Tag: Obama (page 4)

I have wanted to write something on John Brennan that has to do with his post-CIA business dealings and his chairmanship of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (which dates from Spring 2007 til about a week ago).  Like most other aspects of Brennan, his business and INSA dealings disturbingly reflect the status quo at the CIA and will in practice undermine Obama's stated goals if he is appointed CIA Director.

For this diary I will be leaning heavily on Meteor Blades' review of Tim Shorrock's "Spies for Hire" and Tim Shorrock's book itself, portions of which can be read for free on Google Books.  I want to use their insights to demonstrate Brennan's involvement in the corruption of the Bush administration.

Recently, I wrote a diary outlining the many reasons why John Brennan should not serve in any capacity, particularly as head of the CIA, in the Obama administration.  Fortunately the number of people questioning Brennan's association with Obama has grown.

If Obama appoints Brennan to head the CIA, it is truly a big deal and a big problem.  It is not enough that Brennan does not approve of waterboarding at this moment.  

As Obama puts together his transition teams for various departments and looks to future appointments, and we approach the exciting day of January 20th, I think it is important to be clear and to provide a strong body of resources for progressive opposition to John Brennan.  

I think it is important to recognize that we can do a lot better than John Brennan.  The purpose of this diary is to collect important sources, show evidence of Brennan's complicity in the worst of the Bush administration's programs, demonstrate Brennan's association with the most conservative aspects of the intelligence community, and show that there are better experts out there.

Thanks to the people who authored these sources, and esp. to BTD for bringing up Brennan in the first place.  I hope this is not too repetitive but I think it is important to gather all this information in one diary/place.

The Pew Research Center released a new poll today. Shorter version: Voters have increasing doubts about John McCain's judgment, age and campaign conduct.

Currently, Obama enjoys his widest margin yet over McCain among registered voters, at 52% to 38%. When the sample of voters is narrowed to those most likely to vote, Obama leads by 53% to 39%.

On views of Obama:

More voters see him as “well-qualified” and “down-to-earth” than did so a month ago. Obama also is inspiring more confidence on several key issues, including Iraq and terrorism, than he did before the debates. Most important, Obama now leads McCain as the candidate best able to improve economic conditions by a wider margin (53% to 32%).

As for McCain: [More...]

Like many of their fellow congressional types, Kirsten Gillibrand and Joe Sestak are running for re-election. There are several Senate races out there too...some where Senate Dems might be able to pick up in-trouble GOP seats:

With 23 GOP seats up for grabs this year -- versus only a dozen Democratic seats -- Senate Democrats see a once-in-a-generation opportunity to pad their majority with as many as four to seven new seats.

This could be a great chance to get that solid majority in the Senate we've been discussing...that senators have claimed they need to "get stuff done."

Cross posted at Corrente

On Super Tuesday, over 14% of voters in the Oklahoma Democratic Primary voted for neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama, despite their being the only two major Democratic candidates left in the race.  This was nearly twice the percentage of "someone else" votes as the next highest state (Arizona, with 7.2% of "neither" votes), and four times greater than Super Tuesday primary states over all (3.74% "neither" votes).

John Edwards received the lion' share (10.14% of the overall vote) of the `neither" vote, and his supporters represented a significant opportunity for both Clinton and Obama.  By examining where Edwards did well, both candidates could try and appeal to these "neither Clinton nor Obama" voters.

A review of exit polling from West Virginia shows that Hillary Clinton took advantage of the opportunity to appeal to Edward's voters, and it was her success among those voters that made the difference between her 24 point win over Obama in Oklahoma, and her 41 point margin over Obama in West Virginia.  Obama not merely failed to attract the support of Edwards voters, he actually lost support in the demographic categories where Edwards did best.

Aka Obama's Sour Apples to Apples, Part Four

Between late February and mid-April, voters in nine states that should/could be "Democratic" in the 2008 Presidential Election were exposed to a considerable amount of negative informative concerning both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The negative information had little impact on how Hillary Clinton was regarded when compared to John McCain.  But it has had a major impact on their perception of Barack Obama, and on the perception of the relative merits of Obama and McCain.

Overall, the worst that can be said about Clinton is the negative press attention has resulted in more previously undecided voters in certain demographic categories expressing a preference for McCain rather than for Clinton.   But Obama is not merely losing "undecided" voters in most demographic categories because of negative media coverage, a significant percentage of voters who had supported Obama over McCain have switched their preferences.