Hillary Clinton's chief strategist is quickly developing a reputation as the greatest comedian on the campaign trail. The latest: Obama must win Ohio and Texas, according a recent Penn memo.

“Obama Must-Wins.”

“If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there's a problem,” Penn writes. And not only does he have to win, they have to be “decisive,” according to the memo.

“Should Senator Obama fail to score decisive victories with all of the resources and effort he is bringing to bear, the message will be clear.”

When they write the obituary for Hillary Clinton's campaign, they'll say it was death by a thousand little memos from Mark Penn.

For the past six years, one of John McCain's stop legislative goals has been blocking a huge aerial tanker contract won by by Boeing in late 2001.

McCain says he opposed the contract -- then valued at $26 billion -- because it was awarded without fair competition. He has a point -- one of the official involved the deal later plead guilty to corruption charges.

But instead of being satisfied with cleaning up the process, McCain continued to press the attack against Boeing, hoping to deny the company a victory when the contract was again put up for bidding.

Yesterday, McCain finally won. The Air Force awarded the contract -- now worth $40 billion -- to Northrup Grumman and Airbus.

The tankers themselves will be built in France and shipped to Alabama for final assembly.

So the net result of one of John McCain's proudest moments is that an defense contract crucial to the economic welfare of the United States is now going overseas and will help the French economy more than the American economy.

And during the delay of the past six years, the Air Force has continued to use decades-old refueling tankers.

Good work, John.

As you might know, Pastor John Hagee, a radical cleric who founded the Christian Zionist movement, recently endorsed John McCain's presidential campaign -- an endorsement McCain fought for, and proudly welcomed.

Hagee is a frightening man and in the minds of most reasonable Americans, McCain's personal acceptance of Hagee's endorsement is appalling.

Aside from the fact that Hagee is just plain crazy, he is bigoted against Jews and Catholics. (Not to mention Muslims...or, dare I say it, atheists.)

Hagee says antisemitism is the Jews' fault:

It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God's chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day.

He also calls the Catholic Church "the great whore of Revelations 17" and says Catholics are responsible for the Holocaust.

In the last couple weeks, Hillary Clinton seems to have tested out just about every line of attack that John McCain will offer in November.

Today, her chief flack Howard Wolfson whipped himself up into a frenzy over Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko, which is admittedly offers nothing for Obama to brag about.

Wolfson whined that the media has unfairly ignored the relationship, but part that's not entirely true.

Part of the reason for that is that nobody, not even Hillary Clinton, ties Rezko to Obama's presidential campaign or suggests he influenced any aspect of Obama's Senate career.

In that sense, it is completely unlike McCain's membership in the Keating Five or Bill Clinton's relationship with Frank Giustra which would pose a real conflict of interest if he were to return to the White House.

In fact, Wolfson's self-flagellation is quite ironic today of all days: Bill Clinton leaving the campaign trail ahead of Ohio and Texas and heading up to Toronto to unveil another joint initiative with Giustra, the Canadian businessman who has lavished Clinton's foundation with millions -- in apparent exchange for Clinton's help securing lucrative mining deals in Kazakhstan.

I just posted this video response to Hillary Clinton's fear-mongering ad in Texas. Here's how I described it on YouTube:

While everybody else who's on the phone 3am is setting up a booty call, Hillary Clinton wants to take phone calls about terrorist attacks on America. But is she really up to the challenge?

What are your thoughts?

Update: I changed the title of this post slightly (thanks to a commenter at Daily Kos).

Pretty cool. I saw it when there were just over 115,000 views. I wonder how long it will take to get one million?

By far the most questionable decision of Barack Obama's entire public life was buying his home on the same day that the wife of Tony Rezko, an indicted Chicago businessman, bought the adjacent land -- from the same seller.

There's not much more to the story than that, but news organizations continue to write about it. Once you know the basic facts, these stories become tiresome. Two new stories in the New York Times and Newsweek fail to offer anything new despite sensational headlines:

As Developer Heads to Trial, Questions Linger Over a Deal With Obama

Man in the Middle

For anybody who is worried about Obama and Rezko, my advice is simple: don't fret. Read the articles -- you'll find lots of talk about "appearances" but no talk about anything unethical.

It's nothing compared the Keating 5 or Frank Giustra, from the McCain and Clinton campaigns respectively.

By the way, it's pretty clear that this new focus on Rezko is a direct result of the the Clinton campaign's pushback against the media. If the primary campaign doesn't end on Tuesday, it's going to be time for some major pushback from the Obama side.

"What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary's career where she's been tested by crisis?"

h/t Mark Hall

Update: It seems that the Obama campaign has made this video a private video for some reason. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of it. I'll do an update when/if I learn more.

Update 2: It wasn't on YouTube, but I found a copy. This is the first video from a provider other than YouTube that I'm embedding into my vodpod collection, which is kind of cool if you're a geek like me.

This ad reminds of me of something that James Carville used to say: speed kills.

If Obama responds to the Republicans as quickly and effectively as he responds to Clinton, we could win a landslide this fall.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller now with Obama.

Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Obama's position on the Iraq war in 2002 was partially behind his decision to support the Illinois senator.

This is a great response to Hillary's lame new scare-mongering ad about terrorism and national security:

Senator Clinton already had her red phone moment -- to decide whether to allow George Bush to invade Iraq.

Her ad really does seem like something to come out of the Republican fear machine. Then again, ripping off right-wing war propaganda is nothing new for Hillary Clinton.

Hilarious! Rep. Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, tried to smear Barack Obama for not wearing a flag lapel pin -- but he wasn't wearing one himself! MSNBC's Dan Abrams totally humiliated Kingston. It's an awesome sight to behold.

This is a sneak preview of what the campaign is going to be like this fall. I like our chances.

CNN poses a chilling question: if Americans elect Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, will the military's top officials let us end the Iraq war?

According to the report, generals say they are preparing to fight a withdrawal plan in 2009 just like they fought against allowing gays in the military in 1993.

One general warned of the political damage that battle inflicted on Bill Clinton during his first year in office. According to CNN, retired Lt. Gen. Daniel Christman put a stake in the ground:

The next president of the United States, if it is a Democrat, is going to have to sit down with the generals and work this out.

This is a reminder of what's at stake in this election -- and why we need a president with unquestioned consistency on the question of Iraq. We're going to have a tough battle in 2009, and we need a president who has never wavered in his opposition to the war.

It's going to take a lot of strength to challenge the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about forty-seven years ago. Barack Obama has that strength.

It's funny how self-centered most politicians and (and journalists) journalists are. For example:

"Could I just point out that, in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time?" Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, said at last night's debate in Cleveland. "And I don't mind. You know, I'll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious. And if anybody saw 'Saturday Night Live,' you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow. I just find it kind of curious that I keep getting the first question on all of these issues, but I'm happy to answer it."

According to Fact Check Desk Associate Fact Checker Melissa Ruiz's research...overall in the last three debates, Clinton has been asked the first question in 23 rounds, Obama in 18.

So a minor disparity does exist, but...likely of not much relevance to the lives of the voters of Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont.

I think one of the things people like about Obama's campaign is that his approach isn't nearly self-centered.

I'm going to post direct links to YouTube here, but you can also play the videos through our new vodpod video gallery at the top of the page.

The truth about Hillary Clinton's Iraq war vote
After Tuesday's debate, Hillary Clinton responds to herself.

The truth about Barack Obama and the Iraq war
Barack Obama opposed the Iraq war from the start.

Enjoy!

This is one of the stupidest arguments of all time:

I am watching, with great disappointment, people whom I respect in the Congress who endorsed Hillary Clinton — I assume because she was the leader they felt could best represent the party and lead the country — now switching to Barack Obama with the excuse that their constituents have spoken.

I may be a cynic, but I’m a fairly knowledgeable political cynic. If Mr. Obama wins the nomination, those members are undoubtedly concerned that they would be inviting a primary challenge in their next re-election campaign by failing to support his candidacy.

Fine -- politicians might be switching positions to win votes. That's the freakin' point of democracy! Let the people decide!

There's nothing nefarious about a politician listening to his or her constituents. Good lord!

What does Ferraro want? A benevolent dictator?

(h/t: JayGR)

The guy who collaborated with me on the "shame on you mashup" found this cool entry in FilmMaker Magazine's blog.

Hillary Clinton's "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" outburst at the weekend has not only become a popular video on YouTube but, inevitably, spawned a mashup. Because of YouTube, people are now empowered to express themselves politically in a forum where the most intelligent voices will be seen and heard worldwide by millions. Pushed forward by figures such as Rx (who I have posted about a few times before), the political mashup has increasingly become one of the most vital and persuasive forms of political commentary.

The Clinton campaign's silly allegations inspired this video. To be clear, by any reasonable standard Hillary Clinton is not a plagiarist -- except by her own new rules.

Drew Hansen, a friend and an early Obama supporter (from the very start) has a great op-ed in the Houston Chronicle debunking the silliness surrounding Hillary "I'll be fine" Clinton's charges of plagiarism:

Politicians are not professional academics, and the strict plagiarism rules that apply to professors do not make sense when they're applied to orators. By the standards employed by some campaigns and commentators, not only would Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton be guilty of plagiarism, but so would Martin Luther King, Jr.

Drew recognizes that public figures often borrower lines and ideas from others, but demonstrates the absurdity of calling that plagiarism. Indeed, plagiarism by public officials is not nearly as well defined as it is for academics, so Drew offers three simple rules to help test whether or not something is plagiarism:

1. If it's transformative, it's not plagiarism.
   
2. If it's from a speechwriter or adviser, it's not plagiarism.
   
3. If it's from a widely known source, such as the Bible or the founding documents of America, it's not plagiarism.
   

Drew analyzes these rules through the prism of Martin Luther King, Jr. It's a good read -- check it out.

Barack Obama now has an average lead of 4.8% in public polls over John McCain. I've updated charts here.

Update, April 6, 2008: The Clinton campaign today announced that Mark Penn would take a less visible role within the campaign. Also, last week Charlie Black resigned from Penn's firm to go work for McCain full-time.

Let's say that the Democratic nomination battle had been winnowed down to two candidates, and that one of those two candidates (let's call him Barack Obama) was a huge favorite to win. Meanwhile, the GOP nominee has been all but decided. (We'll call him John McCain.)

Now let's imagine that Obama's opponent (we'll call her Hillary Clinton) was desperately slinging every piece of mud she could at him without regard to whether or not her attacks would help John McCain.

Finally, imagine that you found out that Clinton's chief strategist was not only her campaign's leading advocate for these attacks -- but was also the CEO of a public affairs firm whose DC-based lobbying subsidiary was headed up by John McCain's top adviser.

Would you say this posed at least the appearance of a conflict of interest for the strategist in question?

What would you think if you found out that it's all true?

Here's a video response to Clinton's derisive commentary today in Rhode Island:

From the creators of john.he.is: