Thanks Mayhew and I have read you've gotten all kinds of nastiness for the question and I think that's wrong and that's what is ruining the potential of the internet for doing good.

You didn't deserve that and you made a very reasoned reply indeed.

"I'm not sure that it's completely come out, but these were not really wealthy people."

Great. Maybe she could, you know, include it in her article.

I hope people stop behaving like jerks with all the threats directed towards her. He's probably going to be able to use it to his advantage.

And that video of him answering the older white male who asked about "uppity" is great stuff.

BTW, readers--if you go to Huffington Post right now (6:19 PM EDT), I have to warn you: a very ugly visual will greet you.

I warned you.

Not wealthy people? Billionaires Row? And Arianna is off on Geffen's 450 foot yacht in Tahiti currently? Hard to imagine how the elitism tag is getting attached to Obama.

This is a testimonial to the supporters of Obama and to the gentleman himself. Contrast this to the mean spirited response of Clintonistas to those who dare cross them. Governor Richardson, for example, was mocked, slighted or dismissed. Way to go Big Guy. A politician can be strong and courteous at the same time. What a president he will be.

Class is what distinguishes the Obama campaign from that of Clinton.

Such became evident to me some months ago, before Edwards dropped out, when Axelrod, Trippi, and Penn appeared together on CNN. Axelrod and Trippi both came across as dignified and reasonable, while Penn presented his characteristic porcine, sneering, arrogant countenance.

Just in case you missed Jay Rozen's thoughtful rumination on the "uncharted", and conflicted, territory in which Ms. Fowler, an Obama supporter and contributor, as well as a reporter of the Obama campaign for the Huffington Post's Off the Bus division, found herself, you may find it here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-rosen/the-uncharted-from-off-th_b_96575.html

Rozen also recounts how Tim Russert and other traditional media personalities took up the story without crediting Off the Bus or Fowler.

Well, I guess I'd be accused of being a mindless Obama-ite if I asked "Nedra, Nedra Pickler? Is that you?"

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!

The Pickle!

I am SO not buying Fowler's claims to be an Obama supporter. Has anyone read her stuff at HuffPost? She's been one of the few pro-Hillary voices over there since March. She broke this story for one reason and one reason only: to hurt Obama and help Clinton. In the end, this dust-up is going to hurt both of them. It will convince some people that Obama is an urban elitist. And Hillary's Annie Oakley routine will convince others that she is a say-anything-do-anything hypocrite. Thanks Mayhill! Good work!

I am SO not buying Fowler's claims to be an Obama supporter. Has anyone read her stuff at HuffPost? She's been one of the few pro-Hillary voices over there since March

That's my problem here - I haven't.

"Classy."

When was the last time anyone used the word "classy" to describe Hillary's campaign?

Or for that matter Hillary herself?

Holy shit - don't anyone go over to HuffPo right now - the picture on the front page will scare you to death.

They did a computerized image of Hillary and Himmary's faces into one face.

AIYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She's a journalist in the style of so many others... the story has a clear bias and drives the readers to conclusions that the rest of the audience didn't share.

It's called a "hatchit job" and now we all know what kind of support Obama can expect.

I'm glad to see they took the high road. I'd like to know how she funds the travel involved to "follow" Obama;s campaign.

I still see a conspriracy... Hillary had "I'm not bitter" stickers the day after she posted. Will she swear that the HP reader was the first person to see her text? Would she swear to that in court?

Did she also support Fred Thompson when she gave his campaign money. Potentially to gain "undisclosed" access to "supporter" events?

Once we KNOW you're a journalist then we can filter the text through the usual processing.

I expect she'll have a career from this... but I wouldn't expect an Pulitzer.

Read her prior work... judge for yourself:

http://junehill.blogspot.com/2007/07/hillary-clinton-wellesley-girl.html

She's a wanna-be without any training i the craft of reporting. So many of us are. 15 minutes is a lot of fame.

Joseph Palermo has a blogpost on Mayhill Fowler dated April 12th, on his "Faux Obama supporter" colleague at the Huffingtonpost.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/faux-obama-supporter-mayh_b_96379.html

Classy? That's good news, but it's really too bad his blog supporters can't follow suit. About all his bloglodites seem to do is bad-mouth Hillary and McCain and anyone that doesn't support Obama.
McCitizen---

Red is blue. White is black. Up is down.

Classy? That's good news, but it's really too bad his blog supporters can't follow suit. About all his bloglodites seem to do is bad-mouth Hillary and McCain and anyone that doesn't support ObamaYeah and all you guys do is bash Obama in between constant whining about how badly treated both you and your candidate are.

It's really tiresome.

Vermont Teddy Bear wishes to announce that next week they will release their new Hillary Pander Bear model dressed in a Kevlar Camouflage Pantsuit.

They expect that it will be a hot item with all those elated unemployed small town Americans with money to burn.

It is a limited edition item, destined to be a collectors item, and a bargain at only $199.99 plus S&H.

Don't be too late. Order your very own Clingy The Pander Bear now. Slick operators are standing by to handle you.

Sad, she thinks a Presidential candidate insults the voters then refuses to apologize is classy.

Then she lies about the donors not being wealthy because that exposes Obama lying about not taking their money.

She belongs at the Obama Post with nothing but hate and lies about the Clintons.

Sad.

Hillary's Top Gun in Pennsylvania, Governor Ed. Rendell said this about White Pennsylvania voters, on February 12, 2008, in an on the record interview.

Why did Hillary not chastise her Top Gun for talking about White people, in such 'an elitist way". Hypocrite, thy name is HillAnry Oakley Clinton.

Here is what Rendell said about White voters in his state;

Tuesday, February 12, 2008
By Tony Norman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Gov. Ed "Don't Call Me 'Fast Eddie' " Rendell met with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week to talk about his latest budget. But before turning the meeting over to his number-crunchers, our voluble governor weighed in on the primary fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and what the Illinois senator could expect from the good people of Pennsylvania at the polls:

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," he said bluntly. Our eyes only met briefly, perhaps because the governor wanted to spare the only black guy in the room from feeling self-conscious for backing an obvious loser. "I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was --well-spoken [note: Mr. Rendell did not call the brother "articulate"], charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so."

I know I have a habit of sometimes zoning out in these meetings, but it sounded to me like Mr. Rendell had unilaterally declared Pennsylvania to be Alabama circa 1963. Was he suggesting that Pennsylvanians are uniquely racist in ways that folks in the states Mr. Obama has won so far aren't? By the way, Mr. Obama won Alabama on Super Tuesday, thank you very much!

Hillary's Top Gun in Pennsylvania, Governor Ed. Rendell said this about White Pennsylvania voters, on February 12, 2008, in an on the record interview.

Why did Hillary not chastise her Top Gun for talking about White people, in such 'an elitist way". Hypocrite, thy name is HillAnry Oakley Clinton.

Here is what Rendell said about White voters in his state;

Tuesday, February 12, 2008
By Tony Norman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Gov. Ed "Don't Call Me 'Fast Eddie' " Rendell met with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week to talk about his latest budget. But before turning the meeting over to his number-crunchers, our voluble governor weighed in on the primary fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and what the Illinois senator could expect from the good people of Pennsylvania at the polls:

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," he said bluntly. Our eyes only met briefly, perhaps because the governor wanted to spare the only black guy in the room from feeling self-conscious for backing an obvious loser. "I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was --well-spoken [note: Mr. Rendell did not call the brother "articulate"], charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so."

I know I have a habit of sometimes zoning out in these meetings, but it sounded to me like Mr. Rendell had unilaterally declared Pennsylvania to be Alabama circa 1963. Was he suggesting that Pennsylvanians are uniquely racist in ways that folks in the states Mr. Obama has won so far aren't? By the way, Mr. Obama won Alabama on Super Tuesday, thank you very much!

I realize Hillary must have acknowledged long ago that she probably has lost the nomination absent a major fall from Obama. But, I cannot help wondering why she has adopted a strategy that has little possibility of benefiting her in the span of the primary season. The strategy of recurring negatively loaded codes are intended to build Obama's negatives, but it requires employing multiple memes to recur and reinforce each other over the long term.

It is a kind of very aggressive whisper campaign and it can be very damaging - Eluding again and again to a family of coded memes. In this campaign Hillary has chosen "religious intolerance" (whether it is about a Muslim Identity or Rev Wright), "racial intolerance", "nationalist sentiments", and now cultural "Elitism".

I can not help but wonder if she is intentionally setting this up for a Republican 527 campaign to continue the dirty work against Obama, while allowing McCain to build a positive image for himself in the general?

I realize Hillary must have acknowledged long ago that she probably has lost the nomination absent a major fall from Obama. But, I cannot help wondering why she has adopted a strategy that has little possibility of benefiting her in the span of the primary season. The strategy of recurring negatively loaded codes are intended to build Obama's negatives, but it requires employing multiple memes to recur and reinforce each other over the long term.

It is a kind of very aggressive whisper campaign and it can be very damaging - Eluding again and again to a family of coded memes. In this campaign Hillary has chosen "religious intolerance" (whether it is about a Muslim Identity or Rev Wright), "racial intolerance", "nationalist sentiments", and now cultural "Elitism".

I can not help but wonder if she is intentionally setting this up for a Republican 527 campaign to continue the dirty work against Obama, while allowing McCain to build a positive image for himself in the general?

I agree with you.

I don't mind an attack dog. I mind an attack dog that clothes the attack in lofty pretension.

"Journalists" print facts, all the facts, and before they run a "story" (if that's what we're calling this) they contact the speaker and offer a chance to clarify statements.

She did none of that.

Hack.

I hope she enjoys her new-found fame.

She's terrible. I'm sure the Obama camp is classy, and they have always been perhaps too nice for American politics.

But she doesn't deserves this at all. McCain would have kicked her off the bus long ago, and the MSM would be fine with that. That's why the McCain press corp is so Stockholm syndrome like.

You should ask her:

*why she donated to Fred Thompson, I don't see a lot of overlap

*why she pretended to be a "donor" and then broke the rules by being a reporter

*why she didn't follow up with the candidate or ask for audience reactions like reporters do.

*why she sat on the story for a week

*why her articles were always sneering of Obama -- repeatedly labeling Obama "cocky" " flirting", moneygrubbing, etc. just for doing the usual politicking.

Greg, I'm glad you talked to her, but if she was a plant, would she tell you? I don't think so. All of her protests go up against the facts of her slanted, smear-laden articles, her suspicious donor activity, her violation of journalistic ethics, and her past remarks on her old blog. She's a liar.

We have reached a sort of Twilight Zone in America, where we are surrounded by lies and the press just acts like stenographers. Bush repeatedly assures us "we do not torture" while torturing, and the press nods and jots it down. Headline next day: "Bush says US doesn't torture". Bullshit accomplished.

you people are posting 24 hours a day like deranged Bush supporters on speed, it just seems a little surreal, that's all.

Where do you think you are? This is a comments board; this is where people come and post comments. It's open all day.

What is your problem and most importantly - what are you doing here unless you want to post day and night about Hillary?

Please. You can't stand in the middle of the swamp and accuse us of being alligators.

From : The New Republic

Woe Is He by John B. Judis

Barack Obama's going to be the bitter one at the end of this.
Post Date Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Some liberal commentators have downplayed the effect of Barack Obama's fundraising speech at a San Francisco fundraiser last week. But that's wishful thinking. Along with the revelations about Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright, his remarks in San Francisco will haunt him not only in the upcoming primaries in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, but also in the general election against John McCain, assuming he gets the Democratic nomination.

To win in November, a Democratic presidential candidate has to carry most of the industrial heartland states that stretch from Pennsylvania to Missouri. That becomes even more imperative if a Democrat can't carry Florida--and because of his relative weakness in South Florida, Obama is unlikely to do so against McCain. Ruy Teixeira and I have calculated that in the heartland states, a Democratic presidential candidate has to win from 45 to 48 percent of the white working class vote. In some states, like West Virginia and Kentucky, the percentage is well over a majority.

Some Democrats insist that Obama need not worry about these states because he will be able to make up for a defeat in Ohio or even Pennsylvania with a victory in Virginia or Colorado. But in Virginia, McCain will be able to draw upon coastal suburbanites closely tied to the military. These voters backed Democrats like Chuck Robb and Jim Webb, who are both veterans, but they may not go for Obama. And in the Southwest, McCain will be able to challenge Obama among Hispanics. So to win in November, Obama will have to win almost all of these heartland states. Which is a problem, because even before he uttered his infamous words about these voters "clinging" to guns, religion, abortion, and fears about free trade, Obama looked vulnerable in the region. A look at the white working class's relationship with earlier Democratic candidates underscores the various reasons why.

Many white working class voters in these states used to be loyal Democrats. The last two successful Democratic presidential candidates, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, swept Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Missouri. Many of these voters have always been highly patriotic, church-going hunters who were skeptical about the benefits of trade and immigration and--what Obama did not mention--black political assertiveness. But they still distrust Republicans as the defenders of business and look up to Democrats (or at least some Democrats) as being more in tune with average Americans like themselves.

Democrats have won over these voters when their advantage on the economy has come to the fore. And they've lost these voters when their positions on the economy--or national security--were not sufficiently compelling to overcome the Republican advantage on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, or gun control. Why? Because with the exception of a few rabid single-issue voters, the white working class hasn't simply displaced its economic anxiety, or bitterness, onto God, guns, and gay marriage; they're actually quite concerned about the economy.

Historically, there are three circumstances in which Democrats have been able to win over these voters:

The Unacceptable Republican: Republicans have run candidates with whom white working class voters have not been able to identity--either because of their backgrounds, beliefs, or actions. In 2006 that was obviously true of Ohio gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell--an African American and a far right zealot--and Montana Senator Conrad Burns, who was linked to former super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The Acceptable Democrat: The Democrats have sometimes run candidates in these states who are sufficiently moderate on guns, abortion, and religion to neutralize the Republican appeal on these issues. That was the case with Pennsylvania pro-life Democratic Senate candidate Bob Casey, who defeated incumbent Rick Santorum in 2006.

The Empathetic Democrat: The Democrats have run a candidate who can connect with these voters in spite of his or her beliefs on abortion and guns. Pollsters try to get at this by asking voters whether a candidate "cares about people like me." Sometimes, voters will think a candidate cares about them because they think he is "one of them." Bill Clinton, of course, was a genius at this. He could be the candidate of Hope, Arkansas, and Yale Law School. Other Democrats have succeeded because they have come off as a father (or mother) figure, who, although from the upper class, still cares about the average American.

If you look at the upcoming presidential election in this light, the Democratic prospects do not appear to be good. McCain is an acceptable Republican--a war hero and a reputed moderate. (His greatest inherent liability, which could make him unacceptable regardless of his ideas or background, is his age.) Both Democratic candidates, whatever their protestations, are seen as coming out of the party's liberal wing on guns and abortion.

That leaves the possibility that these voters will see the Democratic candidate as either "one of them," or as a father or mother figure who understands their plight. Both candidates clearly have problems on these scores, but Obama's may be even more severe than Clinton's. As an African American, he has one strike against him, as has become apparent even in the Democratic primary exit polls. He has tried to appear above race, but he will continually be reminded of his ties to Jeremiah Wright (and his not wearing a flag on his lapel, and his wife's statements about not being "proud" of America) during a general election.

Obama comes from a modest background and has tried to appeal as a candidate of both Harvard Law School and Chicago's Back-of-the-Yards, where he organized laid-off steel workers, but he hasn't been able to pull it off. His manner, his tenor, and his diction are Harvard Law, and when he starts dropping his 'g's," he sounds strained. And Obama is too young, and lacks the stature, to appear as a Franklin Roosevelt-style father figure.

Obama does have an astounding eloquence, and an ability to put a position across, but that eloquence has been reserved largely for anti-war and good-government positions. His stance against the war may resonate (though that will depend on whether McCain's qualification as commander-in-chief trumps his unpopular stance on the war). But where McCain is most vulnerable and where voters are most likely to smile on a Democrat--on everyday economic issues--Obama's heart doesn't appear to be in it.

These difficulties were clear before Obama spoke in San Francisco, but they're much more glaring now. In the speech, Obama appeared to say that Pennsylvania voters' opposition to gun control or abortion or immigration or free trade was pathological--a product of what Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse once called "false consciousness." On the other hand, he implied that when he voiced opposition to an issue like free trade--Obama has consistently hammered Clinton on her support for the North American Free Trade Agreement--he was simply pandering to these voters' displaced anxieties. He was saying to these upscale San Francisco Democrats, "I am really one of you, and I am not one of them."

There is even a slight chance that Obama's words in San Francisco could cost him the nomination. Obama is almost certain to have more elected delegates in June than Hillary Clinton, but if he loses Pennsylvania by 15 percentage points (which is not out of the question), that could start a media firestorm around his candidacy that could contribute to other primary defeats and to superdelegate support for Clinton. It's not likely to happen, but after Obama spoke his mind, and, perhaps, lost small-town voters' hearts, in San Francisco, it has suddenly become conceivable.

John B. Judis is a senior editor at The New Republic and a Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Yeah The New Republican - oops - The New Republic has me shaking in my shoes.

Whoa - is this true:

As the wife of attorney James C. Fowler (a UCSB undergrad; UC Berkley J.D. circa 1968), a Mc Cain supporter and boat lover who owns a 43 foot yacht via some kind of revokable trust he established, and who is a partner with the prestigious firm Bingham & McClutchen, which list's Mehran's firm as a client on it's website, specializes in real estate law, does work in the energy sector, and who's clients also ocassionaly include people who buy military bases that have been closed, Mayhill Fowler inhabits that rarified air of the truly rich and truly elite. Evidently the irony was lost on this Wesley Girl, who married so well, when she wrote her article disparaging Barack Obama as an "elitist".

The Obama campaign is now sad and embarrasing for him.

Lets do something constructive:

C&L Action Alert: Over 80,000 letters sent on Torture. Going for 100K:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/15/cl-action-alert-over-80000-letters-sent-on-torture-going-for-100k/#comments

Just another demonstration on how he would govern.

Some frank talk on Race from a White Southern Republican Woman and her Mother. It is truly an amazing story. Go to the link to read the entire article. It is worth your while to do so.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/04/12/roommate_0413.html

Published on: 04/13/08

Catherine Donnelly shopped at Kmart, settled into her dorm room and soaked up the Gothic stone buildings where, over the next four years, she would grow into her own woman.

But her first day at Princeton held a surprise, too. And Donnelly knew it would mean confronting the past.

She walked into the historic Nassau Inn that evening and delivered the news to her mother, Alice Brown. "I was horrified," recalled Brown, who had driven her daughter up from New Orleans. Brown stormed down to the campus housing office and demanded Donnelly be moved to another room.

The reason: One of her roommates was black.

“Because once you’ve reached a certain age, you won’t sit there and listen to somebody tell you there’s really no difference between what happened in the Bush years and the Clinton years; that there’s not much difference in how small-town Pennsylvania fared when I was president, and in this decade.”
I don't think wrecking the Clinton years a very good thing for either Hillary or Obama. What is wrong with BC's remark here? It is true. It is understandable and it is essentially what the Democrats must convey. I cannot imagine the joy all this trashing of Bill Clinton gives Rove and the boys. If the Democrats lose in Nov it will be largely sentiments like yours that caused a it...and ensure it happening again. You may not see the importance of refreshing the minds of America about the Clinton years...but I sure do. Hint: Bush's years don't compare well to them.

OMG...it looks like Chuckie!

But really--it's a very creepy image. I scrolled down quickly.

Wish anyone could say the same about her.

Mayhill Fowler = lying Clinton bottomfeeder

So hubby is a McCain supporter into military bases and oil? And she went to the same school as Hillary?

As the wife of attorney James C. Fowler (a UCSB undergrad; UC Berkley J.D. circa 1968), a Mc Cain supporter and boat lover who owns a 43 foot yacht via some kind of revokable trust he established, and who is a partner with the prestigious firm Bingham & McClutchen, which list's Mehran's firm as a client on it's website, specializes in real estate law, does work in the energy sector, and who's clients also ocassionaly include people who buy military bases that have been closed, Mayhill Fowler inhabits that rarified air of the truly rich and truly elite. Evidently the irony was lost on this Wesley Girl, who married so well, when she wrote her article disparaging Barack Obama as an "elitist".

“Because once you’ve reached a certain age, you won’t sit there and listen to somebody tell you there’s really no difference between what happened in the Bush years and the Clinton years; that there’s not much difference in how small-town Pennsylvania fared when I was president, and in this decade.”

O for god's sake.

Maybe those were good years, and I have never said otherwise, but you don't want to hear Bill himself going on about that.

Jesus - The Clinton Campaign is now officially renamed: The Restoration.

has not responded to her report with the type of vituperative nonsense posted in some of the comments here.

wanna bet your life on just who it is you are talking to online?

Nobody knows.

And the only people who care are right here right now.

I also have no problem with a candidate being responsible for their words. Except when those words are spun out of context, and reframed into right wing talking points. Have you read her article? Obama doesn't demonstrate enough 'patriotism'; he misrepresented the midwest in a negative way. In case the reader doesn't get that interpretation from the quote she makes it for us, repeating those certain words together: "guns, clinging to religion, antipathy, zenophobia". She sets it up against the picture of rich Californians, listening to these slights about small town America. (which she now disingeneously clarifies).I'm sorry, but it was not Obama's words that started all this, it was the original spin of the article. The problem is that Fowler is not a reporter. She's a 'citizen journalist', which I assume means that she has no journalism training or experience. Which is fine. However, I would expect that the Huffington Post would at least make sure that she understands the politics of the media. She's a citizen journalist that is featured in a regular column on a very popular website, that is supposedly progressive. This gives her smears, and I'm sorry but I consider them smears, more legitimacy. Her claims to be an Obama supporter make it even better for the msm. If he 'offended' one of his own supporters who writes for the 'left-wing' Huffington Post, then he must be really offensive.
Just as I believe that politicians should be held responsible for their words, I believe that bloggers, reporters, citizen reporters, should also be held responsible, particularly when a solid case can be made for misrepresentation. Fowler demonstrates no insight into this whole affair, she is, as she told the New York Times, at peace with herself even she has negatively affected Obama's campaign. I don't find anything to admire in this woman. I think that her ignorance is dangerous.

Yeah. Polling seems to indicate that voters are not at all getting lathered up over the matter.

Yeah that too.

But mainly I meant that people are always accusing others of ruining their candidate's chances by being snarky and rude here.

Honest to god - nobody is paying any attention to us except the rest of the people who are doing the same thing we do and it's a small percentage of people overall.

Not particularly wealthy? In SF? Nonsense! I live here and I can tell you: WE ARE ALL RICH FU@KIG LATTE DRINKING GUN-TRASHING HILLBILLY HATERS! Every single one of us. Hell, we pay our nannies more than rust belt jockies EVER made -- BEFORE BONUS!

Buwaaaaaaaaaaa!

Don't come near me or I'll fu@king shoot!

The Obama campaign has certainly shown more class than someone who secretly recorded a Q&A session with supporters in a private home. I don't believe for one single minute that Fowler acted without malice aforethought.

What the Clinton campaign is doing is a good example of the kind of machine she has. Their techniques seem outdated. She's fighting the last war. And she doesn't know what else to do.

Iraqi born Rezko is Obama’s friend of 17 years and a well known mob figure.

Rezko served on Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign finance committee and raised more than $14 million, according to Federal Election Commission records, helping send Obama to Washington in 2004.

The Chicago Sun Times reports: ‘state senator Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko's successful bid to get more than $14M from taxpayers to build apartments’.

Obama told the Chicago Tribune that, in all the years he's known Rezko, "I've never done any favors for him.''

How does Obama get away with this? Where is the media on this unbelievable topic?

I think this is a good commentary on the whole matter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-shrake/i-wish-there-were-more-ma_b_96672.html

Dont kill the messenger. Senator Obama admits that he stated it poorly. He was talking in short hand, which is never a good idea. Here is how he spoke about the issue more clearly, to Charlie Rose in late 2004. He covers the same small town loss of jobs.

The clip is less than two minutes and is worth viewing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHodpyhXFSg&feature=user

Something like that article is a trap - the trap is this, and I see it over and over: they postulate some mistake he's made according to them then if we don't agree it was a mistake we are zombies who won't admit a weakness.

I'm tired of these stupid traps.

Senator Obama admits that he stated it poorly.

Did I not say that? Goddamn.

that's exactly what happened and it has been spun into some kind of statement of elitism that was never there to start with.

Jesus god almighty, when will this damn primary be over?

Hillary Clinton in "Storm Over Tuzla" (video):

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

Brought to you by Crown Royal. Always delightful - especially with a beer chaser.

Crown Royal - where the elite meet to greet the man on the street.

When will the candidates start discussing the issues?

Why isn't anyone looking out for me?

Glad to see the Obamaista Cult was able to get the "lost sheep" back in the compound. Kool-aid for Everyone!

Then again ... I'll jot down a few ideas that I have regarding the Fowler episode. They are still raw. I may amend them as more information is gleaned here and there on Mayhill Fowler and "citizen journalism".

I have been reading Fowler's articles on the Obama campaign for quite a while. I have found them interesting, rich in details, touching on aspects, as has been pointed out already, not usually found in journalistic reports on a candidate, quite probably because many of those details, if they did appear, would most probably come out as "gossip", degrading (probably rightly so) the quality of the reporting.

But her columns appeared at Huffington Post, which I did not consider, for all of its qualities, professional journalism. And so, I read her reports in that context.

I must say that I did not get the feeling that she loathed Obama. On the contrary, I felt that she rather liked him. On her personal website, there is a section she has labelled Obamatized that contains a list of quotes of Barack Obama. Of Obamatized, she writes:

I have to thank my husband for this one. When the day comes that I am no longer enamoured of Mr. O, I will put this list out to pasture.

Like I said, I think she genuinely likes him, if not as an individual, at the very least as a candidate whose political vision she seemed to embrace. It may be for that reason that, I think, she was rather severe with him when he appeared to stray away from "his mission". She had, as someone critical of her observed, a "school marm" relation with Obama. That much I, too, have noticed. I found that rather endearing and indeed silently hoped that the Obama campaign would be reading her columns and adjusting accordingly.

Yet one thing bugged me with Fowler. It was the faint impression that remained after I have read some of her columns that she still had issues with Obama's race. The notion that she might harbour feelings of Obama as "uppity" lingered after the read. It made me uncomfortable. That feeling was confirmed after I have read a couple of reports of people who were at the SF fund-raising event. Their impressions differ considerably from those of Fowler. And yet, they saw and heard the same thing.

I'll stop here for now. More will certainly be written on the Fowler episode, which, I'm sure, will be seen as a watershed moment and will be studied, dissected, critiqued. It needs to be.

All that said, I have read quite a few of Mayhill Fowler's posts on her website. I came out with the feeling that here was a very interesting person, genuinely interested in the fate of the World. A born-again Christian, she has embarked on a study of Islam, which, this late in her career, is in itself quite remarkable.

Looking up the list it's funny how different a reaction to Ms. Fowler I've had from some others. I do agree though that she's not particularly shilling for one campaign or another -- she seems to me far too hung up on blowing up personal and minor details.

At least with Hillary I'm getting someone I've heard about.

As the mother of eight kids, there aren't enough hours in the day to keep up with these crazy names.

no, journalists are accredited and trained, and try to be objective.

simply blogging your opinions just makes you... a blogger.

now, bloggers can be journalists, too (say, like the TPM folks--they have ethics and adhere to a creed).

but is she?

This is rich:

"I'm not sure that it's completely come out, but these were not really wealthy people."

Gee. And who should have brought that out? Could it be... the so-called journalist who "broke" this story?

I agree, and I think her journalistic ethics are totally lacking, to say the very least.

That said, good on the Obama campaign for staying classy, although I think they should completely freeze her out for what was basically a journalistic cheap shot. What he said was inartful, but what she did was sleazy.