocolate roasted-peanut protein bars and bottles of a hard-to-find organic brew - Black Forest Berry Honest Tea' and worry about the price of arugula."

Of course, Davis' "arugula war" is just another attempt at misdirection. After all, John McCain's $5 million threshold where "you move from middle class to rich" is just the latest episode of his enduring disconnect from the real lives of the American people.


For starters, McCain in April declared that there had been "great progress economically" during the Bush years. On more than one occasion, he diagnosed Americans' concerns over the dismal U.S. economy as "psychological." (Phil Gramm, McCain's close friend and adviser supposedly excommunicated over his "whiners" remarks, was back with the campaign last week.) McCain, a man who owns eight homes nationwide, in March lectured Americans facing foreclosure that they ought to be "doing what is necessary -- working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets -- to make their payments on time." And when all else fails, McCain told the people of the economically devastated regions in Martin County, Kentucky and Youngstown, Ohio, there's always eBay.

In his defense, McCain's shocking tone-deafness may just be a matter of perspective. When you're as well off as he is, anything below a $5 million income (a figure exceeding that earned on average by the top 0.1% of Americans) seems middle class.


*The $100 Million Man*
Courtesy of his wife Cindy's beer distribution fortune (one her late father apparently chose not to share with her half-sister Kathleen), the McCains are worth well over $100 million. (In the two-page tax summary she eventually released to the public, Cindy McCain reported another $6 million in 2006.) As Salon reported back in 2000, the second Mrs. McCain's millions were essential in launching her husband's political career. Unsurprisingly, the Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti, who four years ago called Theresa Heinz-Kerry a "sugar mommy," has been silent on the topic of Cindy McCain.


*The Joys of (Eight) Home Ownership*
While fellow adulterer John Edwards was pilloried for his mansion, John McCain's eight homes around the country have received little notice or criticism. His properties include a 10 acre lake-side Sedona estate, euphemistically called a "cabin" by the McCain campaign, and a home featured in Architectural Digest. The one featuring "remote control window coverings" was recently put up for sale. Still, their formidable resources did not prevent the McCains from failing to pay taxes on a tony La Jolla, California condo used by Cindy's aged aunt.


*The Anheuser-Busch Windfall*
As it turns out, the beauty of globalization is in the eye of the beholder. While John McCain apparently played a critical role in facilitating DHL's takeover of Airborne (and with it, the looming loss of 8,000 jobs in Wilmington, Ohio), Cindy McCain is set to earn a staggering multi-million dollar pay-day from the acquisition of Anheuser-Busch by the Belgian beverage giant, In Bev. As the Wall Street Journal reported in July, Mrs. McCain runs the third largest Anheuser-Busch distributorship in the nation, and owns between $2.5 and $5 million in the company's stock. Amazingly, while Missouri's politicians of both parties lined up to try to block the sale, John McCain held a fundraiser in the Show Me State even as the In Bev deal was being finalized.


*McCain's $370,000 Personal Tax Break*
Earlier this year, the Center for American Progress analyzed John McCain's tax proposals. The conclusion? McCain's plan is radically more regressive than even that of Bush's, delivering 58% of its benefits to the wealthiest 1% of American taxpayers. McCain's born-again support for the Bush tax cuts for the rich has one additional bonus for Mr. Straight Talk: the McCains would save an estimated $373,000 a year.


*Paying Off $225,000 Credit Card Debt - Priceless*
That massive windfall from his own tax plan will come in handy for John McCain. As was reported in June, the McCains were carrying over $225,000 in credit card debt. The American Express card - don't leave your homes without it.


*Charity Begins at Home*
As Harpers documented earlier this year, the McCains are true believers in the old saying that charity begins at home:

Between 2001 and 2006, McCain contributed roughly $950,000 to [their] foundation. That accounted for all of its listed income other than for $100 that came from an anonymous donor. During that same period, the McCain foundation made contributions of roughly $1.6 million. More than $500,000 went to his kids' private schools, most of which was donated when his children were attending those institutions. So McCain apparently received major tax deductions for supporting elite schools attended by his children.

Ironically, the McCain campaign last week blasted Barack Obama for having attended a private school in Hawaii on scholarship. That attack came just weeks after John McCain held an event at his old prep school, Episcopal High, an institution where fees now top $38,000 a year.


*Private Jet Setters*
As the New York Times detailed back in April, John McCain enjoyed the use of his wife's private jet for his campaign, courtesy of election law loopholes he helped craft. Despite the controversy, McCain continued to use Cindy's corporate jet. For her part, Cindy McCain says that even with skyrocketing fuel costs, "in Arizona the only way to get around the state is by small private plane."


*Help on the Homefront*
In these tough economic times, the McCains are able to stretch their household budget. As the AP reported in April, "McCain reported paying $136,572 in wages to household employees in 2007. Aides say the McCains pay for a caretaker for a cabin in Sedona, Ariz., child care for their teenage daughter, and a personal assistant for Cindy McCain."


*Well-Heeled in $520 Shoes*
If clothes make the man, then John McCain has it made. As Huffington Post noted in July, "He has worn a pair of $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes on every recent campaign stop - from a news conference with the Dalai Lama to a supermarket visit in Bethlehem, PA." It is altogether fitting that McCain wore the golden loafers during a golf outing with President George H.W. Bush in which he rode around in cart displaying the sign, "Property of Bush #41. Hands Off."

Posted by: Agent Orange | August 27, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Deep blue, is it impossible to think that there is a fundamental difference in how conservatives and republicans believe problems can be solved?

If your point is that Republicans Lie for self gain then you are twice the fool for not seeing that Democrats do as well. I say twice the fool because there are probably a lot of Republicans and Democrats alike who care deeply about the worlds problems but just see different paths to dealing with them.

I would say most if not all politicians want something: Prestige, power, respect, wealth, women... and all of humanity seems to be corruptible. Why not blame the corrupting influences instead of blanket generalizing? When you generalize you allow yourself to be blinded by the perspectives of the political organizations.

People talk about Military Industrial Complex, well I would say we should be talking about Political Industrial Complexes as well. The two parties are living organisms to the extent that they seek to sustain themselves despite their obsolescence. No organism willfully ends it's existence because it's purpose has been served, and we shouldn't expect any more from the government. It will never seek to self limit. That is why we (the people) need to rule over the political industrial complex.

The really interesting concept to consider here is that conservatives who believe in 'small government' acknowledge the need for legislation to limit the government's ability to interfere in the 'free market.' Seems to be a bit of a paradox, it you think that the largest marketplace inhabitant (our government) apparently can't regulate itself in relationship to the commercial market without oversight.

In the meantime there are plenty of examples that demonstrate that socialistic measures can be inefficient, costly, unsustainable and can have negative repercussions well beyond their intended scope.

So in the end, the best way to take care of people and help the whole world is to stop making people out to be demons because they have different perspectives. At the end of the day global suffering probably hasn't changed much one way or the other because of either party and there is enough blame to go around. A rational process of trying to understand other perspectives is the key to solving these problems. Anything else is more of the same.

Posted by: g | August 27, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

Hillary 2012!

Hillary 2008!

She did win the popular vote!
http://www.bop-o-rama.com

Posted by: acarponzo | August 27, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

HILLARY'S SPEECH: AN ENDORSEMENT, BUT NO ENDORSEMENT OF BARACK'S QUALIFICATIONS.

Did you notice that the McCain campaign statement was correct?

She endorsed Obama, and said it was critical that the Democrats win.

But she never spoke to Barack's unique talents or qualifications.

It was very clever, very passive-aggressive.

It made Obama seem small for passing her over.

Maybe tomorrow night, the delegates will pass him over.

Think about it.

Well played, BILLARY!

Posted by: scrivener | August 27, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Julie,

No way, no how, No McCain!

Posted by: Ronnn | August 27, 2008 12:12 AM | Report abuse

BRIAN SCHWEITZER FOR PRESIDENT! THE JACKIE GLEASON
OF AMERICAN POLITICS! HE'S GOT A MILLION OF 'EM!

And Aaa-way we go!

What a speech! I wanna tell ya! He's got a little Gleason... a little Dangerfield... a little Jack E. Leonard... a little Alan King... a little Uncle Miltie!

I want the DVD of that speech! What a performer! What a performer!

Wait... he's got another one! Wait, wait!

Wow-ser!

Posted by: scrivener | August 27, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

I am so bitter and angry that people fail to realize what is really happening -- Hillary is set to grab the nomination tomorrow at the roll call and she is entitled to the nomination because 18 million voters wanted her to have it.

Many of these voters are angry, bitter leftists like who are part of the reality based community.

You GO Hillary!

Posted by: twin_peaks_nikki | August 27, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

Git'em, Shannon!!!
Some people are never, ever satisfied.
She did much more than she "had" to do.
She did what she wanted to do.
That was completely evident.
She's returning to the Senate to craft a legacy of universal health care.
She's going to take up the mantle from Ted Kennedy to get the job done.
Barack hasn't promised UNIVERSAL health care, but that's all right.
He won't get anything less through Congress.
Hillary will make sure our future healthcare legislation is UNIVERSAL.
About time.
She will skillfully negotiate equal pay for women.
She's such a seasoned campaigner; you watch.
She laid out what's at stake succinctly.
If Barack Obama gets elected, he will have her to thank for his ascendency.
If he doesn't get elected, he will have only his inexperience in closing the sale to the voters to blame.

Posted by: Judy-in-TX | August 26, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

What I love about democrats is the honesty, the idealism, the passion. Republicans are in politics to lie, cheat and steal for their business network. They'll fight wars for dodgy reasons, not caring who gets killed, so that their friends in the military industrial complex can make money. And guess what, the MIC includes GE and Westinghouse, and they also own chunks of the mainstream media.

If you care about peace, prosperity, health care, education, energy independence and the environment then you are a democrat.

If you care about power politics, access, lobbying, getting special favors, etc. then you are a republican.

The media will never tell you that the Bush people hate McCain.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18420159/john_mccains_war_on_the_white_house/2
Or that McCain has bigger problems within his party than Obama has within his: the conservatives don't trust McCain, and the old boys in Texas - Perot, Pickens, et al - think he's an opportunistic phony.

But Clinton vs. Obama sells papers and serves the media/MISs interest in dividing and conquering the American people.

Don't believe the hype. Don't get sucked in.

McCain lied us into Iraq (greeted as liberators, it would be short and easy, the oil would pay for it, etc.), he cheated on his first wife (and married into an organized crime family), and stole (put $112k of keatings money in his pocket and didn't report it). No way, no how, no McCain.

Posted by: Deep Blue | August 26, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Gracious---you Hillary people are scary--sweetie pie . . . it's over . . .let it go

Posted by: Hamilton | August 26, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Hillary, I love you to death but I still wont vote for him/

Posted by: JULIE | August 26, 2008 11:48 PM | Report abuse

WHAT A SPEECH ... GOD BLESS YOU, HILLARY ... !!! ... I am so sorry we failed you. We should had worked harder for you - we should had worked smarter for you. Now we must accept Obama (the modern JFK) as our Commander-In-Chief, tutored by Biden (his personal Dick Cheney) ... then again, perhaps not ...

Posted by: Louie | August 26, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

I would have liked a personal recommendation of Obama from Hillary, but she chose not to do so. Somewhat passive-aggressive. Still,her point is valid:if you believe in Democratic ideas, vote for Obama. Not voting, or a vote for McCain is a vote against your own self-interest. That was her message. Please take it to heart. Hold your nose and vote for Obama; get stinking drunk and vote for Obama. But if you simply want to punish Barack, then you have that choice. You can then take comfort in being "right", but you will subject yourself, and this country to another four years of decline. How would you be different from the Nader voters in 2000 in Florida who stood on principle, voted against Gore and handed the Bush crime family their opportunity to steal the election? In a two party system, you have to choose one.

Posted by: DemoDevil | August 26, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Hillary - 2012!!

Hillary - 2012!!

Hillary - 2012!!

Hillary - 2012!!

Posted by: Herryuu | August 26, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Great speach!! As for the nay-sayers on this blog: No way, Now how, NO McCain!!

Posted by: Shannon | August 26, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Hillary endorsed Obama, but only because she doesn't want to see a Republican become President, so she said. She never made the case that Obama is ready to be President, she never countered the ads being run by the McCain campaign wherein she indicates that Obama doesn't have the experience to be President. She merely endorsed him as the Democrat alternative. In so doing, she did her job and thus avoided being open to the charge of sabotaging his chances. But she did little to convince her supporters that they can believe in Obama.

Posted by: jtsmelser | August 26, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

The Real Meaning of Hillary's History-Making Speech:

HILLARY SAYS VOTE FOR BARACK.

HILLARY SAYS THE FATE OF THE NATION IS IN PLAY.

BUT SHE ALSO HAS TOLD US BARACK CAN'T WIN.

READ THE CODE, NOT THE LIPS.

VOTE HILLARY!

Posted by: Outside the Box | August 26, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company