Obama raises more than $40 million in March

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama raised more than $40 million from more than 442,000 donors in March, his presidential campaign announced Thursday.

Sen. Barack Obama greets campaign volunteers during a stop in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Wednesday.

More than 218,000 of the donors were giving for the first time, the campaign said.

The figures are estimates, a campaign spokesman said. "We're still calculating."

Sources in Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign said the New York senator raised $20 million in March.

Impressive as the $40 million figure is, it is well below the $55 million Obama raised in February. Clinton, Obama's rival for the Democratic nomination, raised about $35 million in February.

Political analysts say this kind of fundraising power catches the attention of voters.

"They add to the so-called 'bandwagon effect' -- the sense that Obama is building, that he's going to be the nominee," said Stu Rothenberg of the Rothenberg Political Report.

With its March totals, the Obama campaign has raised approximately $234 million, which surpasses the Democratic record of $215 million that 2004 nominee Sen. John Kerry raised in that presidential primary season.

Obama is $25 million shy of President Bush's presidential primary fundraising record of $259 million, set in his uncontested campaign in 2004.

Obama raised $194 million through the end of February. Official fundraising tallies for March are due to the Federal Election Commission by April 20.

Clinton raised $156 million through the end of February.

The Clinton campaign said Thursday morning it would not release March figures until required to file its FEC report, two days before the critical Pennsylvania primary April 22.

But later, campaign sources provided the figures, which show March to be Clinton's second-highest fund-raising month for the campaign.

A Clinton spokesman downplayed the importance of Obama's fundraising total.

"We knew that he was going to out-raise us. He has out-raised us for the last several months," Howard Wolfson said after Obama's figures were released. "We will have the resources that we need to compete and be successful in the upcoming primary states."

Wolfson also said he expected Clinton's tax returns to be released soon.

Clinton pledged March 25 she would release her returns within a week.

Sen. John McCain, the expected Republican nominee, raised $11 million in February. He has not announced his March total.

Original here

Obama Trims Clinton's Lead in Pa.

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Sen. Barack Obama received endorsements Wednesday from a labor union and two Democratic superdelegates, as a poll showed he has cut Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania almost in half since mid-February as he strives to deny her a resounding victory in the state's presidential primary.

The Illinois senator peeled off an affiliate of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which has endorsed Clinton. The Philadelphia-based local of the National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees has about 16,000 members.

Its president, Henry Nicholas, announced the endorsement while introducing Obama at a meeting of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO in Philadelphia.

Nicholas, who also is president of the 150,000-member national union and an AFSCME international vice president, said he took the step "because justice told me it was the right position to take."

Meanwhile Wednesday, Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal and former Montana Sen. John Melcher both endorsed Obama. As superdelegates to the national convention, they are among the Democratic Party leaders who will decide the nomination, because although Obama leads Clinton in delegates neither one can win solely with pledged delegates awarded through primaries and caucuses. Obama handily won Wyoming's March 8 caucus; Montana holds a Democratic primary June 3.

Since last Friday, Obama has cut Clinton's lead among superdelegates by four; she has 250 to his 220.

Obama and Clinton campaigned Wednesday in Pennsylvania, whose presidential primary is April 22. A new poll showed Obama again eroding her lead here as he drew more support from men and young voters. The Clinton's 16-percentage-point lead in mid-February slid to 12 points in mid-March and now to nine points, according to the Quinnipiac University telephone poll, which ended March 31.

Clinton is well ahead of Obama among Pennsylvania's white voters, 59 percent to 34 percent, while Obama gets nearly three of four black votes. She is well ahead among women, while the two are even with men.

With both candidates wooing union members, displaced workers and anxious families, they quarreled again over which of them would oppose or modify trade deals such as the North America Free Trade Agreement. Some labor leaders blame NAFTA for sending U.S. jobs overseas, a claim that many economists dispute.

As many as 830,000 union voters are expected to have a strong say in how more than 4.1 million Democrats, a record registration for Pennsylvania, allocate the state's 158 delegates to the Democratic national convention.

Obama told the AFL-CIO gathering that he will oppose pacts that threaten U.S. jobs. His campaign scheduled a call with reporters Wednesday to underscore the role that Bill Clinton's presidency played in enacting NAFTA.

"What I refuse to accept is that we have to sign trade deals like the South Korea Agreement that are bad for American workers," Obama said.

He and Clinton have spent weeks arguing over which of them did or did not oppose NAFTA. The issue loomed large prior to March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas that Clinton won. Speaking to the same unions a day earlier, Clinton said as first lady she had forcefully battled the agreement, which her husband labored hard to win.

"I did speak out and oppose NAFTA," she said. "I raised a big yellow flag and said, 'I don't think this will work.'"

The National Archives recently released most of Clinton's daily schedules as first lady. They showed her attending at least five meetings in 1993 aimed at helping win congressional approval of NAFTA.

The Obama campaign says the meetings show Clinton is misrepresenting her record on NAFTA. It got some help Wednesday from Teamsters president James P. Hoffa, who is backing Obama.

"No one who was around in the time of NAFTA remembers her doing that," Hoffa, speaking to The Associated Press by phone, said of Clinton's claim that she argued against NAFTA in 1993. "Let's face it, she's tied to NAFTA no matter what she says."

At an economic summit in Pittsburgh organized Wednesday by her presidential campaign, the New York senator said she would eliminate tax breaks for companies that move jobs to other countries and use the savings to persuade companies to keep jobs in the U.S.

Clinton's plan would offer new tax benefits for research and job development. It would also create "innovation and research clusters" across the country and provide $500 million annually in investments to encourage the creation of high-wage jobs in clean energy.

Clinton called it her "insourcing agenda."

"We hear so much about outsourcing," she said. "We all know what that is. It's when we lose jobs to other countries. I want to put an end to it. We're going to change the tax code, we're going to change the giveaways to the special interests."

Clinton also broadcast a new TV ad in Pennsylvania explicitly challenging Republican John McCain's economic credentials. Echoing an ad she targeted earlier at Obama on national security, it begins with images of sleeping children while a narrator says a phone is ringing in the White House at 3 a.m. but this time the crisis is economic. As the phone rings on and on, the sleeping children are replaced by adults grimly reviewing bills during daylight hours. The narrator faults McCain's response to rising home foreclosures and teetering markets and says he'd just let the phone keep ringing as the ad ends with an image of Clinton answering a phone.

AFSCME endorsed Clinton in October, and president Gerald McEntee is considered one of her biggest supporters. AFSCME does not prohibit its locals from endorsing separately. Only two, Illinois AFSCME Council 31 — in Obama's home state — and Oregon AFSCME Council 75, had endorsed Obama before Wednesday.

"It's unfortunate that the Hospital and Health Care Employees Union/District 1199C has decided to ignore AFSCME's endorsement of Hillary Clinton, especially since there is such a clear difference between the candidates on health care," McEntee said.

Obama responded Wednesday to Clinton's comparison of herself a day earlier to Rocky Balboa, the underdog boxer from Philadelphia in the 1976 film. She said "when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up."

Obama told the union meeting: "We all love Rocky. But we've got to remember, Rocky was a movie."

Associated Press Writers Alan Fram, Jesse Holland, Charles Babington and Mead Gruver contributed to this report. Beth Fouhy reported from Pittsburgh.

Original here

Obama cannot win, Hillary Clinton allegedly told Bill Richardson

Bill Richardson, the New Mexico governor who amid much fanfare recently endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president, admitted at the time that his call to Sen. Hillary Clinton, disappointed with his allegiance about-face, was "heated."

What was actually said between Sen. Clinton and Richardson, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during the White House years of Sen. Clinton's husband, has been off the record. That is, until now.

ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos reports that Sen. Clinton insisted to Richardson, "[Obama] cannot win, Bill. He cannot win."

Stephanopoulos, himself a former Clinton administration official, said the details of the call were confirmed with "sources who have direct knowledge of the conversation," during which, he says, the New York senator "made the most stark argument you can make."

This video is from ABC's World News, broadcast April 2, 2008.

Original here

Look who's really calling Hillary Clinton at 3AM

Watch this video in lower quality for faster playback. Watch this video in higher quality.

Obama May Get Carter’s Support

Former President of the United States, Jimmy Carter has hinted that he might cast his vote for Senator Barack Obama to aid his emergence as the candidate for the Democrats in America’s bid to elect a new President.
Carter, who is a Super Delegate from Georgia State, gave this hint at a media interaction after the Carter Center Awards for Guinea Worm Eradication in Abuja yesterday.
Carter, who was accompanied by his wife Rosalynn, did not profess a direct support for Obama but rather choose to make a veiled statement.
“We are very interested in the primaries. Don’t forget that Obama won in my state of Georgia. My town which is home to 625 people is for Obama, my children and their spouses are pro- Obama.
My grandchildren are also pro- Obama. As a Super Delegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for but I leave you to make that guess," he said.

Original here

Clinton’s New Ad: One More Bell to Answer

PITTSBURGH — It’s 3 a.m. and that darn phone is ringing again.

This time, it’s an economic crisis, not a national security issue.

And the person who can’t deal with it is not Barack Obama, who in the prequel was unable to deal with the security issue, but John McCain.

Yes, it’s the new ad from Senator Hillary Clinton.

Here’s the key line from the script of the 30-second spot, which is running statewide in Pennsylvania.

“John McCain just said the government shouldn’t take any real action on the housing crisis, he’d let the phone keep ringing,” the announcer says. “Hillary Clinton has a plan to protect our homes, create jobs.”

The interesting thing, of course, is why the Clinton campaign, mired in a Democratic contest with Mr. Obama, is spending money to go after the presumptive Republican nominee. Could it be that the Clinton camp and the Obama camp have reached an understanding that further fire at each other will only damage the party? Is there a temporary cease-fire while they work out the status of delegates from Michigan and Florida?

In a relatively mild conference call with reporters, Clinton strategists focused on Mr. McCain. They seemed to overlook the contest with Mr. Obama and avoided taking their usual pot-shots at him. They said that the ad is meant to show that Mrs. Clinton is more prepared to improve the economy than Mr. McCain, which in turn bolsters her argument that she can win in November.

“We think Democratic primary voters will rally around her,” Mark Penn, her top strategist and pollster, said.

Howard Wolfson, her spokesman, took exception to a suggestion that the ad, which uses recycled images, was an attempt to save money, though he acknowledged that the Obama campaign was likely to outspend them at least three-to-one in Pennsylvania.

“That is patently ridiculous,” Mr. Wolfson said. “The idea is to build on an ad that was extremely successful, that people will remember and that will have resonance in the context of the 3 a.m. theme.”

Don’t rule out hearing that phone ring a third time.

In response, the McCain campaign did not take it seriously. Steven Schmidt, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain, said that the only call Mrs. Clinton would be taking at 3 a.m. was one telling her that she had lost another superdelegate.

Related: On Line: Clinton’s Persistence Could Help Obama

Update| 7:15 p.m. : John McCain is releasing a response ad.

Original here

Red-faced Clinton tirade stuns superdelegates behind closed doors

A private meeting between Bill Clinton and California superdelegates erupted when the former president was reminded of Bill Richardson's decision to endorse Barack Obama.

"It was like someone pulled the pin from a grenade," according to San Francisco Chronicle columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross.

"'Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that,' a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted," the two write in Wednesday's paper.

Clinton "was a far cry" from the "congenial former president" who told fellow delegates to "chill out" over the race between his wife and Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

"It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended," one superdelegate said.

According to those at the meeting, Clinton - who flew in from Chicago with bags under his eyes - was classic old Bill at first, charming and making small talk with the 15 or so delegates who gathered in a room behind the convention stage.
But as the group moved together for the perfunctory photo, Rachel Binah, a former Richardson delegate who now supports Hillary Clinton, told Bill how "sorry" she was to have heard former Clinton campaign manager James Carville call Richardson a "Judas" for backing Obama.

It was as if someone pulled the pin from a grenade.

"Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that," a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted.

The former president then went on a tirade that ran from the media's unfair treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of the votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama. It ended with him asking delegates to imagine what the reaction would be if Obama was trailing by just 1 percent and people were telling him to drop out.

"It was very, very intense," said one attendee. "Not at all like the Bill of earlier campaigns."

"It was kind of strange later when he took the stage and told everyone to 'chill out,' " one delegate told us.

"We couldn't help but think he was also talking to himself."

Original here

‘I Have a Dream’

On the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination, Michael Eric Dyson explains why the civil rights leader's words still matter, and how they're playing into the 2008 presidential race.

Jason DeCrow / AP

Still Relevant: Bernice King, daughter of Martin Luther King Jr., spoke during the Dream Concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City last year

Forty years ago this week American civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and killed on the second-floor balcony of a hotel in Memphis. He was just 39 years old. Just hours earlier King had concluded his final speech by saying, "I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight, that we as a people will get to the Promised Land."

Michael Eric Dyson, a Georgetown University sociology professor, Baptist minister and author of 16 books, uses the anniversary of King's assassination as a springboard for a candid and provocative discussion of the fate of black America in his new book, "April 4, 1968: How Dr. Martin Luther King's Death Changed America."

Dyson, who has also written biographies of Marvin Gaye and rapper Tupac Shakur and was named by Ebony as one of the 100 most influential black Americans, spoke with NEWSWEEK's Jamie Reno about the new book, King's enduring legacy, and whether the celebrated leader's dream for America has come true. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: How did this book came about?
Michael Eric Dyson: I knew the 40-year anniversary of Dr. King's death was approaching and wanted to weigh in on its meaning and significance for the American public. I wanted to take a look at how Dr. King's martyrdom has both elevated and distorted his message and track where we were in terms of progress.

So have black Americans made it to the Promised Land, as King hoped and predicted?
Not yet. Middle-class blacks are closer; they are enjoying the fruits of their labors and extraordinary access by virtue of hard work, but one-quarter of African-Americans are still mired in poverty and are closed out of the broader circle of American privilege.

If Dr. King were alive today and were asked to make another speech on race relations, what do you think he would choose as the theme and substance of his speech?
He would first acknowledge the enormous progress that has been made in this country by blacks. But he would also say what he said in the late 1960s, which is that the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act did not and still have not penetrated the lower depths of "negro deprivation," as he called it. He'd argue that the black poor continue to be poor, that economic struggles continue, and that poor black people continue to stand in need of advocacy.

Does King's message still resonate and influence in 2008?
Yes, in many ways. For example, Dr. King's legacy of racial justice and of transcending social and economic limitations of the past and moving forward toward a grand and majestic vision has been invoked by both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But the fact that King's message is being invoked by two presidential candidates 40 years after his death also reflects the failure of America to achieve these goals.

Some have called Senator Obama's recent speech on race the most important one on this topic since King's historic 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech. Is that a fair comparison?
These speeches were given in different times. It's like comparing Bill Russell to Michael Jordan. The stakes were much higher during King's time. Obama would be the first to recognize that his speech didn't carry as much weight and authority as Dr. King's historic oration on that legendary day in August. Still, it was a path-clearing, pioneering speech. Rarely has an America political figure, let alone a presidential candidate, been as eloquent or as honest as Obama was in that speech. It was a difficult thing to embrace his past and yet distance himself from some of the rhetoric of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, as well as educate white and black Americans about the nuances, complexities and difficulties of the race issue. It was an extraordinary speech.

Do you think it will have any sort of lasting impact on race relations in this country?
Yes. I believe it will be remembered as a benchmark and watershed moment. People will continue to refer to the speech, to its meaning. It will be an American document of significance than can and will help us.

What was your reaction to Sen. Hillary Clinton's comments in January that King needed Lyndon Johnson to get his civil rights work completed?
I think she was trying to counter the eloquent proclamations of Obama, who celebrated King as a gifted leader able to inspire. She was trying to tell us that it takes more than eloquence and great speaking, that a president must use the office as a bully pulpit to argue his or her case for black people. There's no denying that the Voting Rights Act, and before that the Civil Rights Act, would not have become law unless Johnson championed those pieces of legislation in Congress. But Dr. King created the conditions under which Johnson might act. King forced Johnson to act. They worked together. They forged connections and built coalitions.

Do you remember the day King was shot?
Yes. I was eight years old. My parents were very aware of him, but I hadn't yet heard of him. I was watching television with my father, and the TV news interrupted to announce that Martin Luther King Jr. had been shot. I was riveted by the report and was instantly converted and decided, beyond my conscious mind, to have a lifelong association with this man. He's the greatest American who ever lived, greater than Lincoln or Jefferson. They held official office, but King was a private citizen who became a spokesman for a group of American people who had been neglected and marginalized, and he leveraged that moral authority to make real change in this country.

What are you hearing from people across the country this week as you discuss your new book and King's legacy?
Some people can't believe it's been 40 years. Some wonder whether we are nearer to the Promised Land or stuck in a racial wilderness? Many people think we are far along the path of reconciliation and justice, while others believe we have a long, long way to go. This anniversary of Dr. King's death is a reminder of the nightmare aspect of the American dream, and it calls attention again to the vulnerable, the locked out.

What are some of the ways in which King's death changed America?
He gave us a language to express our aspirations. He reimagined a new America of black and white and brown and red, together. His death radically altered white America's perception of his life and convinced many to make a real commitment to racial justice. There would be no Barack Obama without King. There would be no Kenneth Chenault [CEO of American Express] without King. There would be no Michael Eric Dyson without King. The fact that I went to Princeton and got a Ph.D. and have taught at such wonderful universities as Georgetown, none of that would have happened without Martin Luther King Jr.

Original here

Karl Rove Likes What He Sees

With his new gig at Fox and a seven-figure political memoir in the works, Karl Rove has officially crossed over from shadowy 'Wizard of Oz' territory to somewhat approachable public personality. But as Lisa DePaulo finds out, that doesn't mean he's any less…pointed with his opinions

Photograph by Gillian Laub

i can see karl rove standing outside the restaurant, on the phone, yakking, pacing, occasionally peering at me through the etched-glass window and sticking a stubby finger in the air to indicate that he'll just be just one more minute. Eighteen minutes pass. He enters brusquely, with apologies and a crack about my "bright red purse" but also with the clear message that he is in control. Uncomfortable in this position, somewhat wary, constantly checking his watch ("Gotta go soon… Gotta go… Couple more minutes…"), not diggin' it, but always in control. Karl Rove is not a guy who kicks back with a drink—even coffee's a stretch ("I'm a decaf guy," he says)—and shoots the shit for a few hours. This isn't about a charm offensive—he gives the impression that he's not even sure why he's doing this. But: To be with Rove is to listen to a man who is utterly articulate and insightful and at the same time utterly…what's the word? Plain? Normal? Caucasian? If you didn't know he used to be Bush's Brain, if you didn't know he is widely credited/blamed with leading the Republican Party to an era of total world domination, if you didn't recognize him (as numerous gawkers inside the Muse hotel restaurant do) as the man W. famously dubbed "Turd Blossom," you'd think he was a middle-management sales lackey in town to sell Ginsu knives or something. The nondescript gray suit and overcoat, the geeky glasses and bald-on-the-top-with-peach-fuzz do, the briefcase (in middle school, he was the only kid with a briefcase, which pretty much sums it up). In what ways is he cool? We can't help but ask. "None," he says. "I am the antithesis of cool." We should also point out that Rove is exceedingly polite and well-mannered and, at moments, as prickly as the little cactuses on his tie. He has the demeanor of a man who had more power than he'll ever admit but is never really far from the 9-year-old who once got into a schoolyard fight over Richard Nixon, and lost. To a girl.

karl rove: Sorry to be late. I have a lunch with the Big Boss shortly.

gq: The Big Boss?
Mr. Murdoch.

Ah, that big boss. Does that mean you'll be getting more money out of Fox?
No, it doesn't.

Do you like being a TV analyst?
Uh, it's odd. You know, it's weird for me. But it's interesting.

Do you think Fox News is fair and balanced?
I do. I think they go out of their way to be fair and tough in questioning. I'm really impressed with the people I've gotten to know. Brit Hume is a very bright person; Chris Wallace has got a lot of integrity.

You also sold a book recently.
I did.

What'd ya get?
A lot.

And you're doing speeches, too, right? I read that you just gave one at Penn—
I like speaking to the college campuses.

And the first question, someone called you a cancer.
Right. Oh, sure.

You must get that all the time.
Uh, I get it some. When I go to campuses. But did you hear what I did? I just let him rant. And when he was finished, he had no question, he just wanted to accuse me of undermining the Constitution and blah-blah-blah-blah-blah. And I said, "Thanks for your thoughtful rant." And he sat down. And I said, "Now do you feel better about yourself?" And he said, "Yeah." And I said, "Well, I want you to feel better about yourself." And everybody laughed, and we went on.

But is it hard when people—
No. No. Look, everywhere I go, people say nice things to me. I don't live for that. I appreciate it, and I'm grateful for their kind words, but I don't live for it. And similarly, when people say ugly things? It doesn't affect me. They want their words to affect me. And as a result, I'm not gonna let 'em.

But when people say, "You've created this climate of fear—"
I laugh.

You laugh?
Yeah. I laugh. Sure. How? What, exactly? I'm not apologetic about what this administration has done. It's protecting America. It has won important battles in a war that we as a nation better win or we will leave the future to our kids, a much darker and dangerous future.

What's the biggest misconception about your role in the Bush White House?
That it was all about politics.

If that's the misconception, what's the overlooked truth?
Look, I'm a policy geek. What I've most enjoyed about my job was the substantive policy discussions. Being able to dig in deeply and, you know, learn about something, ask questions, listen to smart people, and form a judgment about something that was from a policy perspective.

When you look back at your career, especially in the Bush administration, what's the worst thing you did?
I'm not gonna be good at answering that.

But is there anything you feel guilty about? Or wish you did differently?
[exasperated laugh] Off the record?

No! Don't go off the record.
Off the record.

Okay, let's look back, to the very beginning of the Karl Rove story, when you got handed the keys [from Bush the father, to deliver to Bush the son] until now. And you look at where the president's approval ratings are today—
Yeah.

What did you do wrong?
Oh, look, I did a lot of things wrong. But the main thing is, we're fighting an important but unpopular war.

You still think it was the right thing to do?
Absolutely. Absolutely. And you know, one of our biggest mistakes was, the first time Harry Reid got up and said, "You lied and you deliberately misled the country," we should have gone back immediately and hit back hard, and we didn't. We let that story line develop. In reality, you go back and look at what Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore—I'd be happy to supply you the quotes—what they said about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction.

What are you most proud of?
Being part of a group of people I have a great deal of respect and admiration for in service of the country.

If you had to make a bet, can Hillary pull it off?
The odds are long, but improbable things have happened almost every month in this race. She wasn't supposed to win New Hampshire, and she did. So we'll see. You know, she's got a lot of strengths, and he does, too. We got two wellmatched opponents going at each other hammer and tongs. It's fun to watch.

If it's mathematically impossible for either of them to get enough delegates, how will this get resolved?
Somebody can get to a majority, but they're gonna have to get to a majority with superdelegates. Neither of them can win enough delegates to win it on just simply the elected delegates.

So if it comes down to superdelegates, doesn't that become a question of who can be more ruthless?
Well, you know, people will have to decide whether they're going to act as reflectors of the popular vote in their districts or states, or whether they're going to exercise independent judgment. I think this is the big dilemma the Democrats face: Are they going to choose a nominee who essentially is chosen, validated, by a minor aristocracy, by essentially an undemocratic group? Because, look. Does anybody think that Patrick Deval [sic], governor of Massachusetts, and Senator Ted Kennedy are gonna respect the wishes of their home-state crowd and go for Hillary Clinton, who won their state? No.

So how ugly is it gonna get?
Well, I—we don't know. We have geological ages that are gonna pass. It's not that ugly today. The wounds are fresh, but there's plenty of time for them to heal. The question is, will the wounds get deeper and more difficult to heal? We don't know. My gut tells me it happens, but I don't know.

If you could run one of their campaigns, which one would be the dream campaign to run?
Neither one.

Why?
Because I don't believe in what they say.

But just as a strategist, just to get in there and—
Yeah, well, see, for me it's not divorced from who they are and what they're all about and what they would do.

What did you think of the red-phone 3 a.m. ad?
It was a gutsy, dangerous move. She figured out that she had to do something to raise the issue of: Is he fit to be president? And this was a way to do it. I happened to be in Texas a week before the ad popped, and all of her surrogates were hitting him pretty hard on the thinness of his experience. They were pretty brutal. And this ad sort of fed into that.

Isn't that the kind of ad you would have done?
Uh, look, that's the problem. She can't run an ad—you know, the more powerful ads she can't run against him, because she's afraid of looking too moderate. He's got essentially… His argument is twofold. "Vote for me because I'll bring Republicans and Democrats together; we're not red states, blue states, we're the United States." And second of all—and he said this most passionately in the Wisconsin victory speech: "There are big issues facing the country, and it requires leadership and energy to solve them." Well, the two best counters to those are Hillary saying, "I've actually worked with Republicans and Democrats to get things done." Or McCain saying, even more pointedly, "On all the big issues where Republicans and Democrats have come together, I've been in the middle of bringing them together, and you've been way out there on the fringe. When we pulled together the Gang of Fourteen, you were out on the fringe. When we pulled together a bipartisan answer on the terrorist-surveillance program, you were way out there on the fringe. When Democrats and Republicans, regardless of where they were on the war, came together to give our troops everything they needed while they were in combat, you were way out there on the fringe." Now, she can do some of that, because she's actually tried to work with Republicans over the years. He has not since he got there. He's been coolly detached and sitting on the side. His fingerprints are on, at most, a couple of small items. And then, on the leadership issue, she can say, "Look, I've been in the middle of these big battles. I've been providing the leadership. Sometimes we won, sometimes we lost. But at least I've been involved." And McCain will be able to sharpen that even more.

It seems like you're talking about authenticity here. Are you saying Obama is inauthentic?
I'm saying that he has adopted two themes for his campaign that are not supported by his actions.

Do you think Obama would be easier to beat?
I try not to think about those things. Because that inevitably leads you to believe, I would like to have A or I would like to have B. You need to keep your mind open about both of them.

You've said—what was the phrase you used about Hillary? "Fatally flawed"?
Fatally flawed. I just thought her flaws would show up in the general election. I didn't know they'd show up as early and as strong as they have.

Which flaws?
Uh, calculating. You know, she went through the period where she had the calculated laugh, she went through the period where she had the calculated accents, and you build that on top of a person who already has the reputation that anything she says is calculating, you know…

Is calculating a terrible thing?
It is if people think it's phony. And that's what her problem is. That and the sense of entitlement. You know, the sense of "This is mine, I deserve it; we're the Clintons, this is ours." And I think that really caused a lot of people to say, "You know what? It's not yours." And do we really want to go back? The '90s were nice in a lot of respects, but do we really want to go back to all that drama?

There is something ironic about Karl Rove criticizing someone for being calculating.
Right. Look, it's one thing to calculate and say, "What's the best way for me to do this?" It's another thing to say, "What's the best way to do this, even if it means the sacrifice of my fundamental principles?" When she stood up there and said, "I'm in front of an African-American group in Alabama, so let me adopt a phony southern accent!" And when she sat there and said, "You know what? I need to warm myself up, so for the next weeklong period I'm gonna sit there and laugh and cackle at anything that is even remotely funny." You know, when both she and he, who are free traders by instinct, went to Ohio and said, "We're gonna renegotiate NAFTA," when they know that (a) there's no provision to renegotiate NAFTA, and (b) the Canadians and the Mexicans are not gonna want to renegotiate NAFTA, and (c) when both of them understand that trade liberalization, particularly with our neighbors, has been to our economic advantage, who are they kidding?

But when people call you calculating, do you take that as a compliment?
Look, what I'm charged with is, in politics, taking the material that I have to work with—which are the views and values, convictions and principles, of my candidate or client—and charting the best path to victory. That's different than saying, "How am I gonna take a fundamental belief or a reality of me as an individual and discard it?"

So there's good calculating and bad calculating?
Absolutely.

If Hillary pulls it out, will Mark Penn [her chief strategist] be considered a genius?
Mark Penn is a very smart guy regardless of whether or not she pulls it out. He's a very smart guy.

But don't you think there've been a lot of mistakes?
Sure. But if you have to lay them at the feet of one person, you lay them at the feet of the candidate. The candidate sets the tone.

Are you surprised at how Obama exploded?
You know, I want to be careful—I think we need to be careful about not getting carried away with a narrative that doesn't truly exist. Like the story this morning in The New York Times about "the Obamacans"—the Republicans who support Obama.

You don't buy that?
No. Do I buy that there are Republicans who support Obama? Sure, I do. But take a look at the last four polls on which there are cross tabs available. There are twice as many Democrats defecting to McCain as there are Republicans defecting to Obama. In the Fox poll, Obama takes 74 percent of Democrats and loses 18 to McCain. And McCain keeps 80 percent of Republicans and loses 10 to Obama. And in every one of the polls, it's nearly twice as many Democrats defect to McCain as Republicans defect to Obama. And against Clinton, it's three times as many. Know why? Well, there are a lot of different reasons why. There are Democrats, particularly blue-collar Democrats, who defect to McCain because they see McCain as a patriotic figure and they see Obama as an elitist who's looking down his nose at 'em. Which he is. That comment where he said, you know, "After 9/11, I didn't wear a flag lapel pin because true patriotism consists of speaking out on the issues, not wearing a flag lapel pin"? Well, to a lot of ordinary people, putting that flag lapel pin on is true patriotism. It's a statement of their patriotic love of the country. And for him to sit there and dismiss it as he did—

You're not wearing a flag pin, Karl.
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. But I respect those who consciously get up in the morning and put a flag lapel pin on.

Do you see the elitist thing in other ways?
Obama is coolly detached and very arrogant. I think he's very smart and knows he's smart, but as a result doesn't do his homework.

So the Dems have two rattled candidates?
Right. Now, you got one candidate who's got an appeal to the blue-collar Democrats: Clinton. I call them the beer drinkers. And then you got the white-wine crowd, which Obama appeals to. There's a brilliant article by Ron Brownstein in the latest issue of National Journal in which he charts the change in the nature of the Democrat-primary vote, and it's becoming younger, more affluent, and more liberal. And that means that blue-collar Democrats, whatever's left of them, are on their way out of the Democratic Party.

What do you make of this whole thing where Hillary was talking him up as a vice president and he came back saying, "Wait a minute, I'm winning—why are you asking me to be your number two?"
Very calculating on the part of the Clintons, and a mistake for him on his part.

Why?
Because they wanted him to get down to their level. They want him to look like, you know, not the golden inspiring figure but instead, you know, like an average ordinary pol who's got three years in the United States Senate. So they lay it out there. And rather than having it be dismissed by a surrogate, instead he goes out there! And rather than having an inspiring, forward-looking message, instead he's out there as an ordinary pol saying, "Hey, I'm number one, I'm in first place! I won more states than she did. I won more delegates than she did. What the hell's she doing offering it to me? That's insulting." And he did it in an arrogant way that I don't think made him look that good.

So you don't think his response played well?
No. Take a look at the footage. Turn the sound off and look at it. You can tell that he is arrogant, and you can tell that he's a little bit angry, and you can tell he's very dismissive. He takes his hands and he sort of, you know, waves his hand like, "I'm dismissing something." That was the moment to say, you know, "Look, I know what my opponents are saying, but you know what? I'm focused on one thing and one thing only, which is to help bring Republicans and Democrats and independents together to move America forward." Instead of "Hey, lemme just remind you, I'm winning! I'm beatin' her!"

So he took the bait?
He took the bait.

Have you gotten to know Hillary or Barack to any degree?
Yes, I have.

What have been your dealings with them?
Well, you know, I used to have her office at the White House. And I got to know [Obama] because we have a mutual friend, Ken Mehlman, who was his law-school classmate at Harvard. And so as a result, whenever in the last three years he's been around at the White House, I've gotten to see him, and we sort of would hang around and chitchat about things. I'm actually in his book. He wrote that "people like Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Ralph Reed, and Karl Rove say we are a Christian nation." And I did not say that. I confronted him about it. At the White House.

And what did he say?
Well, first he denied that I was in the book! And then he denied that it said that I said that it was a Christian nation. And then when I pulled out the thing [he had a copy of the offensive page with him] and showed it to him, he sort of blah-blah-blah-blah-blah- blah-blah. And I thought, That's who he is. I mean, look, he may claim that he's for a different kind of politics, but that was a cheap shot. And I'm not certain if any of the four said it either. But it was like, you know, Let's just strap it in there and see if it goes someplace. Another example: Him saying, "We honor John McCain for his fifty years of service" was a cheap shot. He was going out of his way to say John McCain's old.

Is John McCain too old?
No.

Do you think Obama's gotten a free ride from the press?
Yes.

How so?
I don't think they hold him to the same standards. You know, look, his Web site is full of all kinds of proposals written by academics galore. But he's not required to defend them. He's not required to explain what it is he wants to do. Now I think that's changing. I think, when you have an editorial in USA Today that says, in essence, Where's the beef, what's the substance? When reporters start asking him tough questions about his relationship with Tony Rezko—you know, what was the value of the lot? What was the price that you paid? How many fund-raisers did he do for you? How much money did he raise at those fund-raisers? When they start asking him those questions, then it starts to change. I mean, the kind of questions that have been routinely asked of other candidates—about their background and associations and involvements—have only recently begun to be asked of him.

I get the sense you respect Hillary more than you respect Obama.
Off the record?

Please don't go off the record.
Off the record… [Yeah, it's good. Sorry.]

Damn! Now say that on the record.
No. Nope. Nope. Nope.

Let's try again, then: on the record. I get the sense you respect her more than him.
Uh, I know her better than I know him. And I just, uh—she has been around public life a lot longer and has demonstrated, you know, more involvement than he has.

Let's talk about Bill. You've gotten to know him better, right?
Yeah.

What do you think of him now?
He's a very entertaining rogue. He's a larger-than-life character. You can't help but sort of like him. But boy, he has made some missteps in this campaign.

Yeah, what's up with that? He's supposed to be this political genius. What's going on?
He's all wrapped up in it. He's lost his detachment. Sometimes you can be more detached about yourself than you can be about members of your family. He's all revved up about her and making mistakes.

Do you buy any of the pop psychology that there's a part of him that's sabotaging her?
I—I—that is way beyond. I have never… I don't have a couch that anybody could sit down on, and… I don't know, I don't know.

But you were surprised to see how he handled the South Carolina thing?
Well, it may have been calculated, I don't know. Maybe they made a calculated decision that, Hey, we need to send a message that all he can do is win states with African-American voters. But I don't think it played—even among Democrats.

Recently, in a meeting with some people from the Republican National Committee, you said, "Do not use 'Barack Hussein Obama.' "
Right, right. Um, in politics—

Is that because it's not right?
It's wrong. But not only that, it's counterproductive. In politics, there are arguments that are seen as not factual and not fair, or trivial, and they blow up in your face. And this is one that people look at and say, "You're trying to imply something about him that's not true. I think you're going a bridge too far, and I'm reacting negatively." I mean, he didn't pick his middle name, somebody else did. And he doesn't go out of his way, like Hillary Rodham Clinton to, you know, emphasize it.

You probably never thought, eight years ago, that John McCain would be the nominee.
You know what? In politics, second acts are either really bad or really good. And so the question was gonna be, Who might want to succeed Bush? McCain was always a possibility. He's always harbored a desire.

What do you think of him now?
I like him. We bonded in the '04 campaign.

Do you have to hold your nose to vote for him?
No, no, not at all. I enthusiastically voted for him. I just sent in my absentee ballot [in Texas], and I gave him $2,300.

So what's your life like now, Karl? Are you based in Washington still?
We're splitting our time between Washington and a place we have in the panhandle in Florida. And a little place in Texas. We're looking to be in Texas more permanently starting this fall. We've enjoyed Washington, but look, I don't wanna be like… I got a guy, lives around the corner from us in Washington, who had a prominent role for six months in the Reagan administration, and he's still living off of it twenty-some-odd years later. I don't intend to do that.

What do you intend to do?
I'm trying to figure that out. I've got a couple years between the book and the speeches and Fox and my Newsweek column and my writing for the Wall Street Journal and some things I'm doing in politics under the radar.

What do you do for kicks?
I read and go hunting. And travel with my wife.

Tell us about your wife.
She's a terrific, courageous person.

Is it hard being married to you?
Uh, I don't think it's hard being married to me. I think it's hard being married in public with me.

Let's talk about the last couple of scandals you've been involved in. Don Siegelman in Alabama [the Democratic governor whom Rove was recently accused of trying to sabotage by forcing U.S. attorneys to bring corruption charges against him prior to an election]. What happened?
[rolls his eyes] Will you do me a favor and go on Power Line and Google "Dana Jill Simpson" [the Republican lawyer who told 60 Minutes that Rove asked her to take a picture of Governor Siegelman cheating on his wife]? She's a complete lunatic. I've never met this woman. This woman was not involved in any campaign in which I was involved. I have yet to find anybody who knows her. And what the media has done on this… No one has read the 143-page deposition that she gave congressional investigators—143 pages. When she shows up to give her explanation of all this, do you know how many times my name appears? Zero times. Nobody checked!

Then how did this happen?
Because CBS is a shoddy operation. They said, "Hey, if we can say 'Karl Rove,' 'Siegelman,' that'll be good for ratings. Let's hype it. We'll put out a news release on Thursday and then promo the hell out of it on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday." And Scott Pelley—the question is, Did [60 Minutes correspondent] Scott Pelley say to this woman, "You say you met with him. Where? And you say that he gave you other assignments earlier. When did he begin giving you assignments, and what campaigns did you work with him in? What evidence? I mean, this woman, she said she met with him: Okay, you met with him—where? Did you fly to Washington?" Now she says that she talked to me on the phone and she's got phone records. Of calls to Washington and Virginia. But what's Virginia? I don't live in Virginia. And it's 2001. What is in Virginia? It's not the Bush headquarters; that was in Austin, Texas. What is in Virginia? So—but look, she's a loon.

What about the U.S. attorneys? Should you have had a role in hiring and firing?
[a little peeved now] What was my role in firing those U.S. attorneys?

Your position has been—and tell me if I have this wrong—that you basically relayed complaints?
To the counsel's office. Correct.

And that was an appropriate thing to do?
Oh sure. Sure it is. Sure it is.

What's your relationship with the president now?
Good. Really good.

Do you talk a lot?
Yeah.

Did you know that Laura called you Pigpen?
Yeah. [laughs] Laura Bush intimidates me. All the Bushes—well, most of the Bush men marry incredibly strong women, and they all intimidate me. Barbara Bush I've lived in fear of for thirty-seven years.

What's your goal with this book? You intend to set the record straight, as you see it?
Absolutely, absolutely. Sure. You bet. I intend to set the record straight.

I imagine you're going to have a lot to say.
Yeah, exactly. Available soon for $29.95…. I gotta go! I gotta go!

Wait, quickly: Do you believe Roger Clemens?
Um, yes, I do.

If he gets nailed on perjury charges, is that the kind of guy Bush might pardon?
I'm sorry?

Do you think if he got nailed, that would be the type of person Bush would pardon?
I'm not gonna answer that. I mean, he's done nothing wrong.

Should Scooter Libby be pardoned?
I'm not gonna answer that. Just not. Just not. But thanks for asking.

lisa depaulo is a GQ correspondent.

Original here

Factor military duty into criticism

In 1961, a young African-American man, after hearing President John F. Kennedy's challenge to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," gave up his student deferment, left college in Virginia and voluntarily joined the Marines.

In 1963, this man, having completed his two years of service in the Marines, volunteered again to become a Navy corpsman. (They provide medical assistance to the Marines as well as to Navy personnel.)

The man did so well in corpsman school that he was the valedictorian and became a cardiopulmonary technician. Not surprisingly, he was assigned to the Navy's premier medical facility, Bethesda Naval Hospital, as a member of the commander in chief's medical team, and helped care for President Lyndon B. Johnson after his 1966 surgery. For his service on the team, which he left in 1967, the White House awarded him three letters of commendation.

What is even more remarkable is that this man entered the Marines and Navy not many years after the two branches began to become integrated.

While this young man was serving six years on active duty, Vice President Dick Cheney, who was born the same year as the Marine/sailor, received five deferments, four for being an undergraduate and graduate student and one for being a prospective father. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both five years younger than the African-American youth, used their student deferments to stay in college until 1968. Both then avoided going on active duty through family connections.

Who is the real patriot? The young man who interrupted his studies to serve his country for six years or our three political leaders who beat the system? Are the patriots the people who actually sacrifice something or those who merely talk about their love of the country?

After leaving the service of his country, the young African-American finished his final year of college, entered the seminary, was ordained as a minister, and eventually became pastor of a large church in one of America's biggest cities.

This man is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the retiring pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, who has been in the news for comments he made over the last three decades.

Since these comments became public we have heard criticisms, condemnations, denouncements and rejections of his comments and him.

We've seen on television, in a seemingly endless loop, sound bites of a select few of Rev. Wright's many sermons.





Some of the Wright's comments are inexcusable and inappropriate and should be condemned, but in calling him "unpatriotic," let us not forget that this is a man who gave up six of the most productive years of his life to serve his country.

How many of Wright's detractors, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly to name but a few, volunteered for service, and did so under the often tumultuous circumstances of a newly integrated armed forces and a society in the midst of a civil rights struggle? Not many.

While words do count, so do actions.

Let us not forget that, for whatever Rev. Wright may have said over the last 30 years, he has demonstrated his patriotism.

Lawrence Korb and Ian Moss are, respectively, Navy and Marine Corps veterans. They work at The Center For American Progress. Korb served as assistant secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration.

Original here

Court Rules Federal Reserve is Privately Owned

Below are excerpts from a court case proving the Federal Reserve system's status. As you will see, the court ruled that the Federal Reserve Banks are "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations", and there is not sufficient "federal government control over 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operation'" of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency:

Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)

John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
United States of America, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 80-5905
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 2, 1982.
Decided April 19, 1982.
As Amended June 24, 1982.

Plaintiff, who was injured by vehicle owned and operated by a federal reserve bank, brought action alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, David W. Williams, J., dismissed holding that federal reserve bank was not a federal agency within meaning of Act and that the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Poole, Circuit Judge, held that federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Affirmed.

1. United States

There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act, but critical factor is existence of federal government control over "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of an entity. . . .

2. United States

Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of a Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations in light of fact that direct supervision and control of each bank is exercised by board of directors, federal reserve banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks, banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations nor as "mixed ownership" corporations; federal reserve banks receive no appropriated funds from Congress and the banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own names. . . .

3. United States

Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when a tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Bank, which performs important activities for the government. . . .

4. Taxation

The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation.

5. States Taxation

Tests for determining whether an entity is federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, is very broad: whether entity performs important governmental function.

--------------

Lafayette L. Blair, Compton, Cal., for plaintiff/appellant.

James R. Sullivan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for defendant/appellee; Andrea Sheridan Ordin, U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., on brief.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before Poole and Boochever, Circuit Judges, and Soloman, District Judge. (The Honorable Gus J. Solomon, Senior District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation)

Poole, Circuit Judge:

On July 27, 1979, appellant John Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Lewis brought this action in district court alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Clains Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1346(b). The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

In enacting the Federal Tort Claims Act, Congress provided a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts of federal employees. . . . Specifically, the Act creates liability for injuries "caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of an employee of any federal agency acting within the scope of his office or employment. . . . "Federal agency" is defined as:

     the executive departments, the military departments, independent
    establishments of the United States, and corporations acting
    primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not
    include any contractors with the United States.

28 U.S.C. Sect. 2671. The liability of the United States for the negligence of a Federal Reserve Bank employee depends, therefore, on whether the Bank is a federal agency under Sect. 2671.

[1,2] There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of that entity. . . . Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . ., whether the government is involved in the entity's finances. . . ., and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States, . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activites include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 341-361.

Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activites without day to day direction from the federal government. Thus, for example, the interest rates on advances to member banks, individuals, partnerships, and corporations are set by each Reserve Bank and their decisions regarding the purchase and sale of securities are likewise independently made.

It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks:

     It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over
    the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when
    necessary to do so, but that it shall in no way attempt to carry on
    through its own mechanism the routine operations and banking which
    require detailed knowledge of local and individual credit and which
    determine the funds of the community in any given instance.  In other
    words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the
    exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to
    individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of
    routine.

H.R. Report No. 69 Cong. 1st Sess. 18-19 (1913).

The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency's day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency's employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees travelling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services.

The Banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 856, a factor considered is Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare. But because Congress' control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation under 31 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental, independent entity, not covered under the Act.

Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. . . .

Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims. In the past, the Banks have defended against tort claims directly, through private counsel, not government attorneys . . ., and they have never been required to settle tort claims under the administrative procedure of 28 U.S.C. Sect. 2672. The waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Act would therefore appear to be inapposite to the Banks who have not historically claimed or received general immunity from judicial process.

[3] The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes. In United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1982), this court held that a Federal Reserve Bank employee who was responsible for recommending expenditure of federal funds was a "public official" under the Federal Bribery Statute. That statute broadly defines public official to include any person acting "for or on behalf of the Government." . . . The test for determining status as a public official turns on whether there is "substantial federal involvement" in the defendant's activities. United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d at 754. In contrast, under the FTCA, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when the tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Banks, which perform important activities for the government.

[4, 5] The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation. . . . The test for determining whether an entity is a federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, however, is very broad: whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . . . The Reserve Banks, which further the nation's fiscal policy, clearly perform an important governmental function.

Performance of an important governmental function, however, is but a single factor and not determinative in tort claims actions. . . . State taxation has traditionally been viewed as a greater obstacle to an entity's ability to perform federal functions than exposure to judicial process; therefore tax immunity is liberally applied. . . . Federal tort liability, however, is based on traditional agency principles and thus depends upon the principal's ability to control the actions of his agent, and not simply upon whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . . .

Brinks Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F.Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. Sect. 351. Citing Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the court applied the "important governmental function" test and concluded that the term "Federal Government" in the Service Contract Act must be "liberally construed to effectuate the Act's humanitarian purpose of providing minimum wage and fringe benefit protection to individuals performing contracts with the federal government." Id. 288 Mich. at 120, 284 N.W.2d 667.

Such a liberal construction of the term "federal agency" for purposes of the Act is unwarranted. Unlike in Brinks, plaintiffs are not without a forum in which to seek a remedy, for they may bring an appropriate state tort claim directly against the Bank; and if successful, their prospects of recovery are bright since the institutions are both highly solvent and amply insured.

For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgement of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

---

It is clear from this that in some circumstances, the Federal Reserve Bank can be considered a government "instrumentality", but cannot be considered a "federal agency", because the term carries with it the assumption that the federal government has direct oversight over what the Fed does. Of course it does not, because most people who know about this subject know that the Fed is "politically independent."

The only area where one might disagree with the judge's decision is where he states that the Fed furthers the federal government's fiscal policy, and therefore performs an important governmental function. While we would like to think that the federal government and the Fed work cooperatively with each other, and they may on occasion, the Fed is by no means required to do so. One example is where Rep. Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking Committee, said in the Congressional Record back in the '60s, that depending on the temperament of the Fed's Chairman, sometimes the Fed worked with the government's fiscal policy, and other times either went in the complete opposite direction, or threatens to do so in order to influence policy.

The common claim that the Fed is accountable to the government, because it is required to report to Congress on its activities annually, is incorrect. The reports to Congress mean little unless what the Chairman reports can be verified by complete records. From its founding to this day, the Fed has never undergone a complete independent audit. Congress time after time has requested that the Fed voluntarily submit to a complete audit, and every time, it refuses.

Those in the know about the Fed, realize that it does keep certain records secret. The soon-to-be-former Chairman of the House Banking Committee, Henry Gonzales, has spoken on record repeatedly about how the Fed at one point says it does not have certain requested records, and then it is found through investigation that it in fact does have those records, or at least used to. It would appear that the Fed Chairman can say anything he wants to to Congress, and they'll have to accept what he says, because verification of what he says is not always possible.

Original here

Male rock fans likely to vote Republican: survey

Reuters Photo: Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain (R-AZ) delivers remarks at the U.S. Naval Academy in...

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - If you are male and a Led Zeppelin fan, chances are you may be leaning toward voting Republican in the U.S. presidential election, according to a survey of rock radio fans released on Wednesday

The Jacobs Media's Media/Technology Web Poll IV of more than 27,000 respondents cited stronger than expected interest in the November 2008 election among fans of rock, classic rock, and alternative radio stations.

It also found that John McCain, the Republican candidate for U.S. president, was the top pick for the Oval Office for men and classic rock partisans -- those people who tune in to stations playing music from the "original classic rock era" of 1964 to 1975, comprised of bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who and Pink Floyd.

Jacobs Media said the survey, conducted among 69 U.S. rock-formatted stations in markets as diverse as Los Angeles and Knoxville to Buffalo, found 84 percent of the respondents planned to vote in the November election.

"People are clearly engaged by this election, even rockers. A lot of stations tend to shy away from politics because it's so polarizing, but this data suggests they'd better find a way to talk about politics this fall to keep listeners interested," said Fred Jacobs, president of Jacobs Media. He said the company threw the political questions in as an afterthought and was surprised by the results.

The survey was conducted in late February and early March.

About 30 percent of the respondents called themselves Democrats, while nearly 22 percent described their politics as Republican and 21 percent declared they were independents.

About 26 percent of the respondents either named a different party, preferred not to answer, or refused to categorize themselves.

The survey found women and fans of alternative radio, featuring '80s and '90s rock, tend to be Democratic, while men and classic rockers lean Republican.

Asked about their overall presidential preference, Democrat Barack Obama led the pack with 26 percent support among those planning on voting in the November election.

McCain ranked second with 22 percent and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton drew 18 percent.

There were also a fair share of write-in votes. Mickey Mouse ranked as the top presidential choice of 11 respondents, and singer Ted Nugent was written in by three members of the Rock sample.

(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

Original here

Grilling Petraeus

Washington Dispatch: We asked a dozen national security experts what Congress should ask the top military commander in Iraq at next week's hearings. Here's what they came up with.

It's time for what's become a semiannual ritual: General David Petraeus comes to Capitol Hill. Last September, the top military commander in Iraq testified before several House and Senate committees in what was widely depicted as a make-or-break moment for the Bush administration and its war in Iraq. Wielding charts and graphs, Petraeus, who was accompanied by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, claimed that the so-called surge of U.S. troops in Iraq was working and that "it is possible to achieve our objectives in Iraq over time." Such an outcome, he added, "will require a long-term effort." The questions he received from the legislators were mostly softballs. (Neither senators Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama were impressive when questioning Petraeus.) But when Republican Senator John Warner asked Petraeus if the Iraq War "makes America safer," the general replied, "I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted [it] out in my own mind." War critics zeroed in on that comment, yet Petraeus' performance was generally deemed a success, in that it appeared to have created political space (in the United States) for the war—six month's of space, at least. Petraeus told Congress that a decision on reducing the level of troops should be put off until March 2008 and that in half a year he would report back to Congress.

His return is scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, when he will testify before the armed services and foreign affairs committees of the Senate and the House. In recent weeks, the purported success of the surge strategy has been called into question, due to the rise of sectarian fighting with the Mahdi militia of Moqtada al-Sadr (an army also known as JAM) clashing with the Iraqi military. Before those battles occurred, Petraeus himself noted that the overall decline in violence (which in late 2007 dipped to 2005 levels) had not been accompanied by success on the political front: "No one feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation." And on Tuesday, senior Army and Marines Corps leaders told Congress that the surge of troops in Iraq has placed unsustainable stress on the U.S. military and rendered it less able to handle other conflicts. Yet Petraeus is not expected to provide Congress with testimony that will inconvenience the Bush administration or undermine its arguments for staying the course in Iraq. And there's no telling if members of Congress—including Democrats—will give Petraeus a more thorough grilling than he received in September, given that most members of Congress appear to have concluded that the House and the Senate cannot do much to slow or reverse Bush's war in Iraq.

So I asked various national security experts to provide questions that they would like to see posed to Petraeus. Here's what they want to know.

Andrew Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University:

—Many credit the "surge" with reducing the level of violence in Iraq. Yet violence continues and over the past several months has leveled out. How will you reduce violence to levels that are acceptable? What is the definition of "acceptable" in this context?

—You have written of counterinsurgency as an enterprise that typically takes 10 to 12 years to complete. Where do we stand today on that timeline? The war is now more than five years old. Are we halfway to accomplishing our mission? Or did the 10-to-12-year "clock" only begin when you took command and began to implement the army's revised counterinsurgency doctrine?

Larry Johnson, former CIA and State Department intelligence official:

—How many Iraqi army divisions are capable of conducting unilateral operations?

—Of those units, what is their ethnic (i.e. tribal) and sectarian composition? In other words, do we have mixed Sunni-Shiite units, or are we creating glorified tribal militias?

—Given that groups headed by people such as Abdul Aziz al-Hakim [leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq] are very closely tied to Iran and considered allies of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, what is the evidence that Iran is trying to destabilize a government filled by people who are sympathetic to Tehran?

Wayne White, head of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team 2003 to 2005 and an adviser to the Iraq Study Group:

—Regarding the JAM-related debacle in March, could the pitter-patter of relatively limited U.S. (and Iraqi government) attacks against some of Sadr's leaders and JAM cadres during a period in which so many of them were observing a ceasefire not only have had little impact on the JAM's overall capabilities, but also have constituted a provocation that increased the level of militancy (even a desire for revenge) among many of its fighters? Did this expand the JAM's popular base?

—With Hakim seemingly playing ball with Washington, Maliki doing likewise, and the Concerned Local Citizens [program] taking most Sunni Arab insurgents off the playing field, have many Shiites come to regard Sadr's organization as the only nationalist and anti-American force left standing? If so, what can—or should—be done about that?

Juan Cole, professor of history at University of Michigan:

—General Petraeus, you have done what you can do militarily. It’s unclear that more can be done on that front, and yet there is still a fair amount of violence. The question is, what now? This is not facetious.

Sam Gardiner, retired Air Force colonel and expert on military strategy:

—Why did Iran help broker the cease-fire with the Mahdi Army?

A research professor at a military institute who asked not to be named:

—The Sunni Muslim Awakening groups now have between 80,000 and 100,000 members, according to press reports. These groups are slated to be reduced to 20,000 or 25,000 as the crisis in western Iraq becomes more manageable. What is the likelihood that these groups will accept a 75 percent demobilization even if noncombat jobs are found for them? Is it possible that they will see a pressing need to remain under arms to protect their home communities from a Shiite-dominated government? What would be the consequences if these groups remain in existence at the current level? If they are a short-term solution to the Al Qaeda in Iraq problem, might they also be a long-term building block for an Iraqi civil war?

—There is considerable fear that a residual Al Qaeda presence in western Iraq would lead to a terrorism campaign against neighboring countries. Yet when Al Qaeda mounted the November 2005 Jordanian hotel bombings, this led to a massive backlash and collapse of already limited Jordanian and Palestinian public sympathy for Al Qaeda, according to all relevant polling. Does this situation suggest that the danger of terrorism against other regional states is not as great as originally believed since it can lead to counterproductive results for Al Qaeda?

David Isenberg, military affairs analyst and adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute:

—What role do you see for both private military and security contractors in Iraq in the future?

—The surge was supposed to provide space for political reconciliation. What does the recent fighting in Basra and Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq say about the supposed success of the surge?

—What are the likely average monthly costs for the Iraq war? Will they reach a predicted peak level of $12 billion a month?

—Would you advocate a long-term presence of U.S. troops in Iraq? If so, under which of the following scenarios? A combat scenario: approximately 55,000 military personnel in Iraq, operating at the same pace and conducting the same types of missions as the forces currently deployed there? Or a noncombat scenario: approximately 55,000 military personnel indefinitely stationed there in a manner similar to the current practice in Korea or Germany, with the troops rarely, if ever, engaged in combat operations?

A former intelligence analyst who handled Middle Eastern issues for years and who asked not to be identified by name:

—What is your candid assessment of the chances that the Maliki-led regime can survive without Sadr's backing and having failed to convince both the U.S. and Iran that it has the capability to govern?

—What do you make of Sadr's cease-fires? And are the positive remarks you and other Americans have made whenever Sadr shows signs of cooperating truly justified?

—What does the most recent Iranian intervention—the commandant of the al-Qods Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard intervening and getting Sadr to sign another cease-fire—say about Iran's role in Iraq and its ability to orchestrate events?

—How do you assess the military capabilities of the Iraqi forces used in the Basra campaign? Who were they, and are the stories of defections of these troops to the other side true?

Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell:

—As a military man with some strategic acumen, you must realize how badly positioned the U.S. military is to protect and secure America's fundamental strategic interests in the Middle East, interests such as the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, the security of Israel, relationships with Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Cooperation Council [of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates], and the real fight against Al Qaeda, which is largely in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan, not Iraq. How much concern does this malpositioning risk give you? And how swiftly do you believe the U.S. must move to correct it?

—Clearly, the U.S. destroyed the old balance of power in the Persian Gulf when it invaded Iraq, so that now the U.S. presence in Iraq sits, as it were, upon the scales, balancing Iran. Since it is inevitable that the U.S. presence in Iraq will be diminished over time, how would you reestablish the balance of power in the wake of that diminishment? —

Gordon Adams, professor of U.S. Foreign Policy at the School of International Service, American University:

—Why do you and the administration continue to plan policy as if we have any leverage in Iraq? Don't American forces have precious little to do with the "frozen" character of the conflict? Sunni peace is dependent on the sheikhs, not us; Shiite peace is in question because of the decisions of militia we have little influence over; and Baghdad has already purged its mixed neighborhoods, which has solidified the barriers between hostile neighbors. A dysfunctional government we prop up has virtually no impact on the country's security or economy outside Baghdad, and 70 percent of the people want us to leave. It seems the U.S. is completely unable to influence the fundamentals of the situation. So why should anyone assume that more or fewer U.S. troops are the key factor in Iraq's future?

Retired Colonel W. Patrick Lang Jr., former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency's human intelligence service:

—Why has Colonel H.R. McMaster not been promoted to brigadier general? McMaster is arguably the most successful officer of the war. His command of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment at Tal Afar was brilliant. But he was not promoted, while the usual conformist dullards rise to the top. The failure to promote McMaster shows the Army has learned little from Iraq. After all, you were president of the promotion board that should have promoted McMaster.

—Why did the Iraqis go to Qom for mediation of the recent crisis at Basra?

A former Army colonel and planner who asked not to be identified:

—In Field Manual 3-24, Counterinsurgency, you wrote that forces that learn counterinsurgency effectively have regularly challenged their assumptions, both informally and formally. What assumptions did you make in the course of planning for surge and postsurge operations and how have you challenged them?

—You wrote that long-term success in counterinsurgency depends on the people taking charge of their own affairs and the government eliminating as many causes of the insurgency as feasible. So then how are the latest Iraqi government operations in Basra and Baghdad—which target Sadr's competing militia, which is associated with a political party—eliminating the causes of an insurgency, especially when you've said that Al Qaeda in Iraq is enemy No. 1? If the Baghdad government has to use force against a competing power center, isn't this evidence of a nascent civil war?

—In Rick Atkinson's account of the invasion of Iraq, In the Company of Soldiers, you are depicted as constantly asking Atkinson, "Tell me how this ends." After five years of war, do you have any better idea of how this all ends?

Original here