Right Wing Christians Behind Anti-Muslim Video That Started Riots

I often remark that I view fundamentalist religion in general and fundamentalist Christianity in particular as being one of the great scourges of mankind.  Fundamentalist Islam likewise destroys lives and perpetuates hate, bigotry and intolerance.  But back to the Christofascists.  The Guardian is carrying a story that provides more information about those who are behind the production and promotion of the horrid movie "The Innocence of Muslims."   As once might have surmised, the responsible parties appear to be far right Christians and Coptic Christians who sought to destabilize post-Mubarak Egypt and inflame the U. S. political campaigns.  These people may well have the blood of four Americans on their hands and demonstrate why I have growing contempt for far right Christians who by their conduct make a mockery of the Gospel message of Christ.  Here are highlights from the Guardian story:

[E]ven though the deadly scene in Benghazi may not have resulted directly from the angry reaction to the Islamophobic video, the violence has helped realize the apocalyptic visions of the film's backers.

Produced and promoted by a strange collection of rightwing Christian evangelicals and exiled Egyptian Copts, the trailer was created with the intention of both destabilizing post-Mubarak Egypt and roiling the US presidential election. As a consultant for the film named Steve Klein said: "We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen."

After being duped by Bacile, AP traced his address to the home of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a militant Coptic separatist and felon convicted of check fraud. On September 13, US law enforcement officials confirmed that "Sam Bacile" was an alias Nakoula used to advance his various scams, which apparently included the production of The Innocence of Muslims.

According to an actor in the film, the all-volunteer cast was deceived into believing they were acting in a benign biblical epic about "how things were 2,000 years ago". The script was titled Desert Warrior, and its contents made no mention of Muhammad – his name was dubbed into the film during post-production.

Before Nakoula was unmasked, the only person to publicly claim any role in the film was Klein, an insurance salesman and Vietnam veteran from Hemet, California, who emerged from the same Islamophobic movement that produced the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik. Styling themselves as "counter-Jihadists", anti-Muslim crusaders like Klein took their cues from top propagandists like Pamela Geller, the blogger who once suggested that Barack Obama was the lovechild of Malcolm X, and Robert Spencer, a pseudo-academic expert on Muslim radicalization who claimed that Islam was no more than "a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers". Both Geller and Spencer were labeled hate group leaders by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Klein urges a violent response to the perceived threat of Islam in the United States, posting an image to his website depicting a middle-American family with a mock tank turret strapped to the roof of their car. "Can you direct us to the nearest mosque?" read a caption Klein added to the photo.

Through his friendship with Nasrallah, Klein encountered another radical Coptic separatist named Morris Sadek. Sadek has been banned from returning to his Egypt, where he is widely hated for his outrageous anti-Muslim displays.

As soon as the film appeared on YouTube, Sadek promoted it on his website, transforming the obscure clip into a viral source of outrage in the Middle East. And like clockwork, on September 11, crowds of Muslim protesters stormed the walls of the US embassy in Cairo, demanding retribution for the insult to the prophet Muhammad. The demonstrations ricocheted into Libya, where the deadly attack that may have been only peripherally related to the film occurred.

For Sadek, the chaos was an encouraging development. He and his allies had been steadfastly opposed to the Egyptian revolution, fearing that it would usher in the Muslim Brotherhood as the country's new leaders. Now that their worst fears were realized, Coptic extremists and other pro-Mubarak dead-enders were resorting to subterfuge to undermine the ruling party, while pointing to the destabilizing impact of their efforts as proof of the government's bankruptcy.

For far-right Christian right activists like Klein, the attacks on American interests abroad seemed likely to advance their ambitions back in the US. With Americans confronted with shocking images of violent Muslims in Egypt and Libya on the evening news, their already negative attitudes toward their Muslim neighbors were likely to harden. In turn, the presidential candidates, Obama and Romney, would be forced to compete for who could take the hardest line against Islamic "terror".

A group of fringe extremists had proven that with a little bit of money and an unbelievably cynical scam, they could shape history to fit their apocalyptic vision. But in the end, they were not immune to the violence they incited. 

According to Copts Today, an Arabic news outlet focusing on Coptic affairs, Sadek was seen taking a leisurely stroll down Washington's M Street on September 11, soaking in the sun on a perfect autumn day. All of a sudden, he found himself surrounded by four angry Coptic women. Berating Sadek for fueling the flames of sectarian violence, the women took off their heels and began beating him over the head.

If these men and their supporters are the face of Christianity, the world would be a far better place if Christianity were to become a dead religion.  Likewise, fundamentalist Islam needs to find its way to the trash heap of history. 

Did Conventions Put Obama in Front-Runner’s Position?

Click image to enlarge

Numbers cruncher and statistical analyst Nate Silver suggest that the back to back GOP and Democratic conventions may have pushed Barack Obama into the front runner position.  There is certainly no question that the two conventions highlighted the alternate universe that is today's GOP versus the Democratic Party.  Whether or not the apparent Obama lead will hold is anyone's guess, but the data suggests that the GOP attempt to portray Mitt Romney as anything other than a cold, money loving, arrogant man who knows - and worse yet cares - nothing about the lives of most Americans.  He and Ann Romney are truly today's would be Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.  Here are highlights from Nate Silver's piece in the New York Times:

On Friday, we began to see reasonably clear signs that President Obama would receive some kind of bounce in the polls from the Democratic convention.

Mr. Obama had another strong day in the polls on Saturday, making further gains in each of four national tracking polls. The question now is not whether Mr. Obama will get a bounce in the polls, but how substantial it will be.

Some of the data, in fact, suggests that the conventions may have changed the composition of the race, making Mr. Obama a reasonably clear favorite as we enter the stretch run of the campaign.

On Saturday, Mr. Obama extended his advantage to three points from two points in the Gallup national tracking poll, and to four points from two in an online survey conducted by Ipsos. He pulled ahead of Mitt Romney by two points in the Rasmussen Reports tracking poll, reversing a one-point deficit in the edition of the poll published on Friday.

A fourth tracking poll, conducted online by the RAND Corporation’s American Life Panel, had Mr. Obama three percentage points ahead of Mr. Romney in the survey it published early Saturday morning; the candidates had been virtually tied in the poll on Friday. (The RAND survey has an interesting methodology — we’ll explore it more in a separate post.)

The gains that Mr. Obama has made in these tracking polls over the past 48 hours already appear to match or exceed the ones that Mr. Romney made after his convention. The odds, however, are that Mr. Obama has some further room to grow.

Obviously, I hope the bounce for Obama grows since, in my view, it is critical that the GOP in its current state must be defeated in November for the good of the country.  It is far past time that angry white evangelicals be impacting the future of the country.  

A True LGBT Ally Has Been Picked to Head DNC

I've never been a fan of Tim Kaine's when it comes to his fair weather support on LGBT issues. He will give a certain amount of lip service but time and time again he fails to act and get things done. The new adoption regulations currently causing a firestorm in Virginia - and again highlighting that Virginia is generally down right hostile towards its LGBT citizens - is a case in point. Kaine waited until only two months before his term ended to start the process. revising adoption regulations. Why wasn't is started far earlier in his terms? Now, with Kaine running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Jim Webb (I will likely vote for Kaine merely because the GOP candidate will assuredly be an anti-gay Neanderthal), Debbie Wasserman of Florida has been tapped to head up the DNC. Her appointment may not bring all that many in the LGBT community might want, but at least we will now have someone at the top of the Democratic party who does seem to actually give a damn about LGBT citizens and their lives. Here are highlights from the New York Times:
*
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida was named Tuesday as the new chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, with President Obama selecting her to lead the party’s fund-raising and organizational efforts heading into the 2012 election cycle.
*
Ms. Wasserman Schultz, 44, accepted the position during an afternoon call with the president. She succeeds Tim Kaine, who served as the party’s national chairman for the last two years but announced earlier Tuesday that he is running for a Senate seat in Virginia.
*
Ms. Wasserman Schultz is known inside the party for her strong fund-raising abilities, and she represents South Florida, which will be a critical battleground in the 2012 presidential race. She also would become one of the few high-profile women to speak on television on behalf of the president and the party.
*
“She’s part of the next generation of Democrats,” said Jenny Backus, a longtime party strategist and former official at the Democratic National Committee.
*
[H]eading into the 2012 presidential election year, when women voters will be among the key constituencies, the president was encouraged by advisers to select Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
*
Four years ago, Ms. Wasserman Schultz supported Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary fight, but she quickly switched her loyalties to Mr. Obama when he became the presumptive nominee. She campaigned aggressively on his behalf for the rest of the 2008 campaign.

Jon Huntsman Prepares for 2012 Bid

I wrote in the recent past about the possibility that former Utah governor and current ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, might throw his hat in the ring for the GOP nomination for the 2012 presidential race. It seems that my analysis was on point as the Washington Post and Politico are both reporting that Huntsman will be resigning as Obama's ambassador to China at the end of April and is seemingly assembling a political campaign team. Of course, even if Huntsman runs, the big question is whether or not he can land the GOP nomination. Given that he is a Mormon, is not an anti-gay extremists and is not the brand of delusional lunatic that plays well with the GOP base, can Huntsman pull it off?

*

Obviously, it would be nice to have a GOP presidential candidate who is smart, who is not married to the Christofascist elements of the GOP, and who is not in need of serious mental health intervention (think Palin, Huckabee and Santorum). But candidly, while I suspect he might be presidential material, I have reservations as to how well Huntsman would do in the early primaries. It will definitely be interesting to see how this all plays out and whether or not Huntsman can save the GOP from its ignorance embracing and Christianist/bigot base. Not surprisingly, Barack Obama is none too happy because, if he were to get the nomination, I believe that Huntsman could be a serious threat to Obama's re-election hopes. Worse yet from Obama's perspective, Obama might have to start actually shoring up support among his base or run the risk of finding himself abandoned by many who voted for him in 2008. First, here are highlights from the Washington Post:
*
Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the charismatic former Republican governor of Utah who appeared to put his presidential ambitions on hold when he became President Obama's ambassador to China, abruptly resigned his post Monday and appears likely to take a shot at ousting his boss.
*
White House officials expressed anger about Huntsman's shift and said late Monday that they doubted he could make a successful run at the presidency.
*
Huntsman's appointment had been widely praised, both for his expertise on China and foreign policy but also as a shrewd political move. Obama's top advisers had long viewed him as a potentially potent challenger in 2012, and sending him to Beijing seemed to successfully avoid that possibility. Moreover, it was a coup for a president looking to show a bipartisan side.
*
Advisers said Huntsman's backers assured him that he could overcome two perceived liabilities with conservative voters who hold sway in GOP primaries and caucuses - his Mormon faith and the fact that he worked for a Democratic president.
*
He [Huntsman] will be a difficult figure to replace. Fluent in Mandarin, with significant stature in the region, he has played an important role in U.S.-China policy as Obama has sought to make the United States more competitive and to build a business alliance with Beijing.
*
Obama and company have been snarky at best towards Huntsman and Politico has more on Huntsman's moves to establish a campaign team. Here are highlights:
*
GOP allies of Huntsman have already begun laying plans for a quick-start campaign should the former Utah governor decide to enter the ill-defined Republican field.

While Huntsman has no direct involvement in it, a group of operatives that could eventually comprise his strategy team has set up an entity called “Horizon PAC” to serve as a placeholder for his political apparatus.
*
The handsome heir to a massive fortune in chemicals manufacturing, he would likely be able to put his own money into the race. And by virtue of his current post as well as past foreign policy and trade posts in GOP administrations, the Mandarin-speaking Huntsman is the only campaign-tested Republican considering a run for president who has serious foreign policy credentials. . . . Huntsman also has a history of taking moderate positions on the environment, immigration and gay rights.
*
Huntsman would likely appeal to Republicans looking for a solutions-oriented leader who’s more sunny than angry.
*
With a serious team of advisers behind him and significant financial resources at his disposal - plus a made-for-media maverick story of the keyboard-playing, motorcycle-driving, Mormon China-hand trying to move his party away from the fringe - there’s little question that Huntsman would have an opportunity to alter the course of the 2012 campaign.

The GOP's Continuing "Palin Problem"

For years to come John McCain will likely be cursed for creating the GOP's version of the Frankenstein monster by selecting Sarah Palin as his 2008 running mate. But for that act, the lunatic of the north might have remained safely obscure in the wilds of Alaska where she could do only limited harm. Instead, the ignorance embracing (she seems to revel in her stupidity) and seemingly mentally unstable Palin is wreaking havoc on the GOP and represents perhaps the strongest force of all that will drive away sentient voters should she somehow gain the GOP nomination in 2012. With the GOP base increasingly made up of the ignorant, religious extremists and less than discrete white supremacists, the nomination process is tilted in Palin's favor. Meanwhile, the few rational folks still in the GOP leadership likely know that Palin as the nominee would likely guarantee the re-election of the Liar-in-Chief if for no other reason than he's not insane. Kathleen Parker, one of the few conservative intellectuals, if you will, left has a column in the Washington Post that looks at the GOP's Palin problem. Here are highlights:
*
Despite its considerable gains in the midterm elections, the GOP has a problem looming in the margins named Sarah Palin. She who can rouse the base like none other is now She to Whom Respect Must Be Paid. Like it or not.
*
Many within the so-called party establishment don't quite know what to do about Palin. She's adored by Tea Partyers, to whom she conveniently attached herself as soon as she sensed a shift in the air. A rogue like Palin isn't going to let a rogue movement fill a stadium - or a desert - without her.
*
Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama recently had the audacity to assert what heretofore had been relegated to whispers behind closed doors: "Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate." Bachus, who is likely to replace Barney Frank as chair of the House Financial Services Committee, noted that Palin endorsed some Senate candidates who couldn't possibly win, such as Christine O'Donnell in Delaware
*
Although Tea Party members tend to be over-45 white men - no implication intended regarding Palin's popularity, but infer at will - there is considerable overlap with the demographic formerly known as the GOP base, a.k.a. white Southerners and social conservatives, libertarian streak notwithstanding.
*
Watching Palin drop foreign policy and economic nuggets into the twitterverse confirms that the real agenda for Palin is President Palin, and therein lies fresh terror for Republicans. She's too powerful to ignore, and too (fill-in-the-blank) to take seriously. She is - in a word yet again whispered rather than uttered - "Dangerous."
*
Not only would Palin the presidential candidate drive away other Republican candidates, but she would most certainly lose a national election. Thus, the GOP finds itself in a pickle: How to shed itself of this attractive nuisance? The answer, alas, is the stuff of all complicated relationships: Can't live with her, can't live without her.
*
As much as I can't stand her, it WILL be fun watching Palin perhaps sound the death knell for GOP victories in 2012 if the Party leadership can't get rid of her. There is obviously, no controlling her.

David Mixner Speculates: President Bloomberg?

On his blog David Mixner speculates on a third party run by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2012. It may sound crazy at first blush, but Bloomberg could literally finance 100% of his own campaign and there seems to be more than enough dissatisfaction with the GOP and the Democrats that ANYONE who showed a combination of backbone and sanity might have a shot at winning. I for one am over BOTH of the major parties. A run by Bloomberg would certainly throw a whole new factor into the equation and the Liar-in-Chief might be the one bitten the hardest in the ass (and deservedly so) by a Bloomberg candidacy. David quotes from Bob Shrum's column for "The Week" in which Shrum writes of a potential Mayor Michael Bloomberg candidacy as an independent candidate. Here are highlights from Mixner's post:
*
Most political experts and seasoned reporters have failed to grasp the disillusionment with both parties and the desperate desire for a "Third Way." Shrum, a committed Democrat, brilliantly outlines how Mayor Bloomberg, with the right set of circumstances, could end up sitting in the Oval Office. In his article "Bloomberg's Road To The White House", Shrum writes: The quiet, consequential, and largely uncovered story of this campaign is this: An independent challenge for the presidency in 2012 is both probable and viable.
*
None of this will be a headline on Election Night 2010, but it could be a harbinger of Election 2012. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has the resources and the increasingly evident ambition to run for president as an independent. The White House knows it — and the incumbent president has been personally courting the mayor with calculated but not necessarily availing care. Meanwhile Doug Schoen, Bloomberg's pollster (and Bill Clinton's in 1996), has written a book titled Declaring Independence, in which he bluntly declares "the beginning of the end of the two-party system." It's clear who he thinks can finish the job.
*
Bloomberg could position himself as uniquely equipped to fix a sluggish recovery or respond to a double-dip recession.
*
This is the one scenario — and not an unlikely one — in which Bloomberg could actually get elected president. In a three-way race, he could carry states that would otherwise reject him. Despite, for example, his adamant support for gun control, he could win a Pennsylvania, and Ohio, even a Montana with 35 percent or 37 percent of the vote. The Perot campaign had a plausible path to 270 electoral votes until the candidate, stingy and arrogant, vacillated, withdrew, and re-entered. We've seen enough of Bloomberg in the arena to know that if he runs for president, he won't cut and run. He can appeal to business, to suburban Republicans, and even to core Democratic constituencies. One of the country's most influential gay leaders estimates that if Bloomberg is on the ballot, Obama might be left with only 30 percent of the LGBT vote.
*
The president will do all he can to avert this scenario — to pump up the economy despite the intransigent GOP, to push off the Republican far right, and to keep Bloomberg far away from the 2012 campaign. But the mayor's already on the practice field. And while politics ain't beanbag, it is bucks — and Bloomberg has at least 16 billion of them. He could spend a billion and not miss it; he'd make more than that in the same year. What does he have to lose? If the independents and insurgents of 2010 are any guide, he just might win.

The Race Card

Eugene Robinson's column in today's Washington Post takes looks headon at the fairly blatant race baiting that has become an increasingly significant tactic of team Hillary Clinton. While anyone not suffering from significant delusions has more or less figured out that Hillary's gig is up, the Democratic Party as a whole should be raising Hell with this racist nastiness that started with Bill Clinton down in South Carolina. As a recent article in the Newport News Daily Press quoted from below indicates, the GOP in Virginia is salivating at the opening the anti-black rhetoric coming from team Clinton may give to the Repubicans if Obama's nomination is hijacked somehow.

*

Yes, it is true that some white Americans are racists and will not vote for a black man - or in Obama's case a half black man. But no major candidate or political party at this late date should be engaged in these gutter tactics. I truly believe that until this country puts racial bias behind it, we are never going to achieve a just society or reach are full potential as a nation. A successful Obama presidency would cut race baiters - both black and white - off at the knees. Moreover, it would help set the stage where never again could one's skin color be used as an excuse by non-achievers or a penalty against those with merit. I believe of in that kind of America. Hopefully, the coming campaign through to November will not sicken me by the baseness of what Hillary and the GOP may attempt to use to divide the citizenry. Here are highlights from Robinson's column:

*

From the beginning, Hillary Clinton has campaigned as if the Democratic nomination were hers by divine right. That's why she is falling short -- and that's why she should be persuaded to quit now, rather than later, before her majestic sense of entitlement splits the party along racial lines.
If that sounds harsh, look at the argument she made Wednesday, in an interview with USA Today, as to why she should be the nominee instead of Barack Obama. She cited an Associated Press article "that found how Senator Obama's support . . . among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again. I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on."

*

As a statement of fact, that's debatable at best. As a rationale for why Democratic Party superdelegates should pick her over Obama, it's a slap in the face to the party's most loyal constituency -- African Americans -- and a repudiation of principles the party claims to stand for. Here's what she's really saying to party leaders: There's no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you'll be sorry. How silly of me. I thought the Democratic Party believed in a colorblind America.

*

Let's examine those premises. These are white Democrats we're talking about, voters who generally share the party's philosophy. So why would these Democrats refuse to vote for a nominee running on Democratic principles against a self-described conservative Republican? The answer, which Clinton implies but doesn't quite come out and say, is that Obama is black -- and that white people who are not wealthy are irredeemably racist.

*

The other notion -- that Clinton could position herself as some kind of Great White Hope and still expect African American voters to give her their enthusiastic support in the fall -- is just nuts. . . Only in Camp Clinton does anyone believe that his supporters will be happy if party leaders tell him, in effect, "Nice job, kid, but we can't give you the nomination because, well, you're black. White people might not like that." At some level, she seems to believe the nomination is hers. Somebody had better tell her the truth before she burns the house down.

Here's what Virginia balcks are saying (and Virginia is a state I believe Obama will carry if he's the nominee) per the Daily Press:

*

The 2008 presidential campaign is turning out to be a pivotal moment for black Republicans in Hampton Roads. On the one hand, a number of black political leaders previously aligned with the GOP say they will support Democrat Barack Obama should he win the nomination. His candidacy, they say, represents a "chance of a lifetime" for a black to compete for the nation's highest office. On the other hand, should Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination, many say it would be a rare opportunity to recruit disillusioned black voters who have been Democratic loyalists since the 1960s, when lifelong Republican Martin Luther King Sr. pushed nationwide black support toward John F. Kennedy.

*

"If Barack Obama is not the nominee, the good thing is that black folks will finally realize that the Democrats don't love them," says Quash, of Suffolk. "I have always told black folks that the Democrats are far more racist, far more elitist, far more sexist and far more anti-Christian than the Republicans ever were."

*

Don Scoggins, president of the Washington-based Republicans for Black Empowerment, agrees that if Obama loses the nomination, "that will be the best opportunity" to recruit blacks. Scoggins concedes, however, that as long as Obama is in the race, he will get lots of support from black Republicans. . . . At least two local black leaders usually associated with the Republican Party have shed the label; others are re-examining their party affiliation.Newport News Sheriff Gabriel Morgan formally resigned from the party about a month ago.

*

Of course, none of this means anything to Hillary since it's all about her and her sense of entitlement.

Ass Backwards Thinking - Except Possibly in the Long Run

Chris Wilson at Slate has an utterly ridiculous column on why Obama - not Hillary - should drop out of the race. Long term under his view, Obama wins, although the country gets fu*ked over for four more years under a McCain administration. Basically, his analysis comes to the fact that because Hillary Clinton is such a self-centered, vicious, slash and burn, nasty shrew that is willing to destory the Democrat Party , Obama should drop out. In return, Wilson maintains that Obama would be set to take the Democrats to victory in 2012 after Hillary goes down to defeat against John McCain.

Obama is supposed to take this magnanimous step even though he has won more votes, more delegates, and is more electable than the she-bitch. To me, that kind of thinking is analogous to religious denominations that maintain anti-gay policies for the sake of "unity" rather than mustering the resolve to tell the hate filled element in the pews to get a life and get their heads out of their ass. The reality is that the superdelegates and Party leaders need to get some backbone and tell Hillary it is over NOW. Period. End of discussion. But such a move would take true leadership - something the Democrat Party leaders have not shown to date. Here are some highlights:

If Clinton had the good of the Democratic Party in mind, she would have given up her bid the day after the Mississippi primary, which Obama won by 25 points. The delegate math was as dismal for her campaign then as it is now, even after Pennsylvania, and she was facing down a six-week gulf before the next election. But Hillary Clinton isn’t going to drop out. There simply isn’t a function in her assembly code for throwing in the towel.

Obama, on the other hand, is fully capable of it. And if he’s really serious about representing a new kind of politics, now is the time for him to prove it in the only meaningful way left. Moreover, were he to play it right, dropping out now nearly guarantees that he’ll be elected president in 2012. Here’s the roadmap:

In one stroke, Obama will regain his messiah creds by making the ultimate sacrifice for the good of the party. His followers will be furious. The mere mention of Clinton’s name will provoke unspeakable acts. They will abandon Clinton in numbers sufficient to hand McCain the election in November.

Losing the presidency again after eight years of Bush will ruin the Democratic Party. It will become obvious that Clinton’s decision to stay in the race was the turning point in the election. The base will turn its wrath on party leaders like Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, who failed to push Clinton out. Obama, as the de facto head of the party, will broker negotiations to install new leaders loyal to him.

McCain will be eminently more beatable in 2012. Demographics will continue to shift in Obama’s favor as his 14- to 17-year-old supporters come of voting age. Anyone foolish enough to challenge Obama for the nomination—and don’t rule out Clinton—will go nowhere. Obama’s utopian vision for a Democratic party unified around him will be complete.

Hillary is Alienating Black Voters

In her quest to destroy the Democrats if she can not be the nominee, Hillary (with assistance from Slick Willie) is doing immense damage to the loyalty of Black voters to the Democrat Party. I really cannot recall when I have seen a candidate as self-centered and vicious as Hillary has become. I increasingly think both she and Slick Willie completely are amoral. They will do anything and harm anyone they deem necessary to further their own uncontrolable thirst for power. Do we really need individuals like that in the White House? Not in my opinion. This New York Times story demonstrates what blacks are saying. Here are some highlights:
*

The third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives and one of the country’s most influential African-American leaders sharply criticized former President Bill Clinton this afternoon for what he called Mr. Clinton’s “bizarre” conduct during the Democratic primary campaign. Representative James E. Clyburn, an undeclared superdelegate from South Carolina who is the Democratic whip in the House, said that “black people are incensed over all of this,” referring to statements that Mr. Clinton had made in the course of the heated race between his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Senator Barack Obama.

*

In an interview with The New York Times late Thursday, Mr. Clyburn said Mr. Clinton’s conduct in this campaign had caused what might be an irreparable breach between Mr. Clinton and an African-American constituency that once revered him. “When he was going through his impeachment problems, it was the black community that bellied up to the bar,” Mr. Clyburn said. “I think black folks feel strongly that that this is a strange way for President Clinton to show his appreciation.”

*
Mr. Clyburn added that there appeared to be an almost “unanimous” view among African-Americans that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were “committed to doing everything they possibly can to damage Obama to a point that he could never win.”

Canadian PM Denies Top Aide Leaked Obama NAFTA Memo

The USA is not the only country where the Democrat primary race is causing political waves. It increasingly appears that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper may have deliberately tried to help the Clinton Campaign agaist Obama since his reactionary political cousins in the GOP greatly prefer Hillary as their opponent come Novemeber. Things are so hot in Canada that the opposition has demanded that Harper's chief of staff be fired. I for one am fed up with winning at politics by dirty tricks. Obama is no saint, but compared to Billary, he's is definitely Mother Theresa. The quickest way toward a beginning of the lessening this kind of cheap shots is to see Hillary knocked out of the primary race. Here are some highlights from CBCNews (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/04/harper-obama.html):

Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Tuesday denied the top official in his office leaked a memo of a meeting between an aide to Barack Obama and a Canadian diplomat over the Democratic presidential hopeful's NAFTA position. "It was not my chief of staff," Harper said during question period while under fire from NDP Leader Jack Layton, who demanded Brodie be fired if it is confirmed he tipped off reporters to the details of the meeting."The leak of this particular document is not only regrettable, as the Canadian Embassy in the United States has already said, it is completely unacceptable to this government and we will do our best to find out who did it."

Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae said it was clear the Tories are trying to help Republican friends at the expense of Canadian interests. "They will do what is necessary to help Republicans. They're a nasty, unprincipled bunch, who are incompetent to boot," Rae wrote in a blog. The controversy could play to the Republicans' advantage in November and hurt the Illinois senator in Ohio, a potential swing state where job losses have made the 15-year-old free-trade deal highly unpopular.

Obama and Clinton have both said they want to reopen the free-trade deal between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to ensure better environmental and labour standards.Trade Minister David Emerson and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said U.S. officials should not forget the benefits of the agreement and hinted Canada could respond to a NAFTA pullout by renegotiating U.S. access to Canada's oil.

Barack Obama - Selling Gay Rights

Here is an interesting report from Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Selling_gay_rights.html) concerning remarks made by Barak Obama at a rally in Beaumont, Texas - hardly a hotbed of liberalism - this week:

Obama's rally in Beaumont today was the highest-energy of this Texas swing, with a crowd that was about three-quarters black cheering at almost every turn.

An interesting moment came when he was asked a question about LGBT rights and delivered an answer that seemed to suit the questioner, listing the various attributes — race, gender, etc. — that shouldn't trigger discrimination, to successive cheers. When he came to saying that gays and lesbians deserve equality, though, the crowd fell silent. So he took a different tack: "Now I’m a Christian, and I praise Jesus every Sunday," he said, to a sudden wave of noisy applause and cheers.

"I hear people saying things that I don’t think are very Christian with respect to people who are gay and lesbian," he said, and the crowd seemed to come along with him this time.

The moment reminded me of a conversation I had recently with a senior figure in the national gay rights movement, who noted that Obama's deference to some black Christian discomfort with homosexuality — his refusal to dump the "ex-gay" gospel singer Donnie McClurkin from a tour — angered some gays and lesbians; but conversely, that his ability to sell gay rights in the black church is unique and appealing.

I'm still waiting for Hillary to make such bold public statements in favor of agy equality except to selective gay audiences. If she will not do it durning the primary campaign, I do not see why gays think she'll support us if elected to office.

Obama's Open Letter To Gay Americans

The Obama campaign has released another open letter to the LGBT community. It went up first on The Bilerico Project. The text is set out below. While some have yet to forgive Obama for the McClurkin debacle in South Carolina, I believe that from his statements in speeches, inclusion of LGBT issues on his campaign website (unlike Hillary), ads in LGBT publications and now this letter, Obama has seen the light and is fully supportive of gays. Here is the text of the letter:

I'm running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all - a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. It's wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans.

Equality is a moral imperative. That's why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples - whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.

The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic. When it comes to prevention, we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception. We should pass the JUSTICE Act to combat infection within our prison population. And we should lift the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. In addition, local governments can protect public health by distributing contraceptives.

We also need a president who's willing to confront the stigma - too often tied to homophobia - that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. I confronted this stigma directly in a speech to evangelicals at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, and will continue to speak out as president. That is where I stand on the major issues of the day. But having the right positions on the issues is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone. If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones - and that's what I've done throughout my career. I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention. I talked about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign - from local LGBT activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin Luther King once preached.

Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.

Americans are yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike.

Obama Makes Gay Ad Buys in Ohio, Texas

The Obama campaign is lavishing some of its cash advantage on the LGBT community with targeted ad buys in Ohio and Texas leading up to the critical March 4th primaries in both states (Rhode Island and Vermont also vote that day). According to Obama LGBT Steering Committee member Eric Stern, the campaign has just completed an ad buy with queer newspapers in the four largest LGBT markets of those two states -- Columbus, Cleveland, Dallas and Houston.

Full page ads will appear starting this Friday in Outlook Weekly of Columbus, the Gay People's Chronicle of Cleveland, the Dallas Voice, and OutSmart, which is Houston based. Buying a full-page, four-color ad that appears one time typically costs anywhere between $1,000 and $2,000 in weekly publications. In the Gay People's Chronicle, for instance, the ad cost about $850 according to the paper's advertising manager; the same ad went for about $1500 in the Dallas Voice.

Stern called the coordinated buy "the icing on the cake" in terms of the Obama camp's outreach to the gay community in Ohio and Texas. "It's a direct appeal to LGBT voters asking for their support," he said, adding that the ad includes information about how people can get involved with the campaign. The Obama campaign has actively been trying to cut into the longstanding ties between gays and lesbians and Hillary Clinton. Stern paraphrased the message of the ad as a "call for the country to come together and unify around creating national progress toward equality for LGBT Americans." (Kerry Eleveld, The Advocate)

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid52408.asp

More Clinton Race Baiting

It is getting increasingly difficult to adequately express my disgust with the tactics of Hillary Clinton's campaign. I know that I am not alone in this and I must applaud the Obama campaign for not going after Hillary's biggest Achille's heel: Bill's sexcapades which I suspect have continued since he left the White House. Of course, the questionable post White House deals that have made the Clintons wealthy ($34,900,000 as of 2006) might also be appropriate fodder. Here's some of what John Aravois at America Blog has to say (http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/clinton-surrogate-says-obama-is-really.html):

This is the sixth time, at least, I believe, that the Clinton's and their surrogates have launched racist attacks on Obama. It's not just abominable on its face, it's absolutely astounding that the Clinton campaign is now using Republican hate-emails to create their talking points about Obama. The Clinton campaign simply doesn't care if they permanently damage Obama for the general election by feeding the GOP Swift Boat attacks on the man who is very likely going to be our nominee.

Race-baiting simply isn't the same thing as saying your opponent is divisive and lacks credibility. What would be the same thing is were Obama and company publicly talking about Bill Clinton's sex life past and present. That would be inappropriate, disgusting, and damaging to Hillary and her run for the presidency were she to get the nomination - it would be the same thing as talking about Obama's race and ethnic origins. And in spite of how negative both sides have gotten, you don't see Obama's people, or even their surrogates, touching Bill Clinton's sex life, even though, frankly, it would be one hell of a bombshell to drop on Hillary. There IS a difference in how negative each campaign has gotten.Moving away from racism for a moment, my problem with Hillary's attack below is that 3 months ago she swore off such attacks, and now she's using them the same week that she's complaining about Obama going negative. Both sides have gone negative, but there's a difference between negative and vicious.

For a look at the Clintons' astonishingly soaring financial net worth (from $2,076,000 in 2003 to $34,900,000 in 2006), some interesting stuff can be found here: http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clinton_net_worth-wealth.html

More Hillary Dirty Tricks

Hillary and her staff are definitely showing that they will do anything to try to win, including subtly playing the race card yet again. All she doing for me is proving that she's not fit to be president and that any thoughts I might have ever had about voting for her need to be seriously reconsidered. Her campaign is busy circulating a photo of Obama dressed in local dress taken while he was on a trip to Africa in 2006. Having traveled to Africa myself on more than one occasion during my in-house counsel days, I know from experience that often visitors are expected to be "good sports" and put on native wordrobe items or eat what the local inhabitants consider food delicacies. To be a good sport/guest, I obliged and even though a few of the foods were pretty disgusting, I ate them nonetheless. Hillary knows this just as surely as I do (see the photo at above left of Hillary and Chelsea), but her campaign is no doubt hoping to inflame latent racism against Obama among ignorant/racist potential primary voters. I hope it bites her right in her very wide ass. I will stay home in November before I vote for HRC. Here highlights from Drudge (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashoa.htm):

With a week to go until the Texas and Ohio primaries, stressed Clinton staffers circulated a photo over the weekend of a "dressed" Barack Obama. The photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat frontrunner fitted as a Somali Elder, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya. The senator was on a five-country tour of Africa. "Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?" questioned one campaign staffer, in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe quickly accused the Clinton campaign Monday of 'shameful offensive fear-mongering' for circulating the snap

Clinton Mocks Obama

As the Huffington Post is reporting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/24/hillary-clinton-mocks-bar_n_88194.html), Hillary Clinton has resorted to mocking Barack Obama as her campaign spirals downward. How is this playing out with audiences? If one of her target audiences is purpotedly women over 60 years of age, it's perhaps backfiring. I spoke with my 80 year old mother this afternoon and she said she though Hillary was "acting awful." She was no amused and, I must admit, she surprised me by how closely she is following the duel between Hillary and Obama. I think Hillary is putting the nails in her own coffin by doing this, but then the Clintons always play dirty. Here's HP's summary of what toke place:

Hillary Clinton's campaign is on its last legs after suffering a string of defeats to her rival Barack Obama. Clinton made the decision to go negative in an effort to halt Obama's rising momentum. Today, Clinton was at a campaign rally in Providence, Rhode Island, and she mocked Obama and his message of hope and change in a very theatrical, over-the-top manner.

Hillary's Self-Immolating Campaign

Frank Rich has another good column in today’s New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?em&ex=1204002000&en=1eaf7624ae72ae11&ei=5087%0A) that trashes Hillary Clinton’s campaign. I will admit that I have a growing disgust for her strategist, Mark Penn, who now wants to go very negative against Obama. While it is believed that negative attack ads work, I still believe the correct analysis is that when a campaign needs to resort to a slash and burn negative campaign, it says more about that campaign’s lack of ideas and sound policy proposals than it does about the targeted opponent. Also, in the case of Mark Penn, Hillary ought to be demanding a refund of payments given how badly her campaign has gone under Penn’s guidance. Just about anyone could have given her the same bad advice at a fraction of the cost. Here are some highlights from Rich’s column:

But once the Obama forces outwitted her, leaving her mission unaccomplished on Super Tuesday, there was no contingency plan. She had neither the boots on the ground nor the money to recoup. That’s why she has been losing battle after battle by double digits in every corner of the country ever since. And no matter how much bad stuff happened, she kept to the Bush playbook, stubbornly clinging to her own Rumsfeld, her chief strategist, Mark Penn. Like his prototype, Mr. Penn is bigger on loyalty and arrogance than strategic brilliance. But he’s actually not even all that loyal. Mr. Penn, whose operation has billed several million dollars in fees to the Clinton campaign so far, has never given up his day job as chief executive of the public relations behemoth Burson-Marsteller.

Clinton fans don’t see their standard-bearer’s troubles this way. In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid. Or as Mrs. Clinton frames it, Senator Obama is all about empty words while she is all about action and hard work. But it’s the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.

The gap in hard work between the two campaigns was clear well before Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the Iowa caucuses without ever matching Mr. Obama’s organizational strength. In South Carolina, where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots. In Kansas, three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3.

This is the candidate who keeps telling us she’s so competent that she’ll be ready to govern from Day 1. Mrs. Clinton may be right that Mr. Obama has a thin résumé, but her disheveled campaign keeps reminding us that the biggest item on her thicker résumé is the health care task force that was as botched as her presidential bid. As for countering what she sees as the empty Obama brand of hope, she offers only a chilly void: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country.

Obama Slams Politicians Who Use Gays To Divide

A number of blogs are reporting on Barack Obama's comments last night while speaking in Houston to a 20,000+ crowd wherein he slammed those who use gays as scapegoats and/or to promote divisive politics. Towleroad has a video clip here: http://www.towleroad.com/2008/02/obama-slams-pol.html The reality is that he has made this or similar statements at least several times during speeches before huge audiences some of which such as last night's which were televised nationwide. He made such a statement at the rally in Virginia Beach that I attended and I actually teared up a bit when he said it. I have yet to hear Hillary make any similar statements outside of interviews with the gay press which do not get wide public exposure and do not get picked up by the MSM. Specifically, Obama stated the following last night:

"I know how easy it is for politicians to turn us on each other, to use immigrants or gay people or folks who aren't like us as scapegoats for what they do."

Meanwhile, while references to and statements concerning gay issues are easily found and mentioned on Obama's campaign website, a perusal of Hillary's website makes it appear that LGBT individuals are either invisible or do not exist. If there is such a page on her site, I'd appreciate it if someone could direct me to it. Not surprisingly - at least to me - numerous Hillary supporters have left nast comments about Obama on the Towleroad webpage. If Hillary will not publicly acknowledge our existence to a national audience, I have to wonder how her supporters expect that she will actually help us.

Political Ponderings

The other day after the Obama rally in Virginia Beach, I posted a diary over on Pam’s House Blend which seems to have apparently greatly upset some of Hillary's supporters a number of whom have pummeled me in their comments. Therefore, I felt it best to further restate my argument that caused such a gnashing of teeth on the part of some. I also want to comment to remarks I heard on MSNBC this morning where some commentators – and Hillary’s campaign – are trying to compare Obama followers to a cult. My first comments are a statement of what I said on Pam Spaulding’s blog when critics tried to minimize Obama’s win in Virginia:

First, Virginia's population ranks 12th nationally in terms of population, so how a candidate performs here is not as insignificant as some would pretend. Moreover, the population is an interesting mix ranging from the liberal Washington, D.C., suburbs to reactionary Southwest Virginia, to the large military population in Tidewater Virginia.

Second, the primary results are in and the margin for Obama was staggering: locally, Obama carried the Hampton Roads area by percentages ranging from 65% in conservative Virginia Beach to 79% in Hampton. Norfolk went for Obama with him receiving 71% of the votes. Even in reactionary Chesapeake where Huckabee beat McCain 48% to 44%, Obama got 71% of the vote. Statewide, Obama received 30% more votes that ALL of the votes cast in the GOP primary. Hillary only received votes equaling 72% of the total GOP vote.

Third, an interesting phenomenon occurred: the number of Republicans voting in the Democrat primary - for Hillary. I witnessed it myself at my precinct as did a number of friends (some GOP friends even confessed that they did it). Why did they do it? They wanted Hillary to win because they see her as more easily defeated in November. Without such voters, Hillary would have been even more resoundingly beaten by Obama.

Fourth, as readers know, I am a former GOP activist (I left the party when the Christianists took control) and I come from a family that historically has generally voted for and/or contributed to the GOP. In addition, I have worked on quite a few campaigns. In this primary, ALL in my family voted for Obama and will vote for him in November. By the same token, most of them will vote for McCain if Hillary is the Democrat nominee. I would further add that many of the members of the GOP that I still am in contact with likewise will NEVER vote for Hillary, although they would vote for Obama. Hillary supporters may want to suppress this reality, but it is a reality.

As for the cult allegation, I think it comes from a couple of sources, the first of which is the jaded nature of political commentators and political insiders who do NOT want a change in the way politics are conducted in this country. Should Obama be elected and make good on some of his goals, many political insiders would find their secure little world turned upside down. God forbid that they lose their insider connections and/or influence.

I believe that the other reason Obama is turning out such crowds is that many in this country are disillusioned and desperately want a change in direction. Younger people want to put the misbegotten Bush/Cheney years behind them and to have a sense of hope. Many commentators do not consider how badly Bush’s re-election impacted young voters. My own son for instance called me the day after the election and was all set to move to Canada. Likewise many working class and middle class families have been “playing by the rules” and find themselves increasingly worse off financially – even with both spouses working. More of the same politics under either Hillary or McCain will not provide them with a chance for a better life. They see the system as being broken and Obama is the only candidate talking about systemic change. Perhaps Obama will not be able to deliver if elected, but he at least offers hope to a disillusioned citizenry. Hope is an important element in allowing one to soldier on.

New Hampshire Landlord Donates Late Clinton Rent Check to Obama Campaign

I could not resist posting about this story. The moral is that when you are the candidate, the buck stops with you. Having once run for public office myself, I know all too well that this is the reality no matter what amount of spin one puts out. I suspect that Hillary probably (1) knew nothing abut the delinquent rent payments, and (2) had no idea that her staff left the premises trashed. Nonetheless, her staff’s actions are a direct reflection on her and have now caused an embarrassment to her. Here are some highlights from Seacoastonline (http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080213/NEWS/80213011):

PORTSMOUTH — Rochester doctor Terry Bennett has finally been paid by the Clinton campaign for rental of a Portsmouth building he owns. Now, he says he will donate the $500 check to Barack Obama’s campaign. He said he’s doing it because he likes Obama, but also as a statement on the way he feels he was treated by the staff of the Clinton campaign. ‘It was the last straw for Hillary Clinton for me,” said Bennett.

Bennett said he believes the only reason the Clinton campaign paid for renting his 236 Union St. storefront is because he became the “squeaky wheel,” contacting the Herald last week in frustration because he had not been paid for more than a month. “Thirty days went by, with no replies to phone calls, e-mails, no replies at all. Suddenly a newspaper article comes out. It was the worst publicity they could get. Three days go by and I get a check,” said Bennett.

Bennett went public last week, saying he rented a warehouse/office space to Clinton campaign workers for five days prior to the Jan. 8 presidential primary. He rented the space for $100 a day to be used as a campaign headquarters and dormitory.

Not only was he not paid, but Bennett said the campaign volunteers left the premises trashed. He said there were fast food containers all over the place and lots of campaign signs left behind.
Bennett said he’s giving the money to Obama because, besides Clinton, he is the only other Democratic candidate. But he said he also likes the man.

“I like Obama’s story enormously,” said Bennett. “He came from nowhere and made his way through Harvard Law School. I can appreciate the struggle. He and I never forgot where we came from. I, like him, struggled to get through medical school. This is a guy I think is very thoughtful, who hasn’t forgotten his beginnings. He is speaking across what used to be a chasm and has transcended a lot of insurmountable barriers.”

When Bennett’s story came out, other people contacted the Herald about unpaid bills from the Clinton campaign. Iowa resident Richard Reese is the owner of Top Job Services Inc., a cleaning service in Des Moines. His company was hired in November of last year, prior to the Iowa caucuses, to clean the Clinton campaign headquarters on a regular basis. Reese provided the Herald with invoices and said he had not seen one penny of the $7,561.70 he is owed. As of Wednesday, he still hadn’t.