Electionsbarack Videos

During the December 20 edition of MSNBC s Hardball host Chris Matthews introduced as the "Hot Topic" for that night s show -- "Is the [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] campaign trying to obliterate [Sen. Barack] Obama s [D-IL] candidacy? Not just beat it, but strangle it in the crib before there s any chance he catches on?" Matthews then asserted there were "[m]ore efforts today by the Clinton people to smother the Barack Obama campaign in its crib" and went on to say, "The picture is not pretty, but it could very well be deadly. The goal is to smother the young senator in his crib." In fact, during the one-hour show, Matthews invoked imagery of Clinton murdering an infant Obama on four occasions, noting in a later discussion, "My conjecture here, which I opened the show with, was the Clintons believe they have to stop Obama early. They want sudden infant crib death, is what they want. They want this guy to die before Iowa," and asking Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC s Morning Joe, "Everybody s got a job in mind [in a Hillary Clinton administration], and they re willing to put the knife in this guy in the crib to get that job. Is that too strong a language?" Scarborough responded, "No, it s not." Matthews later suggested that Clinton s surrogates were "attacking Obama, so that she gets the knife into Obama without her fingerprints on it," and he asked, "Is this an attempt to basically get a preliminary shot against this guy? Kill him early. Before Christmas." NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell responded, "Kneecap him, I mean, if you have to." He then asked Mitchell "[W]ill she continue to have surrogates drop these little poison pills in the public reservoir of public opinion?" Mitchell replied by asserting: "Absolutely." Matthews then described the "poisons" he associated with Clinton s surrogates: "Hussein, Muslim, blah, blah, blah, coke, all kinds of stuff. Will they continue to drop these poisons in the water?" He concluded by saying, "She needs Luca Brasi to do this stuff for her," referring to a Mafia enforcer in the Mario Puzo novel The Godfather. As Media Matters for America has documented, media figures frequently portray the Clintons and their staff as ruthless and even violent. From the December 20 edition of MSNBC s Hardball with Chris Matthews: MATTHEWS: Good evening. I m Chris Matthews. The "Hot Topic" tonight: Is the Hillary Clinton campaign trying to obliterate Obama s candidacy? Not just beat it but strangle it in the crib before there s any chance he catches on? That s our "Hot Topic" tonight. On the Republican side, thrice-married Giuliani loses his once commanding lead nationally, and the Reverend Huckabee is ascending. And speaking of Huckabee, is he the affable Midwestern pastor, or is there a reason to be afraid of his candidacy? So who s afraid of Mike Huckabee? We ll debate that tonight. And we ll ask you -- we ll give you, rather, our daily "Political Fix" with Joe Scarborough, Andrea Mitchell and John Harwood. But first, the "Hot Topic." More efforts today by the Clinton people to smother the Barack Obama campaign in its crib, as I said. One, a letter attacking Obama s health care plan pretending to come from John Edwards but actually set up by a pro-Clinton union. Two, the launching of two websites specifically targeting and attacking Barack. Suddenly, the campaign for president on the Democratic side is dominated by this dark struggle to hold power. The Clintons -- Hillary, Bill, the whole universe of advisers and backers known as Hillary-land -- have targeted its enemy. The Clinton order comfortable at the center of Democratic power for a full generation is on the attack. The target: the junior senator from Illinois who dares to challenge the former first lady for commander-in-chief. The weapons being wielded against him are the wide-ranging regiments of Clinton people. A Clinton surrogate attacks Barack for saying he d like to be president back when he was in kindergarten. In New Hampshire, the husband of a former governor talks up what Republicans would do with Barack s admission of using drugs as a teenager. A former senator from Nebraska talks up Barack s middle name and the religion of his forebears, a comment for which he later apologized. But the attacks refuse to stop. Keeping up the beat, a group of back-bench congresspeople held a press conference today -- actually, a conference on telephone to call reporters to attack Senator Obama for voting president -- present -- as a state legislator back in Springfield. A friendly labor union is now putting out an attack on Barack s health care plan, making it appear to be from John Edwards. And according to ABC s Jack Tayper [sic: Jake Tapper], the Clinton troops have now set up two different websites with the expressed mission of destroying Obama. Tapper says it s the first case, at least in this campaign, of a candidate setting up websites with the single purpose of attacking another candidate. The picture is not pretty, but it could be very well be deadly. The goal is to smother the young senator in his crib. Whether it s right or wrong is, as in much of politics, a matter of how you look at it. A lot of true believers, the young and idealistic at heart, will find it -- let s agree on this thing -- dispiriting. [...] MATTHEWS: Is there a smart political tactic here, Mark [Green, president of Air America Radio]? You ve been in some campaigns. You ve won a lot of them. Is there a smart political tactic here -- if you re a Clintonite, saying, "Wait a minute, don t let this guy land on the beach"? It s like the Germans when they saw us coming in Normandy -- "Don t let them land on the beach because once they re on the beach, they re going to break out." Are the Clinton people afraid that if Barack does well in Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be unstoppable, therefore, they ve got to throw every trash can they got at him right now? GREEN: I agree with everything -- MATTHEWS: Is that the strategy? ED SCHULTZ (liberal radio host): Absolutely. GREEN: One second. MATTHEWS: OK -- GREEN: I agree with everything you just said except for the word "trash." Ed, there s no serious evidence -- MATTHEWS: Trash can. [...] MATTHEWS:. Let s talk about this fight here. My conjecture here, which I opened the show with, was the Clintons believe they ve got to stop Obama early. They want sudden infant crib death, is what they want. They want this guy to die before Iowa. And they are unleashing everybody they ve got, everybody who wants -- every meal ticket they ve got, everybody that wants to be a cabinet member, a VP, a staffer. They re all out there -- [former Sen.] Bob Kerrey [D-NE], [former Iowa governor Tom] Vilsack, [former Clinton campaign New Hampshire co-chairman] Billy Shaheen, [Clinton campaign strategist] Mark Penn, [Clinton campaign spokesman] Phil Singer. Everybody s got a job in mind, and they re willing to put the knife in this guy in the crib to get that job. Is that too strong a language, Joe Scarborough? JOE SCARBOROUGH (MSNBC anchor): No, it s not, because if she wins Iowa, she walks toward the nomination. The problem is, they re trying too hard. I can t help but go back -- and I know you were there, too, Chris -- in 2004 in Iowa, and you had all these people shipped in from out of state and it ended up making the Iowans just roll their eyes and toss Howard Dean to the side and go with John Kerry. No, I think actually the person who is damaged goods right now is Hillary Clinton. If you look at the latest NBC poll, which shows that Obama does much better in general election match-ups, and Hillary s negatives are above her positives now. MATTHEWS: Let me go to the question of tactics here. She is using things like having AFSCME -- the union, the federal, the state and county employees -- put out a letter that looked like it came from John Edwards, apparently, attacking Obama, so that she gets the knife into Obama without her fingerprints on it. [...] MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Andrea, again, about this way this campaign has to be run. The traditional way of an incumbent to defeat a challenger, in any congressional race we ve ever covered or seen, you try to, first of all, check their petitions and make sure there s no names wrong, use every trick in the book to get them out of the race. Is this an attempt to basically get a preliminary shot against this guy? Kill him early. Before Christmas. MITCHELL: Kneecap him, I mean, if you have to. The whole point is to get him out by Iowa so that she doesn t have to face him in New Hampshire, because what she s seeing is that her New Hampshire firewall, what was to be the firewall, has eroded. And that depending on the poll, they re either dead even -- he s ahead in some, she s ahead in others. So she no longer can count on New Hampshire, where the Clintons have a record. MATTHEWS: Will she continue -- Andrea, you first. Will she continue to have surrogates drop these little poison pills in the public reservoir of public opinion? MITCHELL: Absolutely. MATTHEWS: Hussein, Muslim, blah, blah, blah, coke, all kinds of stuff. Will they continue to drop these poisons in the water? MITCHELL: I think it will continue to be this kind of tough, nasty campaign. The difference is that it was a big mistake for her to do some of the negative stuff. She is going to be all warm and fuzzy. MATTHEWS: She needs Luca Brasi to do this stuff for her.

On the December 19 edition of Fox News Hannity s [D-IL] pastor... has this whole list of the Black Value System. It seems like he s supporting a segregated church." Hannity then asserted that "[t]here s no questions about it, except here on this program," and, after stating that there has been "scrutiny" over the positions of Republican presidential candidates and former Govs. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, asked: "Why the double standard?" Coulter responded: "No, you re absolutely right, because everyone realizes that when the Democrats cite religion, it s a joke. So, you know, why ask them about it. It s -- you re just putting on a show for the voters." During the segment, Hannity provided no evidence to support his suggestion that the church of which Obama is a member, the Trinity Church of Christ in Chicago, is "segregated." According to an April 2 article on the website for The Martin Marty Center -- the institute for advanced research in all fields of the study of religion at the University of Chicago Divinity School -- professor emeritus Martin E. Marty wrote of Trinity: "My wife and I on occasion attend, and, like all other non-blacks, are enthusiastically welcomed." From the April 2 post on the Marty Center s website, which also appears as an April 2 guest column in the online publication The Christian Post: So Trinity is "Africentric," and deals internationally and ecumenically with the heritage of "black is beautiful." Despite what one sometimes hears, Wright and his parishioners -- an 8,000-member mingling of everyone from the disadvantaged to the middle class, and not a few shakers and movers in Chicago -- are "keepin the faith." To those in range of Chicago TV I d recommend a watching of Trinity s Sunday services, and challenge you to find anything "cultic" or "sectarian" about them. More important, for Trinity, being "unashamedly black" does not mean being "anti-white." My wife and I on occasion attend, and, like all other non-blacks, are enthusiastically welcomed. As Media Matters for America documented, Hannity has previously asserted that the Trinity Church of Christ and the church s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. are "separatist" (here, here, and here). On the March 20 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Hannity claimed that he "discovered" via the church s website "that the pastor of the church has very Afro-centric and separatist views." Hannity proceeded to air an audio clip of an interview from the March 1 edition of Fox News Hannity s 12-point "Black Value System." After the brief clip concluded, he stated: "[I]t got very heated later in the interview, but I won t play that now." Additionally, on the June 25 edition of Fox News Hannity s June 23 speech on religion in politics, Hannity claimed that Wright, "has a very black-separatist point of view" and claimed that the church is "all about the black community. ... [I]t s a black-separatist agenda." Then, on the June 26 edition of Hannity s March 1 Hannity s philosophy does not "assume superiority nor does it assume separatism." Wright stated: "We have no hierarchal arrangement. When you say an African-centered way of thinking -- African-centered philosophy, African-centered theology -- you re talking about one center. We re talking about something that s different, and different does not mean deficient ... nor does it mean superior or inferior." From the December 19 edition of Fox News Hannity s pastor -- COULTER: Yes. HANNITY: -- has, you know, this whole list of the Black Value System. It seems like he s supporting a segregated church. COULTER: Right. HANNITY: And there s no questions about it, except here on this program. COULTER: Right. HANNITY: And I had an opportunity to interview him. Why all the scrutiny -- Mike Huckabee s submission of wives, his position on gays. We obviously have been through Romney. COULTER: Right. HANNITY: Why the double standard? COULTER: No, you re absolutely right, because everyone realizes that when the Democrats cite religion, it s a joke. So, you know, why ask them about it. It s -- you re just putting on a show for the voters. HANNITY: Are you concerned at all about -- Hillary wins the nomination, Barack Obama wins the nomination -- COULTER: It s going to be Hillary. HANNITY: I think it is too. But, are you concerned that she can win? COULTER: Not particularly. HANNITY: Do you think she ll be defeated easily? COULTER: I kind of do. We ll see, but --. HANNITY: Anything can happen, you know that. COULTER: The one thing I do think is that all of this business about the Obama surge, Obama surge is the Clintons famous lowering of expectations like they did with his grand jury testimony. Remember, he was supposed to -- his face turned purple, there was spittle coming out. And then, OK -- that didn t happen, though that s when did get the, "It depends on what the meaning of is is." They did the same thing when he was running in the primaries. He was the comeback kid coming in second. And they are doing the exact same thing with Hillary now. I think she s ahead. They re pretending, "Oh, she ll never win Iowa."

On the October 11 edition of Fox News Radio s The John Gibson Show, a caller said that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is "the devil," and purported to explain: "There s no way that anyone with the middle name Hussein could rise to that level of power in the United States without being the devil, in my opinion." Rather than challenge the caller, host John Gibson expanded on the caller s reference to Obama s name, and said: "[B]y the way, do you know what the name Barack means?" explaining: "It s the name of the mythical horse that carried the prophet Mohammed to heaven." The show s producer, known on-air as "Angry Rich," added: "Front page Media Matters tomorrow, guaranteed," to which Gibson responded: "Yeah, I ll probably make Media Matters with that one. But it s true. It means Lightning, I think, is what the word means." According to the Britannica Online Encyclopedia, the word "Buraq" means, "in Islamic tradition, a creature said to have transported the Prophet Muhammad to heaven. Described as a white animal, half-mule, half-donkey, with wings on its sides . . . , Buraq was originally introduced into the story of Muhammad s night journey (isra ) from Mecca to Jerusalem and back, thus explaining how the journey between the cities could have been completed in a single night." According to Yale University s Kamusi Project -- the "Internet Living Swahili Dictionary" -- the Swahili word "baraka," meaning "blessing," is derived from the Arabic word "bariki," as Media Matters for America has noted. As detailed in his book, Dreams from My Father (Crown, July 1995), Obama had previously gone by a nickname, "Barry," rather than by his given name, "Barack," which was also his father s name. Media Matters was unable to determine if "Buraq" and "Barack" are linguistically related. From the October 11 edition of Fox News Radio s The John Gibson Show: GIBSON: All right, Al Gore, the man who would be president. [Caller] in West Haven, Connecticut, what do you think of the "Draft Gore" movement? CALLER: Hey, John. I always thought he was going to run. I ve been saying it for a year now. And if there s a loving, caring God, he ll get the nomination. I m a hard-core conservative -- GIBSON: You have noticed, [caller] -- I don t mean to interrupt you, but -- CALLER: Go ahead. GIBSON: -- you have noticed that his principal rival seems to have wrapped up the race. CALLER: Oh -- oh, I don t believe so at all. GIBSON: You don t? CALLER: I don t believe so at all. No, we ve got a lot of time. I mean, you know, years ago, they didn t even get this close, you know, I mean -- GIBSON: Well, I mean, the first -- the Iowa and New Hampshire things are in early January, and that -- within a -- I think the first big Super Tuesday is early February, and then it s done. I mean, the delegates are committed, and unless they re going to go into open rebellion against who they are committed to -- and would assume it d be Hillary -- that, I don t see how he gets the nomination. How would that happen? CALLER: I don t know, but I believe he s going to win, I always did, and here s why: I just don t think if there s a God he s going to let us have this criminal family come in, or the devil win. I just can t see it. I can t see it. GIBSON: Which one s the criminal family, and which one s the devil? CALLER: Well, the Clintons are obviously the criminals, and the devil is Obama. There s no way that anyone with the middle name "Hussein" could rise to that level of power in the United States without being the devil, in my opinion. GIBSON: Just -- by the way, do you know what the name "Barack" means? CALLER: Excuse me? GIBSON: Do you know what the name "Barack" means? CALLER: God, I can t wait to hear. GIBSON: It s the name of the mythical horse that carried the prophet Mohammed to heaven. ANGRY RICH: Front page Media Matters tomorrow, guaranteed. GIBSON: Yeah, I ll probably make Media Matters over that one. But it s true. It means "Lightning," I think, is what the word means. [Caller], you know, I, too, am so looking forward to a Gore run because I wonder whether Gore has changed his ways and whether that kind of off-putting pomposity of the first run and his tendency to seem to be talking down to people has gone away.

On the October 10 edition of MSNBC s Tucker, while discussing the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and its targeting of young voters in Iowa, host Tucker Carlson told guests -- nationally syndicated radio host Bill Press and TownHall.com contributing writer Matt Lewis -- "[Y]oung people like [Obama] anyway. ... [P]oliticizing children -- there s a Khmer Rouge quality to it. I think it s scary," adding: "[I]f a right-wing candidate came and targeted my kids, I d be mad about it. I don t want my kids near political candidates. ... They re creepy." The Khmer Rouge, headed by Pol Pot, was a brutal and repressive regime that ruled Cambodia in the mid- to late 1970s, leading "to the deaths of nearly a quarter of Cambodia s seven million people." According to a Wall Street Journal report, a "quirk in Iowa election law" allows 17-year-old Iowa residents to caucus in January because they will be eligible to vote in the November 2008 presidential elections. During the segment, Press stated: "This is, I think, one of the best things that Barack Obama has done. It s very smart. They re 17 today, they re going to be 18 next year. Volunteer this year, vote next year." Press continued: "In Iowa, they re allowed to participate in the caucus ... in January, even though they re not old enough to vote because they will vote in November. So, this is a whole new pool of new voters. And if anybody can appeal to them, get them excited and get them involved in politics and in his campaign, it s Barack Obama." Carlson responded: "I think you re right. I just disagree with it." Press then added, "I think it s a brilliant strategy." Later, Press asserted: "The fact that they ve got a driver s license; they can go in the military, they re almost old enough to vote -- they can get involved in a political campaign." Carlson replied: "Ugh! Creepy as hell." From the October 10 edition of MSNBC s Tucker: CARLSON: Obama now targeting his campaign -- 17-year-olds in Iowa. Apparently the regulations in Iowa stipulate that if you re going to be 18 by the election, you can caucus; you can participate in the caucuses in January. So the Obama campaign is trying to get out 17-year-olds. Should a political campaign be targeting kids? LEWIS: Well, you -- the thing I don t like about it is the whole premise of going to their parents and the teachers and sort of the coercion that this, you know, has been implied. But in terms of having a youth movement, I applaud him. However, every four years a candidate says they re going to win because of young people. It doesn t work. But what this does give Obama, I think, rather than actually a lot of voters, which I think is probably doubtful, it gives him an image. When you have a lot of young people on your campaign, it s that whole RFK image -- CARLSON: Right. LEWIS: -- and I think it works for him, and it s smart. CARLSON: Well, young people like him anyway. I just -- it -- politicizing children -- there s a Khmer Rouge quality to it. I think it s scary. If some -- if a right-wing candidate came and targeted my kids, I d be mad about it. I don t want my kids near political candidates. Do you? PRESS: Come on. Come on, get real. CARLSON: They re creepy. PRESS: This is, I think, one of the best things that Barack Obama has done. It s very smart. They re 17 today, they re going to be 18 next year. Volunteer this year, vote next year. And Iraq -- LEWIS: The other thing, they ll be 22 four years from now or whatever when he runs again. PRESS: Right. But also -- and in Iowa -- CARLSON: Well, then, why not start in the fifth grade and just train a new generation of -- PRESS: Hold on a second. In Iowa, they re allowed to participate in the caucus -- LEWIS: Yes. PRESS: -- in January, even though they re not old enough to vote because they will vote in November. So, this is a whole new pool of new voters. And if anybody can appeal to them, get them excited and get them involved in politics and in his campaign, it s Barack Obama. I think it s a brilliant-- CARLSON: I think you re right. I just disagree with it. PRESS: I think it s a brilliant strategy. CARLSON: And I don t care who does it, I just think you should lay off -- lay off my -- don t come near my house with that garbage. PRESS: Wait, wait, wait. He s not putting a gun to their heads. It s just that they re flocking to his campaign cause they like what he s saying. [crosstalk] CARLSON: No, but it s like -- you know, what do kids do? They re impressionable. That s why you should let them make up their own minds and not try to either subject them to propaganda. PRESS: The fact that they ve got a driver s license, they can go in the military, they re almost old enough to vote -- they can get involved in a political campaign. CARLSON: Ugh! Creepy as hell. Are Republicans going to say anything about -- it s cause it seems like Republicans have accepted the idea that the middle class deserves entitlements, too. LEWIS: Not this one but -- CARLSON: You know, the -- Hillary Clinton s savings plan pays people -- middle class families, people who make up to a hundred grand -- pay them to save money. The -- since when does the middle class deserve entitlements? And when are Republicans going to say something about that?

On the October 9 edition of MSNBC s Countdown, during his nightly "Goofballs and Good Guys" segment, host Keith Olbermann honored Fox News host and Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes with the "best rationalization" award for his claim -- documented by Media Matters for America -- that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is not "strong on national security" because he opposed, in 2002, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq "when the entire world believed Saddam Hussein ... had weapons of mass destruction." Olbermann stated: "[B]est rationalization -- Fred Barnes of Fixed News claiming Senator Obama s position on Iraq is not as strong as Obama thinks it is. That his ... 2002 speech came, quote, in a time when the entire world believed Saddam Hussein in Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ... I don t think that shows that he is very strong on national security, which he needs to be, unquote." Olbermann concluded: "So, he is not strong on national security because he was right and you, Fred Barnes, were totally damned wrong." From the October 9 edition of MSNBC s Countdown with Keith Olbermann: OLBERMANN: These stories ahead but, first, time for our "Goofballs and Good Guys." Here are Countdown s top three "Best Persons in the World": Number 3 -- best rationalization -- Fred Barnes of "Fixed News," claiming Senator Obama s position on Iraq is not as strong as Obama thinks it is. That his 2000 speech came -- his 2002 speech came, quote, "in a time when the entire world believed Saddam Hussein in Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And yet, Barack Obama was against the war at that point. I don t think that shows that he is very strong on national security, which he needs to be," unquote. So, he s not strong on national security because he was right and you, Fred Barnes, were totally damned wrong.

On the October 6 edition of Fox News The Beltway Boys, co-host and Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes claimed that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is "not in quite as strong a position on the war in Iraq as he really thinks he is." He explained that when Obama delivered his 2002 speech against going to war with Iraq, "it was back in a time when the entire world believed Saddam Hussein in Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that he would probably be willing to use them himself at some time or pass them along to terrorists who would use them. And yet, Barack Obama was against going to the war at that point." According to Barnes: "I don t think that shows that he is very strong on national security, which he needs to be." From the October 6 edition of Fox News The Beltway Boys: MORT KONDRACKE (co-host): What I think is fascinating is the question of whether -- if Obama does well against Hillary, can she not take him, not put him on the ticket as vice presidential running mate? The pressure, especially from African-Americans, will be enormous for her to take him. Now, I don t think she wants to. I m told that she doesn t really respect him. And I guess what she s hoping is that she can beat him badly enough that she doesn t have to take him and go pick somebody else who can get a state that s in play. BARNES: Yeah, I doubt that she ll pick him. You know, I ve thought for a long time that Obama s not in quite as strong a position on the war in Iraq as he really thinks he is. Remember, when he famously came out against the war, it was back in a time when the entire world believed that Saddam Hussein in Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that he would probably be willing to use them himself at some time or pass them along to terrorists who would use them. And yet, Barack Obama was against going to the war at that point. I don t think that shows that he is very strong on national security, which he needs to be. But that argument s not going to be used against him in the Democratic primaries. It would, however, by Republicans in a general election. From Obama s 2002 speech: After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income -- to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That s what I m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I m opposed to dumb wars.

During an October 3 interview with ABC-affiliate KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) was asked why he was not wearing an American flag pin on his lapel. Obama responded, "[R]ight after 9-11, I had a pin," adding: "Shortly after 9-11, particularly because as we re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security." Obama also said: "I decided I won t wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great and, hopefully, that will be a testimony to my patriotism." However, several media outlets -- following the lead of Internet gossip Matt Drudge -- have presented Obama s comments as a recent decision made by the candidate, and not an explanation of something he chose to do several years ago. CNN, ABC, and Fox News have reported on the "controversy," providing a platform for several conservatives to attack Obama s patriotism. As NBC News political director Chuck Todd put it, "this was the media getting a classic case of the Drudges." According to an October 4 entry on The New York Times The Caucus blog, the KCRG interview "passed with little notice until ... the Associated Press moved a story that included the quotes from Mr. Obama" on October 4, adding that Obama s campaign aides, "concerned that his remarks might be portrayed as unpatriotic, chose not to let the moment pass." According to the Caucus, Obama addressed the issue during an October 4 campaign event in Iowa, saying: OBAMA: Somebody noticed I wasn t wearing a flag lapel pin and I told folks, well you know what? I haven t probably worn that pin in a very long time. I wore it right after 9/11. But after a while, you start noticing people wearing a lapel pin, but not acting very patriotic. Not voting to provide veterans with resources that they need. Not voting to make sure that disability payments were coming out on time. My attitude is that I m less concerned about what you re wearing on your lapel than what s in your heart. And you show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who served. You show your patriotism by being true to our values and our ideals and that s what we have to lead with is our values and our ideals. Drudge first highlighted the story on October 4 at 2:15 p.m. ET under the headline: "Obama Ditches American Flag Pin: Has Become a Substitute for True Patriotism ..." While the AP article to which Drudge linked used the misleading headline "Obama Stops Wearing Flag Pin," it made clear that Obama "said he stopped doing so [wearing the pin] shortly after the attacks and instead hoped to show his patriotism by explaining his ideas to citizens." At 2:33 p.m., Drudge made the story his banner headline, shortening it to: "Obama Drops American Flag Pin." Following Drudge, other media outlets began reporting that Obama s decision not to wear the pin is a recent one, often mischaracterizing Obama s statements. On the October 4 edition of CNN s The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer reported: BLITZER: Democrat Barack Obama says he stopped wearing the American flag on his lapel -- that s come to symbolize patriotism since the 9-11 attacks. Obama tells an Iowa TV station he s decided he doesn t need to wear a pin on his chest and, instead, will show his patriotism by explaining his ideas for the country. On the October 4 edition of Fox News The Big Story, co-host John Gibson claimed that Obama "declare[d], I m not going to wear a flag pin, " while conservative radio host Laura Ingraham added, "[I]t just shows you, once again, that he was not ready for prime time." From the October 4 edition of The Big Story with Gibson and Nauert: GIBSON: You know, Laura, one of the things that Obama did today, and I -- you know, tell me how this works, when he s so far behind -- is he declares, "I m not going to wear a flag pin. I m not going to wear that thing." INGRAHAM: Brilliant. GIBSON: "I m going to show my patriotism some other way." INGRAHAM: Well -- GIBSON: How is that helpful? INGRAHAM: Well, you know, it s -- it just shows you, once again, that he was not ready for prime time. And for all this build-up, and Oprah having the big party for him, and raising all this money, and he was really savvy on the Internet -- none of it mattered. You re going up against the most formidable Democrat [sic] couple ever, probably. I mean, what s the last two-term Democrat [sic] president before the Clintons that you can think of? I mean, we go back a ways. So, you have to come out and you have to start swinging early on. He never did that. On the October 4 broadcast of ABC s World News, host Charles Gibson introduced a report on Obama s remarks by saying that there is "something of a controversy that has erupted involving Democratic Senator Barack Obama, and a lapel pin." In the subsequent report, ABC News correspondent David Wright noted that Obama was responding to a KCRG reporter s question when he made the remarks, and that he wore a pin "shortly after 9-11." Wright also included a quote from Fox News host Sean Hannity attacking Obama during his ABC Radio Networks program: WRIGHT: Today, in Iowa, some Obama supporters applauded that decision. CARRIE HAURUM (Obama supporter): He doesn t need to wear that flag on his lapel; he wears it in his heart. WRIGHT: But others may not like it at all. HANNITY: Why do we wear pins? Because our country was under attack. WRIGHT: And some may use it for political advantage. Hannity continued to attack Obama during the October 4 edition of Fox News Hannity s Republican Party, identified on the show as being affiliated with the conservative Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute: HANNITY: Let me ask Kate. Kate, this is the point: Barack Obama accused our troops of killing civilians, air-raiding villages, when there s no evidence. We ve had a series of incidents: They ve been compared to Nazis by leaders of the Democrats. [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] said the troops have lost the war and the surge has failed. And what s bothersome to me here is the American flag on your lapel ought not be politicized. OBENSHAIN: It ought not to be. And regardless of how you feel politically about the war, we are at war. Our men and women are in harm s way. Somebody wants to be commander-in-chief should have pride in our country enough to wear the lapel, continue to wear the lapel pin on their jacket during this campaign. ABC and Wright reported on the "something of a controversy" again during the October 5 broadcast of Good Morning America. And once again, Wright s report included an audio clip of Hannity attacking Obama: WRIGHT: This week, a reporter for ABC s Cedar Rapids affiliate was the first to notice. OBAMA: You know, the truth is that, right after 9-11, I had a pin. WRIGHT: But Obama said he eventually decided to stop wearing the pin. OBAMA: That became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. I decided I won t wear that pin on my chest. WRIGHT: The comments kicked up a hornets nest. HANNITY: Why do we wear pins? Because our country was under attack. WRIGHT: The obsession with flag pins is relatively new: Ike didn t wear one; JFK either. Nixon did wear the flag. As Media Matters for America has documented, on the October 5 edition of Fox News America s Newsroom, former radio host Mark Williams claimed that Obama "took his flag pin off after 9-11, and he felt, apparently, some sort of an affinity or some sort of a connection, because at that point he felt it OK to come out of the closet as the domestic insurgent he is." On the October 5 edition of MSNBC Live, Todd claimed that the "controversy" was "a pretty clear case" of the media taking Obama s remarks out of context, adding: "[W]hat s interesting to me is ... this was the media getting a classic case of the Drudges. You know, it was a local TV station; Drudge picked it up; it exploded." From the October 5 edition of MSNBC Live: ALEX WITT (co-anchor): All right, let s look at this: Were Obama s comments taken out of context? Is that what s leading to all these attacks on his patriotism? TODD: Absolutely. I mean, I think it s a pretty clear case of it. But what s interesting to me is [inaudible]. I mean, this was the media getting a classic case of the Drudges. You know, it was a local TV station; Drudge picked it up; it exploded. But what I thought was fascinating is within two or three hours of this thing hitting, yesterday, Obama addressed the so-called controversy at a rally, and he said -- and he basically reiterated, decided he better get more video footage out there and more quotes out there of himself giving -- saying what we quoted him saying at the beginning of this segment, which is, you know, he did this at -- right after 9-11, and, you know, giving his fuller explanation. So, I think they nipped it in the bud. I think this is one of those things, had they not addressed it and then tried to say, you know -- criticized the media for being a little too tabloid-y about something, that it would have caught fire. But, instead, they seem to have tamped it down pretty quickly. From the October 4 broadcast of ABC s World News with Charles Gibson: GIBSON: Next, we re going to turn to presidential politics. Candidates face so much scrutiny these days, and it s not just their position papers and stump speeches that are fair game. Case in point: something of a controversy that has erupted involving Democratic Senator Barack Obama, and a lapel pin. Here s ABC s David Wright. [begin video clip] WRIGHT: This week, an eagle-eyed reporter at ABC s Cedar Rapids affiliate noticed something missing from Barack Obama s lapel. "You don t have the American flag pin on," the reporter observed during an interview with the candidate, "is that a fashion statement?" Those red, white, and blue pins became standard issue for the politician s wardrobe after 9-11. The reporter pointed that out, and Obama agreed. He said he wore such a pin shortly after September 11, but later felt it had become a substitute for true patriotism. OBAMA: I decided I won t wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great and, hopefully, that will be a testimony to my patriotism. WRIGHT: Today, in Iowa, some Obama supporters applauded that decision. HAURUM: He doesn t need to wear that flag on his lapel; he wears it in his heart. WRIGHT: But others may not like it at all. HANNITY: Why do we wear pins? Because our country was under attack. WRIGHT: And some may use it for political advantage. To be fair, most of the presidential candidates from both parties do not wear the flag pins, even when they re all dressed up for televised debates. The only big exception: Republican Rudolph Giuliani is never without one. John Edwards doesn t wear one. [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] doesn t wear one, nor does John McCain. And it might never have become an issue for Senator Obama had it not been for the way he answered the reporter s question. Today, he clarified his views. OBAMA: I m less concerned about what you re wearing on your lapel than what s in your heart. WRIGHT: If he had said that in the first place, he might have avoided any controversy. From the October 5 broadcast of ABC s Good Morning America: CHRIS CUOMO (co-host): Yes, and let s take a look at the race to 08 and why presidential contender Barack Obama won t wear an American flag lapel pin. His answer? Obama told an ABC affiliate that they ve become a substitute for true patriotism, and that s why he declined to wear one -- but the story will not end there. David Wright has more. [begin video clip] WRIGHT: After 9-11, the red, white, and blue lapel pin became the fashion accessory of choice for politicians, but not all of them. KCRG REPORTER: You don t have the American flag pin on. Is this a fashion statement? WRIGHT: This week, a reporter for ABC s Cedar Rapids affiliate was the first to notice. OBAMA: You know, the truth is that, right after 9-11, I had a pin. WRIGHT: But Obama said he eventually decided to stop wearing the pin. OBAMA: That became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. I decided I won t wear that pin on my chest. WRIGHT: The comments kicked up a hornets nest. HANNITY: Why do we wear pins? Because our country was under attack. WRIGHT: The obsession with flag pins is relatively new: Ike didn t wear one; JFK either. Nixon did wear the flag -- PRESIDENT NIXON: Well, I m not a crook. WRIGHT: -- as he told the American people he had nothing to do with Watergate. Turns out, Senator Obama is in pretty good company in this campaign. Most of the other candidates for president this year don t wear the flag pin. John Edwards always wears his late son s Outward Bound pin. Hillary Clinton often goes pinless out on the campaign trail. CLINTON: I think there are so many ways that Americans can show their patriotism. WRIGHT: Of all the candidates this year, only Rudolph Giuliani is rarely seen without his flag pin. OBAMA: I m less concerned about what you re wearing on your lapel than what s in your heart. WRIGHT: A fashion statement that could provoke plenty of debate -- for Good Morning America, David Wright, ABC News, Washington. [end video clip] CUOMO: Now joining us live with the bottom line is ABC s chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos. George, thank you for joining us this morning as always -- tricky politics here for Barack Obama, when you re playing with the American symbol, the flag. How does this go for him? STEPHANOPOLOUS: Well, listen, the problem is not the fact that he s not wearing a flag pin. As David Wright pointed out, a lot of candidates aren t wearing the pin. The problem for him is, in that first answer, he seemed to slam people who did wear the pin as we were moving towards war in Iraq and he was suggesting that this was a protest on his part and that was a mistake for Barack Obama. He fixed it yesterday. I don t think this is going to be a huge problem for him going forward. In fact, it probably appeals to some in the Democratic base who are very much anti-war, but it could limit his gains further on down the road.

Discussing a recent interview with a reporter in Iowa in which Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) said that he had stopped wearing an American flag pin on his lapel during the lead-up to the Iraq war, Fox News host Sean Hannity said on the October 4 broadcast of his radio show: "[W]hy do we wear pins? Because our country was under attack." He continued: "And to politicize once again the war to this extent. Well, who cares about the war? Are you proud of your country? Do you believe in America? Do you believe that America has been, continues to be the greatest force for good in this world?" Hannity later stated: "I think it s, you know, the greatest gift God gave us and continues to be a force for good." Yet while criticizing Obama for not wearing a flag pin, Hannity himself has not worn an American flag lapel pin on a number of recent occasions. Hannity s quote, "[W]hy do we wear pins? Because our country was under attack," was included in a number of reports on Obama s decision not to wear a flag pin -- including in the October 4 edition of ABC s World News with Charles Gibson and the October 5 edition of ABC s Good Morning America. Below are examples of Hannity not wearing an American flag lapel pin on Fox News Hannity Hannity s America: From the October 4 edition of ABC Radio Networks The Sean Hannity Show: HANNITY: Anyway, so get this story [since updated to include Hannity s comments], reported by ABC News: A reporter for the ABC affiliate in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, noticed that something was missing from Barack Obama s lapel. He says: "You don t have the American flag pin on it. Is that a fashion statement?" the reporter asked at the end of a brief interview with Obama. "Those have, you know, basically been on politicians since September 12, 2001." The standard political reply to that question might well have been, "My patriotism speaks for itself." But Obama didn t say that. The piece goes on: Instead, the senator answered the question at length, explaining that he no longer wears such a pin at least in part because of the Iraq war. He said, quote, "You know, the truth is, is that right after 9-11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9-11, particularly because as we were talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won t wear that pin on my chest. "Instead," he said, "I m going to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism." The Obama campaign declined to expand on the statement. His comments speak for itself. Now, I ve got to tell you -- I mean, why do we wear pins? Because our country was under attack. And to politicize once again the war to this extent. Well, who cares about the war? Are you proud of your country? Do you believe in America? Do you believe that America has been, continues to be the greatest force for good in this world? I think the answer, if you ask that question of any, you know, liberal today, I think they doubt that America is a force for good in the world, that America has been, continues to be a force for good in the world. And I think it s, you know, the greatest gift God gave us and continues to be a force for good.

On the October 5 edition of Fox News America s Newsroom, former radio host Mark Williams claimed that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), "took his flag pin off after 9-11, and he felt, apparently, some sort of an affinity or some sort of a connection, because at that point he felt it OK to come out of the closet as the domestic insurgent he is." David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation magazine, appearing along with Williams, noted that Obama recently said that he decided not to wear the pin "shortly after 9-11," not because of 9-11, as Williams suggested. When Corn said that Obama chose to take the pin off "because he didn t like the run-up to the [Iraq] war, and he decided that you show your patriotism by your ideals, not by what you wear on your lapel," Williams asked, "What has Obama done to demonstrate the patriotism that he says doesn t belong on his lapel? What s he done to demonstrate that, except get out there, badmouth this country, and help demoralize the troops, and help do his part to undermine this nation?" Williams went on to suggest that Obama might "like a cloth flag and a match," and called the "Democrat [sic] Party" the "domestic enemy." From the October 5 edition of Fox News America s Newsroom: BILL HEMMER (co-host): All right, Barack Obama wants to be president, right? This week he was asked why he no longer wears an American flag lapel pin on his suit. Instead the Illinois senator saying that he wants to show Americans his beliefs are a testament to his patriotism. How s this going to impact his campaign? Let s debate that now with radio talk show host Mark Williams and the Washington editor for The Nation, David Corn. Gentlemen, welcome to both of you here. WILLIAMS: Thank you. CORN: Good to be here. HEMMER: David, you first, now how does this decision win votes? That s the name of the game, right? CORN: Uh, excuse me. Last night, on this very network, there was an interview with Fred Thompson. Guess what he had on his lapel? No flag pin. I went on to the websites this morning of John McCain and Mitt Romney. Found lots of pictures of them, no flag pin, flag pin. I looked at Congressional Quarterly this morning, and I did see a picture of Larry Craig, the disgraced senator who s not giving up his seat. There was a flag pin. HEMMER: I don t, OK. CORN: This is a big nothing. Unless you want to talk about everybody else who s wearing and not wearing a flag pin, I don t see how this makes a difference in the race. HEMMER: I want to bring in Mark in a moment. Have these guys been asked about it yet? I don t think they have. I think it s Obama that s on record as addressing this. Mark, what do you make of this? How does it win votes? That is the name of the game. WILLIAMS: It uh, well first of all, Obama s very different than those other names, in that Obama says he took his flag pin off after 9-11, and he felt, apparently, some sort of an affinity or some sort of a connection, because at that point he felt it OK to come out of the closet as the domestic insurgent he is. CORN: Oh, you know -- WILLIAMS: The Democrat [sic] Party is coming out of the closet as the domestic insurgency and the domestic enemy. We ve got John "Skippy" Edwards, who wants us all to march off to the doctor for mandatory physicals. Hillary Clinton, who wants us to be denied the right to work for a living unless we live a politically correct prescribed lifestyle for our universal health insurance. Obama, who says 9-11 is his cue to take off the American flag -- CORN: Mark, Mark -- WILLIAMS: And then now David Corn equating an American flag with a pervert in a toilet. CORN: That s wrong, Mark. You have your facts wrong. HEMMER: He s calling him a "domestic insurgent," David? CORN: Hey, hey, Bill, Bill, let me make a suggestion here. If you want to have an intelligent debate, you should have someone who knows the facts. What Obama says is that he wore a flag pin after 9-11. That s not that 9-11 caused him to take it off. And that after -- WILLIAMS: Took it off after 9-11. CORN: No, no. And then he took it off sometime after 9-11 -- WILLIAMS: As a - as a good ally -- [crosstalk] HEMMER: Hang on. CORN: Let me finish. [crosstalk] CORN: He took it off because he didn t like the run-up to the war, and he decided that you show your patriotism by your ideals, not by what you wear on your lapel. So you have it wrong, Mark. Mark, you owe him an apology. HEMMER: David, you ve made your point. Mark, is that the case? Is that a fact? CORN: You owe him an apology, Mark. HEMMER: Hang on, David. Mark, go ahead. WILLIAMS: He took it off after 9/11. He said that he felt that the flag was becoming something -- it was becoming too noticeable, too high profile. He thought that people were wearing it in place of showing their patriotism. I mean, come on, what has Obama done to demonstrate the patriotism that he says doesn t belong on his lapel? What s he done to demonstrate that, except get out there, badmouth this country, and help demoralize the troops, and help do his part to undermine this nation? CORN: You know, there are plenty of generals who don t support this war who have spoken out against it. I guess they re all unpatriotic in your view too. More Americans than not say the war was a mistake. Are they unpatriotic as well, Mark? You re putting yourself into a very small corner. WILLIAMS: Are they throwing their flags into the gutter? CORN: No one s throwing their flags into the gutter. WILLIAMS: Maybe Obama would like a cloth flag and a match. CORN: You know, you really should stick to some facts. I know on radio talk, rhetoric is what counts the most, but you re misstating the facts, and now you re branding everybody who s against the war as being unpatriotic? Some people would say that that s unpatriotic. WILLIAMS: I m talking about Obama -- HEMMER: Mark, you get the last word. Fire away. WILLIAMS: I m talking about Obama and the domestic enemies in the Democrat Party -- CORN: Oh, this is absurd. WILLIAMS: -- who stand for everything this country was founded to oppose. HEMMER: You guys are hot. CORN: Well, I m right and he s wrong. HEMMER: David, thank you. Mark, thanks to you as well. WILLIAMS: Thanks. HEMMER: Something tells me that this isn t the last of this debate. See you guys.

On the September 30 edition of NBC s Meet the Press, host Tim Russert noted that, during a recent MSNBC-sponsored debate at Dartmouth College, the three leading Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) and Barack Obama (IL), and former Sen. John Edwards (NC), would not commit "by January of 2013, to have all American troops out of Iraq." NBC White House correspondent David Gregory described this as "a really measured position" and asserted, "Edwards particularly, who was embracing the left wing of the party s view that you have to end the war now, and the others even voting for cutting off funding." He added, "I think it s a realization ... that they re going to take a more centrist position and say to the left wing of their party, We ve got to be pragmatic about this. " But Gregory s suggestion that Clinton s and Obama s current positions are inconsistent with their having "even vot[ed] for cutting off funding" -- an assertion that is itself misleading -- is false. And Gregory offered no evidence that Edwards has shifted position either. In fact, both Clinton and Obama voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) mandating that funding for the U.S. mission in Iraq be terminated and combat forces be redeployed by June 30, 2008, but providing, as Media Matters for America noted, continued funding for "limited" military operations there indefinitely. Additionally, earlier this year, the Senate, with Clinton and Obama s support, passed an emergency supplemental funding bill that would have required the "Secretary [of Defense] ... [to] commence such redeployment no later than October 1, 2007, with a goal of completing that redeployment within 180 days," but that also included a provision stipulating that a residual U.S. troop presence remain in Iraq: Prohibit[] the Secretary, after the appropriate redeployment period, from deploying or maintaining members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than: (1) protecting American diplomatic facilities, American citizens, and other U.S. forces; (2) serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions; (3) engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations; and (4) training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces. Moreover, as Media Matters has noted, Clinton and Obama have both introduced legislation providing for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but also a continuing military presence there. Edwards has also previously stated that he would not withdraw all troops from Iraq as president. In a May 23 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards asserted that he would preserve "some presence in Baghdad" in order to "protect the American Embassy and other personnel." From the speech: EDWARDS: My plan calls on Congress to use its funding power to stop the surge and force an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 combat troops from Iraq, followed by an orderly and complete withdrawal of all combat troops in about a year. [...] EDWARDS: I believe that once we are out of Iraq, the U.S. must retain sufficient forces in the region to prevent a genocide, deter a regional spillover of the civil war, and prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven. We will most likely need to retain Quick Reaction Forces in Kuwait and in the Persian Gulf. We will also need some presence in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone, to protect the American Embassy and other personnel. Finally, we will need a diplomatic offensive to engage the rest of the world in Iraq s future -- including Middle Eastern nations and our allies in Europe. During the debate, Edwards said that "in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops" would be needed to remain in Iraq because the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and humanitarian workers in Iraq would "have to be protected": RUSSERT (debate moderator): Senator Edwards, will you commit that at the end of your first term, in 2013, all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq? EDWARDS: I cannot make that commitment. But I -- well, I can tell you what I would do as president. When I m sworn into office, come January of 2009, if there are, in fact, as General [David] Petraeus suggests, 100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will immediately draw down 40 to 50,000 troops; and over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat troops out of Iraq until all of our combat troops are, in fact, out of Iraq. I think the problem is -- and it s what you just heard discussed -- is we will maintain an embassy in Baghdad. That embassy has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected. I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that, 3,500 to 5,000 troops. In response to the same question, Obama said, "What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office ... I will drastically reduce our presence [in Iraq] to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we re carrying out counterterrorism activities there." Clinton said, "I will immediately move to begin bringing our troops home when I am inaugurated," and later added, "[T]here may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed at Al Qaeda in Iraq. It may require combat, Special Operations Forces or some other form of that, but the vast majority of our combat troops should be out." From the September 30 edition of NBC s Meet the Press: RUSSERT: Let me ask you about Iraq, because it was interesting, I thought in this debate. The first question I asked of the three front-runners, and all the candidates, will you pledge, by the end of your first term, January of 2013, all American troops will be out of Iraq? Clinton, Obama, Edwards all said, "I won t make that commitment." GREGORY: Right, they said you never know what we re going to find, a really measured position for three candidates. Edwards, Edwards particularly, who was embracing the left wing of the party s view that you have to end the war now, and the others even voting for cutting off funding. I think it s a realization, though, that they re going to take a more centrist position and say to the left wing of their party, "We ve got to be pragmatic about this. We can t lose a general election because of your feelings about the war."

On the September 27 edition of NBC s Today, discussing the September 26 Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire, NBC chief White House correspondent David Gregory asserted that "surprisingly, the top three contenders, [Sen. Hillary Rodham] Clinton [D-NY], [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL], and [former Sen. John] Edwards [D-NC], would not promise a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces, even by the end of their first term." But Gregory did not explain why he thought that this was "surprising[]," and in fact the statements of all three candidates were consistent with their previous positions. As Media Matters for America has documented, both Clinton and Obama have voted for legislation that included provisions for keeping a residual U.S. troop presence in Iraq. In July, the Senate debated an amendment to the defense authorization bill -- offered by Sens. Jack Reed (D-RI) and Carl Levin (D-MI) -- that called for a "reduction" of U.S forces in Iraq to begin "not later than 120 days" after the bill s enactment, but also stipulated that the United States maintain a "limited presence" of troops there to protect U.S. and coalition infrastructure, train Iraqi security forces, and conduct counterterrorism operations. A motion to stop a filibuster of the Levin-Reed proposal garnered 52 votes on July 18, including Clinton s and Obama s. Additionally, earlier this year, the Senate, with Clinton and Obama s support, passed an emergency supplemental funding bill that would have required the "Secretary [of Defense] ... [to] commence such redeployment no later than October 1, 2007, with a goal of completing that redeployment within 180 days." It also contained a provision to: Prohibit[] the Secretary, after the appropriate redeployment period, from deploying or maintaining members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than: (1) protecting American diplomatic facilities, American citizens, and other U.S. forces; (2) serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions; (3) engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations; and (4) training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces. Moreover, as Media Matters has noted, Clinton and Obama have introduced similar legislation in the Senate. Indeed, Obama introduced legislation in January that would require the redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq to begin "not later than May 1, 2007." According to Obama s bill, redeployment of U.S. forces would be "subject to the exceptions for retention of forces for force protection, counter-terrorism operations, training of Iraqi forces, and other purposes." Clinton introduced a bill on February 16 providing for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, while stipulating that the United States maintain a "limited presence" of forces there for training Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. personnel and infrastructure, logistical support of Iraqi security forces, and targeted counterterrorism activities. Edwards has also previously stated that he would not withdraw all troops from Iraq as president. In a May 23 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards asserted that he would preserve "some presence in Baghdad" in order to "protect the American Embassy and other personnel." From the speech: EDWARDS: I believe that once we are out of Iraq, the U.S. must retain sufficient forces in the region to prevent a genocide, deter a regional spillover of the civil war, and prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven. We will most likely need to retain Quick Reaction Forces in Kuwait and in the Persian Gulf. We will also need some presence in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone, to protect the American Embassy and other personnel. Finally, we will need a diplomatic offensive to engage the rest of the world in Iraq s future -- including Middle Eastern nations and our allies in Europe. During the debate, Edwards said that "in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops" would be needed to remain in Iraq because the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and humanitarian workers in Iraq would "have to be protected": TIM RUSSERT (NBC News Washington managing editor and debate moderator): Senator Edwards, will you commit that at the end of your first term, in 2013, all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq? EDWARDS: I cannot make that commitment. But I -- well, I can tell you what I would do as president. When I m sworn into office, come January of 2009, if there are, in fact, as General Petraeus suggests, 100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will immediately draw down 40 to 50,000 troops; and over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat troops out of Iraq until all of our combat troops are, in fact, out of Iraq. I think the problem is -- and it s what you just heard discussed -- is we will maintain an embassy in Baghdad. That embassy has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected. I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that, 3,500 to 5,000 troops. From the September 27 edition of NBC s Today: MEREDITH VIEIRA (co-anchor): We re going to begin with today on the trail of the Democrats squaring off in the crucial state of New Hampshire last night. NBC s chief White House correspondent David Gregory is in Hanover, New Hampshire, with the latest. David, good morning to you -- late night. GREGORY: It was a late night. Good morning, Meredith. Well, two hours on the debate stage, pronounced differences between the candidates on the issues and a single strategy: knock Hillary Clinton off her stride. [begin video clip] GREGORY: A crowded Democratic field sharing a stage and battleground -- New Hampshire -- but a key moment in the debate pitted Clinton against Clinton. The former president once suggested it would be appropriate to torture a suspect to prevent a terror attack against the U.S. Mrs. Clinton disagreed. RUSSERT: So, he disagrees with you? CLINTON: Well, he s not standing here right now. RUSSERT: So there is a disagreement? CLINTON: Well, I ll talk to him later. GREGORY: Senator Clinton spent much of the night fending off her rivals. On Iraq, John Edwards said he would immediately withdraw at least 40,000 combat troops, while Senator Clinton, he argued, would prolong the war. EDWARDS: There are, however, differences between us, and those differences need to be made aware. Good people have differences about this issue, and I would not continue combat missions in Iraq. GREGORY: Clinton said the only combat mission she would support would be against Al Qaeda. But surprisingly, the top three contenders, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards would not promise a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces, even by the end of their first term. OBAMA: I think it would be irresponsible. We don t know what contingency will be out there.

On the September 21 edition of CNN s The Situation Room, contributor and guest host Carol Costello interviewed National Rifle Association (NRA) executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, but she did not ask LaPierre about controversial remarks made by musician Ted Nugent -- an NRA board member -- during an August concert at Anaheim s House of Blues. As Media Matters for America noted, in video footage from the concert, Nugent held what appeared to be two assault rifles and boasted that he told Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "to suck on my machine gun" and said that he told Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "you might want to ride one of these into the sunset." Also during the concert, Nugent called Obama a "piece of shit," referred to Clinton as a "worthless bitch," and called Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) a "worthless whore." Portions of Nugent s remarks were aired on the August 28 and 30 editions of CNN Headline News Glenn Beck. LaPierre and Costello discussed live remarks by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) and taped remarks by Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) to the NRA s "Celebration of American Values" conference. The National Rifle Association listed Nugent as a member of its board of directors whose term would expire in 2007. As Media Matters noted, according to Nugent s biography on his personal website, he has been a member of the National Rifle Association s board of directors from "1995-present." In addition, Nugent frequently performs at the NRA s annual convention. The AP quoted Nugent speaking at the NRA s annual convention in 2005, urging National Rifle Association members to be "hardcore, radical extremists demanding the right to self defense." From the August 28 edition of CNN Headline News Glenn Beck: BECK: So what happens when a rock legend decides to exercise his free speech and use assault rifles to help make a point? Take a look. NUGENT [video clip]: Obama, he s a piece of [expletive], and I told him to suck on my machine gun! Let s hear it for them. And then I was in New York and I said -- I said -- "Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless [expletive]." Freedom! BECK: All right. Look, I am no stranger to getting criticized when my words have been taken out of context and also being criticized when I deserve it because I stink sometimes. But that clip from the Nuge just seems a little hard to understand. You know? I -- you know, I m not necessarily clear on his intent here. I know what he said. But why did he say it? Joining me now is musician and activist Ted Nugent. Hello, Ted. You re still mad at me from this morning, aren t you, Ted? NUGENT: Bottom line is, I think your representation on the radio this morning -- which, by the way, I m not mad at you at all. I love you madly. You just don t seem to grasp what literally tens of millions of Americans do grasp, in that good rock n roll, the best rock n roll, especially Ted Nugent rock n roll, is over the top! It s intense. It s scary! It s uninhibited; it s even irreverent. And I m not going to try to get a list from anybody of what they authorize me to say, because I draw the line at law. I m not going to break the law. I m not going to incite any illegal activities and I m not going to hurt anybody. BECK: Hey, look -- NUGENT: Other than that, nothing is sacred. From the September 21 edition of CNN s The Situation Room: COSTELLO: So, Rudy Giuliani stood up there and he said: "I know you re not going to agree with some of what I have to say, but you can believe this, that I will put into place the plan that I have." How did that go over with the NRA? LaPIERRE: Well, a lot of what he said, I mean, I liked. He said that he was in favor of overturning the D.C. gun law, which prohibits people from owning a firearm in their home for protection. He thought the Second Amendment was an individual right. He thought we didn t need more gun laws. He thought they just ought to enforce what was on the books. But this whole forum today was the first step in a process of our involvement in the presidential race. I mean, we re going to send this out to our members. We re going to listen to what they have to say about all the candidates. And then, eventually, we are going to do what s right to defend the Second Amendment. COSTELLO: Do you think with his words, though, he changed minds? LaPIERRE: Well, I -- I -- if you look at history, I mean, there are legions of people in this country in political office that have attempted to square themself away with the Second Amendment, after listening to the majority of the American public on this issue, that want their freedom to own a firearm defended. So, I mean, I don t think there s that much unique about someone that looks at the public opinion in this country, the majority of the Americans, where they are on the issue, and, you know, changes -- evolves to that point. COSTELLO: But how can you marry what -- how can you marry what Rudy Giuliani said today and what he has said in the past? I m going to read you something that he said in 1995 to Charlie Rose. He said: "The NRA is, in essence, defense of assault weapons and their willingness to deal with some of the realities here that we face in our cities is a terrible, terrible mistake." And, by that, he s talking about gun control. And he says the NRA is making a mistake by not -- not touting gun control for big cities with crime problems. LaPIERRE: Well, I don t have to. I mean, he has to sell that to the American public and justify it. I mean, I remember when Bill Clinton came out of the 94 elections and when he said, hey, I listened to the public and I have changed. It -- if you look at the 90s, I mean, the whole Democratic Party at that point was following Clinton and Gore, basically trying to ride destruction of the Second Amendment to victory. It backfired on them. And, since then, most of the center of the Democratic Party has been much more, we support the Second Amendment and we favor individual rights on firearms. COSTELLO: So, do you see the NRA supporting Rudy Giuliani s candidacy over other GOP candidates? LaPIERRE: You know, we re not even to that point. This was a first step in a long process. We are going to defend the freedom of Americans to own firearms, like we always have, and do what s right to achieve that. COSTELLO: Is there anyone you like best right now, though? LaPIERRE: We re really not at that point. This was about listening to the candidates. This is about opening up a process. It was about listening to what these candidates have to say, so these type of judgments you re talking about can be made down the road. But -- but any candidate that wants to come before us and say, hey, look, I ve seen the light on the Second Amendment, we re going to hear what they have to -- COSTELLO: Like Bill Richardson, who believes in -- in gun rights, and he s a Democrat? LaPIERRE: Bill Richardson was very strong. Hey, I mean, he helped pass right-to-carry out in New Mexico. He s been a strong defender of the Second Amendment. And he, by video today, had a very strong Second Amendment rights message. COSTELLO: So, would you like Bill Richardson, a Democrat, over, let s say, Rudy Giuliani, a Republican? LaPIERRE: I think Bill Richardson is great. I mean, he s been a strong defender of freedom. We aren t even to that point yet, but I m happy that Bill Richardson supports the freedom. I m happy that any American out there, whether in political office or not, supports the Constitution and supports the right of Americans to own firearms, supports the right of self-defense, and is on our side. COSTELLO: OK. I have to ask you about the cell phone, because, right in the middle of Rudy Giuliani s speech to the NRA, his cell phone goes off. So, I m going to play that for our audience right now -- LaPIERRE: OK. COSTELLO: --so they can see it. GIULIANI [video clip]: This is my wife calling, I think. Hello, dear. I m talking -- I m talking to the members of the NRA right now. Would you like to say hello? I love you. And I ll give you a call as soon as I m finished, OK? OK. Have a safe trip. Bye-bye. Talk to you later, dear. I love you. COSTELLO: What did you make of that? LaPIERRE: I figured his wife called him. I don t know. That -- that was my take on it. COSTELLO: How did it go over with the audience? LaPIERRE: I think it was a lighthearted moment, and they were amused by it. And -- COSTELLO: Would you take a phone call from your wife in the middle of an important speech? LaPIERRE: Hey, I -- I think we -- I think we ve all taken a lot of phone calls from our wives. COSTELLO: So, you would keep it in your pocket, on -- LaPIERRE: Well -- COSTELLO: -- during an important speech -- LaPIERRE: -- I don t know that I would have a cell phone in my pocket on during a speech. But I -- I -- I agree with you on that. COSTELLO: All right. Wayne LaPierre, thanks so much for joining us today. LaPIERRE: Thanks, Carol. Thanks for having me. COSTELLO: Appreciate it.

During the September 21 edition of MSNBC s Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named nationally syndicated radio show host Rush Limbaugh the "runner-up" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for, as Media Matters for America documented, smearing Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) with references to Osama bin Laden. Limbaugh cited a bin Laden tape in which bin Laden "says he is going to invade Pakistan and declare war on Pakistan and [President Pervez] Musharraf, which, ladies and gentlemen, puts you on the same page with a Democrat presidential candidate -- that would be Barack Uss-Obama. " As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented (here, here, and here), Obama never said he would "attack Pakistan," or "declare war on Pakistan and Musharraf." In an August 1 speech, Obama stated that "[i]f we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won t act, we will," but he did not elaborate on the nature of this action. Limbaugh frequently appears on Olbermann s "Worst Person" list, as Media Matters has noted (here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). On August 2, Olbermann awarded Limbaugh the "bronze" for claiming that Democrats have "aligned themselves with the enemy. ... The enemy kills more soldiers, their spokesmen here in America are the Democrats. When we kill more of the enemy, the Democrats are silent and they say nothing. But when you have reports of, you know, another IED or a picture of a car on fire, then the Democrats assume the role of media PR spokespeople for Al Qaeda. " Additionally, Olbermann named CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck the "Worst Person" for saying that it is "unbelievabl[ly] racist" to claim Obama "is acting white," despite having made similar claims himself. Olbermann said Beck "blasted Jesse Jackson for saying, Barack Obama is acting white, which is an unbelievable racist statement. I mean, if I said, I don t know, I don t think I could vote for that Rudy Giuliani because he was acting a little black, he would be picketing in front of my building tonight. " But on the February 12 edition of his radio show, Beck claimed that Obama "is very white in many ways." Media Matters documented Beck s February 12 commentary, and the blog Think Progress noted Beck s conflicting statements. From the September 21 edition of MSNBC s Countdown with Keith Olbermann: OLBERMANN: The runner-up, comedian Rush Limbaugh, out there again deliberately trying to link Osama bin Laden and Barack Obama, saying there s another bin Laden tape in which he says, quote, "He s going to invade Pakistan and declare war on Pakistan and Musharraf, which, ladies and gentlemen, puts him on the same page with a Democrat presidential candidate -- that would be Barack Uss-Obama. " Actually, Senator Obama said that he d make military aid to Pakistan conditional, which is the same thing as invading Pakistan if you ve had more anesthetics and painkillers than they gave me for my appendectomy -- which, in comedian s case, is true. But our winner: CNN s Glenn Beck, now in a desperate battle of words with CNN s Glenn Beck. He has now blasted Jesse Jackson for saying, quote, "Barack Obama is acting white, which is an unbelievable racist statement. I mean, if I said, I don t know, I don t think I could vote for that Rudy Giuliani because he was acting a little black, he d be picketing in front of my building tonight." So what does Mr. Beck have to say about this remark? Quote: "I thought to myself, he" -- Obama -- "is very white in many ways. He is. He s very, very white," unquote. Who said that? Glenn Beck, on the radio February 12th this year. To paraphrase that old, mean joke, you re never alone with a -- Glenn Beck, today s "Worst Person in the World"!

During the September 20 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, discussing a newly released audio tape reported to be from Osama bin Laden in which he calls for Pakistanis to overthrow President Pervez Musharraf, Rush Limbaugh asserted: "Well, we ve got another tape from -- I get these guys confused -- Usama bin Laden. Another tape says he s going to invade Pakistan and declare war on Pakistan and Musharraf, which, ladies and gentlemen, puts him on the same page with a Democrat presidential candidate -- that would be Barack Uss-Obama. " Limbaugh then aired an audio clip of a recent statement by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL): "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won t act, we will." Misrepresenting Obama s comment, Limbaugh then said: "All right, so, we re going to attack Pakistan. Poor Musharaff s going to get it on both ends if Barack s elected." However, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented (here, here, and here), Obama never said he would "attack Pakistan," or "declare war on Pakistan and Musharraf." As Limbaugh noted, in his August 1 speech, Obama did claim that "[i]f we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won t act, we will," but he did not elaborate on the nature of this action. From Obama s August 1 speech: OBAMA: As president, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan. I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an Al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won t act, we will. And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my administration will increase America s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally. During an August 6 campaign stop in Iowa, when an audience member asked Obama about his comments, Obama responded, "The misreporting that was done needs to be cleared up. I never called for an invasion of Pakistan." From the September 20 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: Well, we ve got another tape from -- I get these guys confused -- Usama bin Laden. Another tape says he s going to invade Pakistan and declare war on Pakistan and Musharraf, which, ladies and gentlemen, puts him on the same page with a Democrat presidential candidate -- that would be Barack "Uss-Obama." And let s go back to August 1st: "U-Bama" gave a speech on counterterrorism, and here s a portion of what he said. OBAMA [audio clip]: If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will. LIMBAUGH: All right, so, we re going to attack Pakistan. Poor Musharraf s going to get it on both ends if Barack s elected.

On the September 6 edition of MSNBC s Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough said that Norman Hsu -- a Democratic contributor and fund-raiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton s (D-NY) campaigns -- was "on the lam again," referring to Hsu s failure to appear in a San Mateo, California, court on September 5 to address charges pending against him. Scarborough asked guest Craig Crawford of Congressional Quarterly whether this was "bad news" for Clinton, and Crawford replied that "Democrats aren t taking her on because of glass houses," adding "You know, [former Sen. John] Edwards [NC] has his hedge fund problems, [Sen. Barack] Obama [IL] has a fund-raiser problem himself in Chicago." However, neither Scarborough nor Crawford noted that leading Republican presidential candidates are facing questions regarding figures involved in their campaign finances. Additionally, in a September 6 post on the New York Times blog The Caucus, reporting on the arrest of Passaic, New Jersey, Mayor Samuel Rivera -- a former member Clinton s "Mayor s Council" -- Patrick Healy asserted that "Clinton advisers this spring and summer have been aggressively touting their long list of endorsements from elected officials and prominent Democratic donors, to indicate the breadth of establishment support that Mrs. Clinton enjoys," and continued: "Yet, in the case of Mr. Hsu and now Mayor Rivera, the criminal allegations indicate a cost that can come with quickly rounding up political support from far and wide." But, like Scarborough and Crawford, Healy did not mention any of the numerous individuals who have supported Republican presidential candidates and have been subject to "criminal allegations." For example: Mitt Romney supporters As Media Matters for America has documented, Romney s national finance committee co-chairman Alan B. Fabian was, according to an August 9 Associated Press article, "charged in a 23-count indictment unsealed Thursday [August 9] with mail fraud, money laundering, bankruptcy fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice." The AP reported that Fabian "allegedly ran a scheme to make $32 million in false purchases of computer equipment, spending the money instead on beach real estate and private jet travel." Fabian resigned from Romney s finance committee shortly after being indicted, and the Romney campaign said it would return Fabian s $2,300 contribution, but not, however, "contributions from donors who were recruited by or have ties to Fabian," as The Boston Globe reported. According to a June 20 article in The Hill, "133 plaintiffs have alleged that Robert Lichfield, co-chairman of Romney s Utah finance committee owned or operated residential boarding schools for troubled teenagers where students were subjected to physical abuse, emotional abuse and sexual abuse. " The article also noted that a second lawsuit "alleges that Lichfield and several partners entered into a scheme to defraud them by operating an unlicensed boarding school in upstate New York." The Deseret Morning News (Utah) reported September 7 that Lichfeld "resigned on his own accord" in July, according to a Romney spokeswoman. Rudy Giuliani supporters Giuliani s former South Carolina state chairman, former South Carolina Treasurer Thomas Ravenel, pleaded guilty September 6 "to a federal charge of possession with intent to distribute cocaine," as the Associated Press noted. According to the AP, Ravenel "faces up to 20 years in prison and a $1 million fine, though his plea agreement calls for a reduced sentence because he is helping prosecutors with their investigation." On June 20, the New York Post reported that Ravenal had stepped down from his "volunteer responsibilities with the campaign" following his indictment, according to Giuliani political director Mark Campbell. The New York Times reported June 7 that Robert B. Asher, "a prominent Pennsylvania Republican and prolific fund-raiser," had recently acknowledged to donors that he had agreed to be the state political chairman for Giuliani. The article noted that Asher "was convicted in 1986 of bribery-related charges as part of a scheme to award a no-bid contract to a company in exchange for promises of $300,000 in payoffs and political contributions." According to a July 10 post on The Caucus, "[o]nly after public reports that Mr. Asher had been convicted in a famous public corruption case two decades earlier did the campaign back away from the choice." John Wren, the "Media/PR/Advertising Industry Leader" for Giuliani s finance team, faced fraud allegations as the CEO of Omnicom, for "off-loading" certain personal stocks to avoid recording any operating losses associated with those investments. The December 13, 2006, edition (subscription required) of Jack O Dwyer s Newsletter, a weekly publication that covers the public relations industry, reported: Court papers that Omnicom has been trying to keep sealed for five years have been made public and they detail charges of fraud against CEO John Wren and CFO Randall Weisenburger as well as charges against OMC itself. Wren and Weisenburger are said to have participated in the off-loading of certain dot-com investments in 2000-2001 via personal ownership of stock and stock options and personal control of entities and that this was not fully reported to the SEC or even OMC s board of directors. [...] It s charged that OMC parked interests that it held in Agency.com and Organic with related-party entities to avoid recording operating losses linked with those investments. OMC ultimately took private the two entities it repurchased from Seneca. CEO John Wren and CFO Randall Weisenburger are said to be involved in the parking of stock in Organic that they personally owned. Media Matters for America has noted several media outlets that have touted alleged scandals involving supporters of Democratic presidential candidates, while ignoring those involving individuals who support Republicans: During his September 5 washingtonpost.com "Post Politics" discussion, Washington Post money and politics reporter John Solomon was asked why a September 3 Post article he co-wrote with staff writer Matthew Mosk -- which discussed "a growing number of fundraisers in the 2008 presidential campaign whose backgrounds have prompted questions" -- did not mention that "Mitt Romney s national finance co-chairman, Alan B. Fabian, recently was indicted on 23 counts of money laundering, fraud, perjury, and obstruction of justice, among other crimes." The version of the article published by the Post mentioned only scandals involving supporters of Democratic candidates. Solomon responded by claiming that "my colleague Matt Mosk and I reported on the Romney matter." But rather than discussing Fabian, Solomon proceeded to claim that they had included a paragraph about another Romney fundraiser in their draft of the article: "Likewise, Republican Mitt Romney faced questions about one of his Utah finance chairmen, Robert Lichfield, because of lawsuits he is facing alleging abusive treatment at boarding schools he founded to handle troubled youths." Solomon added: "Unfortunately, it was edited out. That sometimes happen when stories get trimmed to make room for late-breaking news." A September 5 New York Times editorial criticizing presidential candidates use of "bundlers" -- fundraisers who solicit friends, family, and associates to make campaign contributions to specific candidates -- said that "Senator Hillary Clinton has been burned twice lately by so-called bundlers." The editorial noted specifically, "One Clinton bundler turned out to have an outstanding arrest warrant for business fraud; the other has a history of tax liens, fraud charges and bankruptcy proceedings on two continents," apparent references to Hsu, the person with a warrant against him, and Sant Chatwal, who, according to a September 3 Washington Post report, "resolved the last" of the regulatory and tax charges against him "this spring." The Times went on to note that "[o]ther candidates in both parties have been similarly embarrassed" but did not specifically mention any Republican candidate. Between August 28 and August 31, NBC, CNN, and Fox News all aired reports or discussions on Hsu, but did not air reports or discussions about Fabian s indictment on mail fraud, money laundering, bankruptcy fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice charges during programs available in the Nexis database. From the September 6 edition of MSNBC s Morning Joe: SCARBOROUGH: Let s talk about Hillary Clinton for a second. This big fund-raiser of hers is on the lam again. Is this bad news for Hillary Clinton? CRAWFORD: It ought to be, but the Democrats aren t taking her on because of glass houses. You know, Edwards has his hedge fund problems, Obama has a fund-raiser problem himself in Chicago. SCARBOROUGH: In Chicago, right. CRAWFORD: It s been interesting to see how the Republicans are beating her up, but the Democrats have been real quiet. So, she had a terrible last couple of weeks of August actually. She had her little slip-up -- some saw it that way -- talking about how another terrorist attack would help the Republicans and she s the only Democrat who can fight that. People thought that was a bit of a misstep. But lucky for her, there was a lot else going on, [Sen.] Larry Craig [R-ID] and other things, when she was having a couple of her worst weeks so far, at least in the preseason. SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. MATTHEW FELLING (media director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs): What was it about -- she made some sort of a mistake last week. She did Ellen the other day, and she s trying to build it up through pop culture support. And she did Letterman last week, I believe, and the Clintons are coming out with their whole new media campaign right about now. CRAWFORD: And Clinton -- I mean, Bill Clinton s got a book out. So he s all over the place. Larry King, I think, Letterman also, and Oprah. SCARBOROUGH: But again, that doesn t help her with her base. It s kind of like Fred Thompson on The Tonight Show. That s more of a general election strategy. CRAWFORD: Yeah, I think they re trying to clamp down. She s the one to beat. She s on top thinking about the general election that certainly has to -- she has run, I have to give her and [Republican candidate Rudy] Giuliani the nods for the preseason. They both won their preseason. SCARBOROUGH: That s right. CRAWFORD: Now everything could change. Because they have talented people against them and enough time, I think, for things to change. SCARBOROUGH: We ll see what happens. Preseason is over.

On the September 6 edition of MSNBC s Tucker, host Tucker Carlson quoted Michelle Obama, wife of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), from a recent interview with Glamour as saying of her husband and children: "We have this ritual in the morning. They come in my bed, and Dad isn t there -- because he s too snore-y and stinky, they don t want to ever get into bed with him." Glamour left out a key word from Michelle Obama s quote; she had said, "They come in my bed, and if Dad isn t there ..." -- the addition of "if" turning her remark into a conditional statement that her children come into bed "if Dad isn t there." But Carlson went beyond Glamour s original error, asserting, based solely on the inaccurate quote, that "the Obamas do not sleep in the same bed, Mrs. Obama is saying." Later in the program, Carlson reported that he "just received a call from the Obama campaign taking issue" with his claim that Michelle Obama said "the Obamas do not sleep in the same bed." Carlson claimed to "know nothing about the Obama s bedroom habits beyond what Michelle Obama has told the rest of us," and reread the excerpt from the interview adding: "I don t know anything she hasn t told me. So if there s more they want to tell us about their bedroom habits, this is the show to tell us on." Even after Glamour edited the posted transcript, CNN s Political Ticker blog posted the inaccurate version of Michelle Obama s quote in a September 7 entry, despite linking to the updated Glamour transcript: In an interview with Glamour Magazine, Ms. Obama details her two girls morning ritual, a time, she says, when her husband Barack is often "snore-y and stinky." "We have this ritual in the morning," Michelle Obama told Glamour. "They come in my bed, and Dad isn t there -- because he s too snore-y and stinky, they don t want to ever get into bed with him." Michelle Obama s statement, as it originally appeared, was cited by several blogs, including a September 6 entry to The New York Times The Caucus by reporter Katharine Q. Seelye. Seelye s post was updated on September 7 to note Glamour s update to the interview transcript: Update: Glamour has updated its Web site now with a fuller quote from Mrs. Obama, and here s a complete transcript of the passage: Q: Speaking of your girls, what do you think they think of Mommy? How do they think of you? Mrs. Obama: You know my hope in my gut is that I am just Mommy. I don t think this part registers to them. I mean so much of our relationship is based on our world at home. It s getting up _ you know we have this ritual in the morning. We get up and they want ten more minutes so they can come in my bed and if Dad isn t there _ because he is too snore-y and stinky, they don t want ever to get in the bed with him _ but we cuddle up and we talk. We ve talked about everything from the boy that one daughter doesn t particularly like in school to what is a period to _ Q: And they are five and eight? Mrs. Obama: They are six and nine. To the big topic in the morning is, when we get a dog, what kind of dog? From Michelle Obama s interview with Glamour, as it currently appears on the magazine s website: LEE: What do your girls think of you? OBAMA: My hope and my gut is that I am just Mommy. We have this ritual in the morning. They come in my bed, and if Dad isn t there -- because he s too snore-y and stinky, they don t want to ever get into bed with him. But we cuddle up and we talk about everything from what is a period to the big topic of when we get a dog: what kind? From the September 6 edition of MSNBC s Tucker: CARLSON: Time for a check of the Obameter, and there is fresh activity. First, an aide close to Obama says that Oprah Winfrey may take a visible role in that campaign, possibly as a surrogate of sorts. Winfrey hosts her fundraiser for the campaign Saturday night in California. The other development comes from Michelle Obama, who again spoke plainly about her husband to Glamour magazine. Referring to their daughters she said this, quote: "We have this ritual in the morning. They come in my bed, and Dad isn t there -- because he s too snore-y and stinky, they don t want to ever get into bed with him. But we cuddle up and we talk about everything from what is a period to the big topic of when we get a dog: what kind?" That s what she said. Did you want to know that? Well, you do now, and so does everyone else. Joining us again, former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan and senior editor of Newsweek Jonathan Alter. Jonathan Alter -- the Obamas do not sleep in the same bed, Mrs. Obama is saying. Why is that my business? Why is she talking about this? [...] CARLSON: Welcome back. We just received a call from the Obama campaign during the course of our show taking issue with something I said a minute ago. It appeared to me, I said, that Michelle Obama was saying she and her husband don t share the same bed. Just to be clear, I know nothing about the Obamas bedroom habits beyond what Michelle Obama has told the rest of us. So, to be clear, let s reread what Michelle Obama said about the subject. Quote, "We have this ritual in the morning. They come into my bed" -- the children -- "and Dad isn t there -- because he s too snore-y and stinky, they don t want to ever get into bed with him." Etcetera, etcetera. I don t know anything she hasn t told me. So if there s more they want to tell us about their bedroom habits, this is the show to tell us on.

During an August 30 White House press briefing, conservative radio host and WorldNetDaily.com White House correspondent Les Kinsolving falsely asserted that Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) and Barack Obama (NY) received an "endorsement" from Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Kinsolving was referring to Castro s August 28 column in the Cuban newspaper Granma, in which Castro described a potential Clinton-Obama presidential ticket as "seemingly invincible." However, as Media Matters for America senior editor Terry Krepel noted and as Media Matters has documented, at no point in his column did Castro endorse Clinton or Obama; to the contrary, he attributed to Clinton and Obama a pro-democratic view that he called an "error," and he said of Clinton and Obama, "They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon." From the press briefing transcript: Q Okay. Reuters reports from Harvard that Fidel Castro has just described Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as "an apparently unbeatable ticket." But the Reuters report did not mention either of these two U.S. Senators repudiating this endorsement. And my question: Does the leader of the Republican Party believe that Clinton and Obama should repudiate this dictator s endorsement or not? MR. SNOW: I think it is safe to say that Fidel Castro is not an expert on the workings of an active democracy. Kinsolving s false assertion was repeated in an August 31 WorldNetDaily.com article. The article stated: "An endorsement from Cuban dictator Fidel Castro that praised Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as an apparently unbeatable combination in the run for the White House isn t worth all that much, according to the spokesman for President Bush." In a July 26 WorldNetDaily article, WorldNetDaily editor and CEO Joseph Farah reported that Kinsolving would no longer attend White House press briefings because Snow "has been so repeatedly unfair to WND and Kinsolving." The article cited Snow s refusal "to take any Kinsolving questions during three out of four daily White House press briefings" the previous week, as well as Snow s criticism during his July 25 press briefing of WorldNetDaily s July 23 report that "[a]ttempts by cities or other governments to sidestep federal policy and make their own provisions for illegal aliens won t get any attention from the White House, spokesman Tony Snow says." Snow asserted that Kinsolving "thoroughly twist[ed] out of context the answer I gave you," and described the report as "a disservice to this White House and to the craft of journalism." From the press briefing transcript: Q Thank you, Tony. Two questions. The AP reports that Sydney, Australia s Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, is leading a campaign urging all residents to pack an emergency survival kit in preparation for any terrorist attack or other disaster in Australia s largest city. And my question -- does the White House believe that this is a campaign U.S. cities should be launching, or not? MR. SNOW: That would be something that I would not be privy to comment on. And, Les, let me just -- before we get back into a situation where it will be more difficult to get called on, let me just point out that you need to ask questions that bear on the President s responsibilities. I saw the piece you wrote the other day, that has been thoroughly twisting out of context the answer I gave you when I told you that the President, in fact, was -- Q That s what -- MR. SNOW: I don t care. What you did -- Q They wrote it out there. MR. SNOW: You know what, I don t care, okay, because the fact is, if somebody is going to take questions about things that do not fall under the President s purview -- and I answered that question -- and it gets twisted, that is a disservice to this White House and to the craft of journalism. So if I were you, I d pick up the phone and tell them to start cleaning up or writing corrections. Farah described Snow s statements as "a rebuke, and a threat, and an attempt to control Les Kinsolving and WND s right to ask questions at the White House." An August 5 WorldNetDaily article reported that Kinsolving "is returning to the presidential press briefings this week after a one-on-one conference" with Snow. The article continued: "Kinsolving and Snow reached an agreement during a phone conversation, after which an aide to Snow told Farah Tony is very fond of Les and holds him in high personal regard. "

On the August 29 edition of his CNN Headline News program, Glenn Beck falsely claimed that Cuban dictator Fidel Castro had given an "endorsement" to Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in an August 28 column in the Cuban newspaper Granma. Beck s guest, radio talk show host and former Texas state Sen. Dan Patrick, echoed Beck s assertion, claiming that Castro "thinks" Clinton or Obama "would be a good president." Similarly, on the August 29 edition of Fox News Your World, guest host Dagen McDowell falsely claimed that Obama and Clinton "rack[ed] up another endorsement today, this one coming straight from Cuba s Fidel Castro." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, at no point in his column did Castro endorse Clinton or Obama; to the contrary, he attributed to Clinton and Obama a pro-democratic view that he called an "error," and he said of Clinton and Obama, "They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon." Further, on Beck s program, Patrick falsely claimed that Obama advocated "attacking" Pakistan and, without offering any evidence, asserted that "terrorists" supported the Democrats in the 2004 election. Beck asserted that Castro s editorial was "probably not the endorsement that either candidate was looking for" and asked: "Do you remember a time when an endorsement from Castro would have killed a campaign faster than the good old-fashioned Dean scream?" Patrick then asserted that Castro s article marks "the best day that ... the Republicans running for president have had in a long time," later adding that "I don t think the Cuban population in Miami is really going to go out and actively work for someone that Fidel Castro thinks would be a good president." On Your World, McDowell, who also serves as a Fox News business correspondent, asked if "support from the dictator [will] hurt donations" to the Obama and Clinton campaigns. Republican strategist Margaret Hoover said "it helps Republicans" and that "the best thing for a Republican is for Hillary and Obama to go ahead and embrace this endorsement." Yet, in his Granma column, Castro described a potential Clinton-Obama presidential ticket as "seemingly invincible," but he did not endorse either candidate. From Castro s column: Today, talk is about the seemingly invincible ticket that might be created with Hillary for President and Obama for Vice President. Both of them feel the sacred duty of demanding "a democratic government in Cuba". They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon. The media declares that this would be essential, unless Gore decides to run. I don t think he will do so; better than anyone, he knows about the kind of catastrophe that awaits humanity if it continues along its current course. When he was a candidate, he of course committed the error of yearning for "a democratic Cuba". Enough of tales and nostalgia. This is written simply to increase the conscience of the Cuban people. As Media Matters noted Fox News previously reported the false claim that Castro had endorsed Clinton and Obama. During an August 29 Fox s column, on-screen text falsely asserted, "CASTRO S DREAM TEAM: WANTS CLINTON AND OBAMA IN 08" and an on-screen graphic depicted Castro, Clinton, and Obama enclosed in a red heart. And during the August 28 edition of Fox News The O Reilly Factor, guest host Michelle Malkin previewed an upcoming segment by falsely claiming that "Fidel Castro, of all people, endorses a Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama presidential ticket." Additionally, Patrick claimed that Obama "really hurt himself with his naivet on international affairs," adding that Obama suggested "attacking Pakistan whether they want us there or not." In fact, in his August 1 foreign policy speech, Obama did not say he would "attack[]" Pakistan. Rather, Obama said: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistan] President [Pervez] Musharraf won t act, we will." Obama has since pointed out that he "never called for an invasion of Pakistan." Patrick also asserted that Castro s purported "endorsement" of Obama and Clinton "is like when the terrorists kind of came out, you know, before the Bush election in support of the Democrats." Patrick may have been referring to a taped message released by Osama bin Laden in October 2004, which many conservative media figures cited as evidence that bin Laden preferred then-Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. But as Media Matters for America noted, according to investigative reporter Ron Suskind s book, The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America s Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11 (Simon s message was intended to assist in the re-election of President Bush. From the August 29 edition of CNN Headline News Glenn Beck: BECK: Coming up, Fidel Castro declares Clinton-Obama the winning ticket for the 2008 election. Do you remember -- do you remember the time when an endorsement from a ruthless dictator was a bad thing? Oh, those were the days. [...] BECK: Now, I m guessing it s probably not the endorsement that either candidate was looking for, but it seems Cuban dictator Fidel Castro cannot deny the, quote, "seemingly invincible ticket of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in 2008." I don t know. Maybe it s just me. Do you remember a time when an endorsement from Castro would have killed a campaign faster than the good old-fashioned Dean scream? Oh, those really were the days. Dan Patrick, Texas state senator, now talk show host for KSEV-FM in Houston. Dan -- an endorsement from Castro. PATRICK: You know, Glenn, this is -- this reminds me of what the military is saying. Supposedly, Chelsea Clinton was in Afghanistan and asked one of the soldiers what are the three things that concerned them most, and the soldier said, "Osama, Obama, and yo mama." So, I have a sense that -- BECK: See, I don t -- I don t believe that. I think that was just a joke. PATRICK: Yeah, I don t think that really happened, but it could ve happened. BECK: Right. It could have, sure. PATRICK: It could ve happened. BECK: It didn t. PATRICK: Yeah, and this is the best day that Rudy and Fred, if he gets in the race, and Mitt and the rest of the Republicans running for president have had in a long time, because, seriously, Glenn, in -- you know, in the nation, Cubans only represent less than a percent of the population. But in Florida, the state of hanging chads -- and a state that, with Ohio or West Virginia, could determine the next election -- they re about 5 percent of the electorate. And I don t think the Cuban population, in Miami, is really going to go out and actively work for someone that Fidel Castro thinks would be a good president. BECK: So, let me ask you this, Dan, because I -- you know, I agree with you on Florida, but what has happened to us where we don t call China "Red China" anymore? Or that we don t -- that communism is such a joke and socialism is so acceptable now? Just whatever. What happened to us? PATRICK: Well, I don t know who "we" is, because I don t think that applies to you. It doesn t apply to me. I don t think it applies to most Americans. I think that this is like when the terrorists kind of came out, you know, before the Bush election in support of the Democrats. It may have given Bush a few points. I mean, this is -- I don t think it s a joke. I think that it underscores what our enemies -- and Fidel Castro is an enemy -- I think this underscores who they would like to see in the White House. And they don t want to see a conservative in the White House or a Republican. And I still think most Americans think that red is still red and communism is not good. And I think you re right. I don t think either one likes this endorsement. What I really think this sets up, though, Glenn, is I go around the state of Texas and talk to people around the country, there is this thinking that this is the ticket -- and I m not so sure. I think Barack Obama has really hurt himself -- BECK: Yeah. PATRICK: -- with his naivet on international affairs. You know, attacking Pakistan whether they want us in there or not, not using nuclear weapons, sitting down, you know, to have tea with our enemy. And does America really want a VP a heartbeat away from the president that is that naive? And so Hillary has a problem. If she doesn t put him on the ticket, she alienates the African-American voters in America. If she does put him on the ticket, it will make some people sit back and think, is this going too far? I mean, it s one thing making fun of Dan Quayle because he couldn t spell potato. He was really qualified, and he was ridiculed by the media. It s another thing to have what appears to be someone who is totally naive about how to deal with terror as vice president of the United States. BECK: Dan, I appreciate it. Thank you very much for your time, sir. PATRICK: Thanks, Glenn. BECK: I will say -- just one more thing, America. He also said that Jimmy Carter was the best president we ever had. And Hillary and Obama are really not his first choice. Al Gore would be his first choice. From the August 29 edition of Fox News Your World with Neil Cavuto: McDOWELL: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama racking up another endorsement today, this one coming straight from Cuba s Fidel Castro. Will support from the dictator hurt donations to their campaigns? Republican strategist Margaret Hoover says yes but Democratic strategist Bob Beckel disagrees. Well, Margaret, to you first: help or hurt? HOOVER: I think it helps Republicans that she s doing this because the best way to get every Cuban American in Miami to send $20 to the Republican nominee is to shore up Fidel Castro s support. They want nothing more than to distance themselves from him. So, the best thing that -- the best thing for a Republican is for Hillary and Obama to go ahead and embrace this endorsement.

During the August 29 edition of Fox News Fox S DREAM TEAM: WANTS CLINTON AND OBAMA IN 08," referring to Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) and Barack Obama (IL). Also during the segment, an on-screen graphic depicted Castro, Clinton, and Obama enclosed in a red heart. In addition, during the August 28 edition of Fox News The O Reilly Factor, guest host Michelle Malkin previewed an upcoming segment by falsely claiming that "Fidel Castro, of all people, endorses a Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama presidential ticket." Malkin went on to ask, "What is that all about?" In fact, at no point in his column did Castro endorse Clinton or Obama. Indeed, he attributed to Clinton and Obama a pro-democratic view that he called an "error," and he said of Clinton and Obama, "They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon." From Castro s column: Today, talk is about the seemingly invincible ticket that might be created with Hillary for President and Obama for Vice President. Both of them feel the sacred duty of demanding "a democratic government in Cuba". They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon. The media declares that this would be essential, unless Gore decides to run. I don t think he will do so; better than anyone, he knows about the kind of catastrophe that awaits humanity if it continues along its current course. When he was a candidate, he of course committed the error of yearning for "a democratic Cuba". Enough of tales and nostalgia. This is written simply to increase the conscience of the Cuban people. In an August 21 column in The Miami Herald, Obama stated that "[a] democratic opening in Cuba is, and should be, the foremost objective of our policy," and that "[i]f a post-Fidel government begins opening Cuba to democratic change, the United States (the president working with Congress) is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed relations between our countries for the last five decades." He added: "Cuban-American connections to family in Cuba are not only a basic right in humanitarian terms, but also our best tool for helping to foster the beginnings of grass-roots democracy on the island. Accordingly, I will grant Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island." Further, the Herald reported in an August 22 article that "Clinton s campaign said she agrees with Obama that exiles should be able to freely send money to their relatives in Cuba but said she does not favor any wholesale, broad changes to the travel restrictions until Fidel Castro falls." The Herald added that according to Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee, Clinton " supports the embargo and our current policy toward Cuba, and until it is clear what type of political winds may come with a new government -- if there is a new government -- we cannot talk about changes to U.S. policy. " From the August 29 edition of Fox News Fox t lost an election in a long time. DOOCY: Sure. KILMEADE: And now he s holding on to life. But before he does that, he s a student of our electoral process, and he thinks he knows who the unbeatable, impenetrable team is. DOOCY: Impenetrable? GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): I m surprised he did not only just pick Obama, because it was Obama, recently, who said that, yeah, he would start up any conversation with any dictators around the world, while Hillary Clinton, during that debate, said, "Hmm? Not so fast, I might have to do a little more research before I would do that." DOOCY: Yeah, and of course anybody running for president of course needs to win Florida. And to win Florida and the very influential, powerful Cuban exile community, you gotta say stuff like, "Well, there should be democracy in Cuba." Anyway, Castro said, quote, "Today, talk is about the seemingly invincible ticket that might be created with Hillary for president and Obama for vice president. Both of them feel the sacred duty of demanding a democratic government in Cuba." All right. Also, let s tell you a little about this, kids. From the August 28 edition of Fox News The O Reilly Factor: MALKIN: And Fidel Castro, of all people, endorses a Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama presidential ticket. What is that all about? We hope you stay tuned for those reports. [...] MALKIN: Very quickly, Laura [Schwartz, Democratic strategist]. SCHWARTZ: Minimum wage, raising it. Energy legislation -- [crosstalk] SCHWARTZ: I wouldn t discount the working class in this country, Karen [Hanretty, Republican strategist]. That s the problem with the Republican Party today. I know that s another situation, but they ve ignored the working class, and that s - [crosstalk] SCHWARTZ: Hey, what about those working poor, those families in the inner city that can t even make enough to live - [crosstalk] MALKIN: Well, Fidel Castro agrees with you, and he s endorsed the Hillary-Obama ticket, so there you go. Ladies, thank you.

On the August 28 edition of MSNBC Live, while discussing the Iraq war with Jon Soltz, co-founder and chairman of the anti-Iraq war group VoteVets.org, anchor Tamron Hall claimed that Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) and Barack Obama (IL) are "both saying that the new strategy" in Iraq "is working." Tamron went on to ask Soltz: "But do you think that it will start to hurt your organization and others whose message is, you know, that you want the soldiers, the troops home, set a timeline, when you hear from, you know, the two leading candidates for president and Democrats, Clinton and Obama, saying Hey, things are working, so then why not stay longer? " In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, neither Clinton nor Obama has claimed that President Bush s troop increase strategy in Iraq is "working," and neither has advocated "stay[ing] longer." Indeed, both candidates have sponsored legislation (here and here) requiring a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. From the 10 a.m. ET hour of the August 28 edition of MSNBC Live: SOLTZ: So, the difference is grassroots organizations like VoteVets.org, or political organizations designed by the White House to salvage the embarrassment that this president feels for misleading us into this war and mismanaging the war -- the entire phase. And now we have a situation where Al Qaeda is stronger today, and the military is destroyed, and it s a big problem for our country. And most Americans want a strong national security, and that s not where this president s taken us. HALL: Well, Jon, though, I mean, you have to admit the strategy has changed and there are reports that the tactics are working. You even have Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama both saying that the new strategy is working. The quote from Sen. Clinton I have is: "We ve begun to change the tactics in Iraq in some areas, particularly Anbar province, and it s working." SOLTZ: I m so glad you brought that up, because I think that s the most important thing. Sen. Clinton s not talking about our military tactics. She is talking about our political tactics. What we ve done in Anbar is we ve engaged the Sunnis. We ve engaged them politically against this Wahabi-Sunni extremists that have entered the country. So, this is more of what we need to do, which is more political diplomatic work to protect the Sunni minority, to establish a Shia majority. We can t have a democracy in Iraq unless we support the Shia majority. So, look, our soldiers are the best in the world -- they re going to hold and take terrain. But to say that the surge has worked, or the escalation, is ridiculous when the Iraqi government is on vacation. HALL: But do you think that it will start to hurt your organization and others whose message is, you know, that you want the soldiers, the troops home, set a timeline, when you hear from, you know, the two leading candidates for president and Democrats, Clinton and Obama, saying "Hey, things are working, so then why not stay longer?" SOLTZ: That s not what Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama are saying. Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama have a commitment to destroying Al Qaeda, much like VoteVets.org does. So, we re committed to saving the armed forces of the United States, saving the Marine Corps, saving the Army, taking the fight to the enemy. The latest National Intelligence Estimate tells us that the central front to the war on terror is in Afghanistan and Pakistan region, not in Iraq. So, I think that s what they re saying, that s what we re saying. We want to protect America. However, in the August 20 speech from which Hall quoted, Clinton said changed "tactics" in certain areas of Iraq are "working" -- not Bush s troop "surge" policy. Indeed, in an August 21 article on the speech, The New York Times quoted her as saying: "We ve begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it s working. ... We re just years too late changing our tactics. We can t ever let that happen again." The Times also reported that "[a]ides to Mrs. Clinton said her remarks that military tactics in Iraq are working referred specifically to reports of increased cooperation from Sunnis leading to greater success against insurgents in Al Anbar Province." According to an April 29 Times article, the progress in Al Anbar "began last September" -- months before Bush announced his plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq. Indeed, as Media Matters repeatedly noted, Clinton similarly suggested months ago that the U.S. forces are achieving progress in Iraq due to better relations between tribal leaders and American military forces. During the MSNBC segment, Hall did not cite any specific comments by Obama in claiming that he has said "the new strategy is working." In fact, in recent speeches and statements, Obama has said the exact opposite. For instance, in an August 21 speech, he said that "there is no military solution in Iraq" and "[n]o military surge can succeed without political reconciliation and a surge of diplomacy in Iraq and the region," as Media Matters noted. In an August 21 conference call with reporters, Obama similarly stated that whether the troop increase results in short-term security improvements "doesn t change the underlying assessment, which is that there is not a military solution to the political dynamic in Iraq." The New York Observer s blog The Politicker reported Obama s statement in an August 21 post: "My assessment is that if we put an addition [sic] 30,000 of our outstanding troops in Baghdad it is going to quell some of the violence short term, I don t think there has even been any doubt about that," said Obama, adding "It doesn t change the underlying assessment which is that there is not a military solution to the political dynamic in Iraq." Further, in response to Bush s August 28 speech at the National Convention of the American Legion, Obama released a statement saying, in part: "Now we are dealing with the consequences of that failure of candor and judgment, and the President is using the politics of fear to continue a wrong-headed policy. It s time to turn the page on the failed Bush-Cheney strategy and conventional Washington thinking, remove our combat troops from Iraq, mount a long overdue surge of diplomacy, and focus our attention on a resurgent al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan."