Top Story

In speech before Knesset, Bush compares Democrats to Nazi appeasers While delivering an address before the Israeli parliament commemorating the 60th anniversary of Israel, President Bush said that Sen. Barack Obama and Democrats favor a policy of appeasement toward terrorists. CNN reports that Bush was comparing Obama to "other U.S. leaders back in the run-up to World War II who appeased the Nazis."

Did Bush get any inside information on this from his grandfather Prescott Bush, who helped the Nazis rise to power? Obama says he’s not an appeaser.—Caro

A blast from the past:

For more headlines, visit MakeThemAccountable.com.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Following up on my ongoing discussion with BizzyBlog.com's Tom Blumer, I did a bit of work today updating the four key components looked at by the National Bureau of Economic Research in its recession dating work.

Remember:

The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.

Okay, but how would one go about analyzing those metrics? This document tells us exactly how:

The Federal Reserve Board’s seasonally adjusted “total index” (B50001) of industrial production may be found on the Federal Reserve’s web site, at http://www.federalerserve.gov/releases/G17/iphist/iphist.sa. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ series for seasonally adjusted “total nonfarm” employment (EES00000001), which uses CES payroll survey data, may be found at the BLS web site, at http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet. BEA’s estimates of monthly real manufacturing and trade sales are available in line 1 of tables 2AU and 2BU of the “underlying tables” subsection of the “gross domestic product” tables section of BEA’s web site, www.bea.gov. Table 2AU includes monthly estimates for the period 1967-96, and the estimates are in chained 1996 dollars; details are on an SIC basis. Table 2BU includes monthly estimates for the period 1997-2004, and the estimates are in chained 2000 dollars; details are on a NAICS basis. Both tables are titled “Real Manufacturing and Trade Sales, Seasonally Adjusted at Monthly Rate.” Although the NBER data set begins in 1959, BEA does not now publish estimates prior to 1967. BEA’s estimates of monthly real personal income may be derived by subtracting line 14 of table 2.6 “Personal Income and Its Disposition, Monthly”—personal current transfers receipts— from line 1—personal income, and dividing by the price index for personal consumption expenditures from line 1 of table 2.8.4, “Price Indexes for Personal Consumption Expenditures by Major Type of Product Monthly.” The transfers estimates are the gross inflows, and are different from the estimates of “transfer persons to persons” from the previous table 2.8. The new estimates should more accurately reflect business conditions’ immediate effects on personal income than did the old estimates. Again, the new estimates are published beginning in 1967. As a result of the unavailability of estimates prior to 1967, the flows of real monthly sales and personal income around the 1960-61 recession are not included in this review.

So, what do those numbers tell us? Well, take the Recession Rorschach test and you tell me.

Here's a chart of the Federal Reserve's Industrial Production (their series G.17).

Here's a chart of the Nonfarm Payrolls (Seasonally Adjusted).

Here's Real Manufacturing and Trade Sales.

And last but not least, here's Real Personal Income.

Looks to me like three of the four have peaked and one is simply flat-lining. Add anemic GDP into the mix and it's easy to see where the recession talk comes from. And we haven't even touched on the potentially damaging consequences of further real estate deflation or $125/bbl oil.

Now, Mr. Blumer wants to argue that the economy gained jobs on a "Not Seasonally Adjusted" basis, which is, frankly, meaningless. (He seems to be the only person I've found anywhere on the internets flogging that factoid. Even Larry Kudlow knows better.) He also wants to argue that we have "unemployment that is lower than 30 of the past 40 years’ annual averages," as if that's a meaningful data point to the NBER. Neither is the fact that we have an "ISM projection of weighted-average 2.4% growth."

Confronted with actual facts, Mr. Blumer has done little but:

a) Claim that I'm wasting his time (the ultimate cop-out) or
b) Throw out red herrings that have little to do with what actually matters

Stay tuned.

This is a real good look at the people behind Obama's fundraising apparatus. These people have it nailed down. If there's a better explanation of how Obama is running a 21st-century campaign and Clinton's model is straight-up 20th-century, I haven't read it.

"The story of Obama’s success is very much a story about money. It provided his initial credibility. It paid for his impressive campaign operation. It allowed him first to compete with, and then to overwhelm, the most powerful Democratic family in a generation—one that understood the power of money in politics and commanded a network of wealthy donors that has financed the Democratic Party for years.

What’s intriguing to Democrats and worrisome to Republicans is how someone lacking these deep connections to traditional sources of wealth could raise so much money so quickly. How did he do it? The answer is that he built a fund-raising machine quite unlike anything seen before in national politics. Obama’s machine attracts large and small donors alike, those who want to give money and those who want to raise it, veteran activists and first-time contributors, and—especially—anyone who is wired to anything: computer, cell phone, PDA.

Here’s another thing: he is doing it almost effortlessly. That is to say, in an era when the imperative for campaign dollars demands more and more of a politician’s time and lurks behind so many recent scandals (including the auctioning-off of the Lincoln Bedroom), Obama has raised more money than anybody else without plumbing ethical gray areas or even spending much of his own time soliciting donations. During the month of February, for example, his campaign raised a record-setting $55 million—$45 million of it over the Internet—without the candidate himself hosting a single fund-raiser. The money just came rolling in."

[...]

Barack Obama was new to most Americans when he entered the presidential race, in February 2007. But he was familiar to Silicon Valley in at least one way: like a hot Internet start-up in the glory years, he had great buzz, a compelling pitch, and no money to back it up. He wasn’t anybody’s obvious bet to succeed, not least because the market for a Democratic nominee already had its Microsoft.

This being Silicon Valley, however, Obama was quickly embraced. A few days before Obama declared, John Roos hosted a fund-raiser at his home, attended by Gorenberg and many other prominent figures. This sent an important signal to the community and added to Obama’s local mystique. “There is a lot of good feeling for the Clintons in California,” says Peter Leyden, the director of the New Politics Institute in San Francisco, a tech-focused think tank that is neutral in the presidential race. “But once the community here experienced Obama, that started to break up really quickly.”

That early fund-raiser and others like it were important to Obama in several respects. As someone attempting to build a campaign on the fly, he needed money to operate. As someone who dared challenge Hillary Clinton, he needed a considerable amount of it. And as a newcomer to national politics, though he had grassroots appeal, he needed to establish credibility by making inroads to major donors—most of whom, in California as elsewhere, had been locked down by the Clinton campaign.

Silicon Valley was a notable exception. The Internet was still in its infancy when Bill Clinton last ran for president, in 1996, and most of the immense fortunes had not yet come into being; the emerging tech class had not yet taken shape. So, unlike the magnates in California real estate (Walter Shorenstein), apparel (Esprit founder Susie Tompkins Buell), and entertainment (name your Hollywood celeb), who all had long-established loyalty to the Clintons, the tech community was up for grabs in 2007. In a colossal error of judgment, the Clinton campaign never made a serious approach, assuming that Obama would fade and that lack of money and cutting-edge technology couldn’t possibly factor into what was expected to be an easy race. Some of her staff tried to arrange “prospect meetings” in Silicon Valley, but they were overruled. “There was massive frustration about not being able to go out there and recruit people,” a Clinton consultant told me last year. As a result, the wealthiest region of the wealthiest state in the nation was left to Barack Obama.

A skeptical friend asked me the other day how Obama was able to raise so much money, saying 'Somebody really wants him to be president.' I'm going to email him this article and he'll get a better idea of who that 'somebody' is. It's us.

And be sure to read the bit at the end about McCain's archaic fundraising op. Barack is going to crush the GOP in fundraising this year.

H/T: Political Wire

Top Story

Bush: Democratic presidency could lead to another terror attack on U.S. President Bush said on Tuesday he was disappointed in "flawed intelligence" before the Iraq war and was concerned that if a Democrat wins the presidency in November and withdrew troops prematurely it could "eventually lead to another attack on the United States."

And he’s going to do his best to make sure there’s an attack BEFORE the November election, so that Americans will be scared into voting for John McCain.—Caro

Be afraid—and vote Republican!
Project for the Old American Century

For more headlines, visit MakeThemAccountable.com.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Living in the future rocks.

On the heels of Radiohead's letting people pay what they want for 'In Rainbows' last year, I was wondering what Trent Reznor was going to do now that he and his band are without a label and able to call their own shots as far as how they sell their music. Trent seemed really impressed with what Radiohead did with 'In Rainbows' (rumor has it that he went to the W.A.S.T.E. site and ponied up $5 grand for that record because he thought the idea was so cool). Earlier this year, the band released an album of instrumentals and charged a mere 5 bucks for it, and to follow that up they're giving away their new record, 'The Slip,' for free.

In Trent's own words: 'Thank you for your continued and loyal support over the years - this one's on me.'

Get the album - in a choice of 5 high-resolution formats - at the NIN web site. Yay, Trent. I knew there was a reason I always dug ya.

Grab a cup of coffee. Some of this stuff is simply riveting.

Right here.

Top Story

Bush to discuss oil prices with Saudi king WASHINGTON - President Bush said Monday that when he meets Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah later this week, he'll bring up the effect that high oil prices are having on the U.S. and global economies.

He’s going begging again. How humiliating is that?—Caro

A Blast from the Past by Russ Donegan

For more headlines, visit MakeThemAccountable.com.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Top Story

Oil could hit $200 in 'super-spike' Oil prices threaten to hit $200 a barrel in a final "super-spike" over coming months as 'producers fail to keep pace with blistering demand from China and the Middle East,' according to a controversial report by Goldman Sachs.

Buck Fush

For more headlines, visit MakeThemAccountable.com.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Here's one for you by The Intruders. Happy Mom's Day, Mom.

I`ll always love my mama, She`s my favorite girl
I`ll always love my mama, She brought me in this world

Sometimes I feel so bad
When I think of all the things I used to do
How mama used to clean somebody else`s house
Just to buy me a new pair shoes

I never understood how mama made it through the week
When she never, ever got a good night`s sleep

Talking `bout mama, Oh, she`s one of a kind
Talking `bout mama
You`ve got your yours, and I`ve got mine
Talking `bout mama
Oh, hey mama, hey mama, my heart belongs to you, oh, yeah

I`ll always love my mama, She`s my favorite girl
You only get one, you only get one, yeah
I`ll always love my mama, She brought me in this world

Mmm, a mother`s love is so special
It`s something that can`t you can`t describe
It`s the kind of love that stays with you Until the day you die

She taught me little things
Like saying `Hello` and `Thank you, please`
While scrubbing those floors on her bended knees

Talking `bout mama, Oh, she`s one of a kind
Talking `bout mama
You`ve got your yours and I`ve got mine
Talking `bout mama
Oh, hey mama, hey mama, my heart belongs to you, oh, yeah

I think I'm very late to the party on this one, but Pandora.com is simply fabulous. Forgive my tardiness.

Of course he "hadn't heard that," he's a fucking moron.

Feb 28, 2008:

Q What's your advice to the average American who is hurting now, facing the prospect of $4 a gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing --

THE PRESIDENT: Wait, what did you just say? You're predicting $4 a gallon gasoline?

Q A number of analysts are predicting --

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yeah?

Q -- $4 a gallon gasoline this spring when they reformulate.

THE PRESIDENT: That's interesting. I hadn't heard that.

Q Yes, sir.

Top Story

White House: Time not right for three-way Mideast meeting WASHINGTON - President Bush's second trip to the Mideast this year, designed in part to make progress toward a peace deal before the end of his presidency, will not see him hosting a joint session with the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the White House said Wednesday.

Of course we’re not ready to talk. Bush only talks AFTER he’s blown a country to smithereens.—Caro

Project for the Old American Century

For more headlines, visit MakeThemAccountable.com.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Top Story

Bolton on whether Bush might bomb Iran before he leaves office: ‘I think so, definitely.’ (Think Progress) In a Fox News interview this afternoon, former UN Ambassador John Bolton discussed his desire to bomb camps inside Iran that are reportedly training and arming Shiite insurgents who fight in Iraq. Fox host Martha McCallum asked, “Can you imagine a scenario where President Bush would do that before the end of his term?” Bolton responded, “I think so, definitely.” He added later, “This is entirely responsible on our part.”

We can’t believe anything you say, Mr. Bolton. We know you're just pimping for George Bush, trying to get him another war.—Caro

The Radical Fringe

For more headlines, visit MakeThemAccountable.com.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Still picking my jaw up off the floor after reading this:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Now, I won't accuse Hillary Clinton of racism. That's the easy explanation, but it's way too easy. And the Clintons have long had the respect and support of the Black community, so calling them racists would be a stretch that I'm not willing to make.

Having said that, I'm afraid that this latest statement is just further evidence that Clinton is willing to use loaded words and dog-whistle politics in an increasingly desperate attempt to save what is essentially a dead campaign. And at this point in the primary, that is a dangerous and damaging course to take.

This was a stupid, stupid thing to say, but does that mean that Hillary Clinton is stupid? No. Quite the contrary - she is without a doubt a very bright person. She is a lawyer, and lawyers are trained by profession to zero in on the meaning of words and arrange them in a very precise manner, so as to narrow and limit any interpretation that would vary from the interpretation that the lawyer wants to convey.

There are a few bloggers out there (like Jerome Armstrong, who just gets more pitiable every damn day) who are perfectly willing to write this off as Clinton mis-speaking, saying something she did not mean in the course of a free-wheeling interview.

I don't buy that for a second.

I believe that Clinton said exactly what she wanted to say - and while I won't say she's a racist, I will say that she seems willing to use any tactic, however disingenuous or divisive, to try and get her epic failure of a presidential campaign back on the rails.

I can only imagine what any uncommitted black superdelegates are thinking at this point. I can only imagine what black voters in my state of New York are thinking. I can only imagine the twisted thought process within the Clinton campaign that came to the conclusion that this was a good tactic or a smart thing to say.

The short-term damage will be to Barack Obama's campaign and his chances for success in November. This one goes in the growing file of 'Statements John McCain Can Use Against Barack Obama That Were Said By Hillary Clinton.'

But in the long term, this will come back to hurt Clinton herself. It will damage her stature in the black community and will tarnish the Clinton legacy, and could seriously damage her chances for re-election to the Senate.

And if she is willing to use these reprehensible tactics for what she sees as short-term gain, then she deserves every bit of damage that this is certain to cause her in the long term.

This type of thing is exactly why she is losing the primary. Democrats hate this type of stuff when Republicans do it, and they are repulsed and saddened when a Democrat does it.