Is Israel a Friend to the U.S.?

It is rarely debated in America, the relationship between the U.S. and Israel. Anyone, especially politicians, are immediately denounced the moment they breathe a word of criticism of the Jewish state. This spying case will be no different. It will get little press coverage, and even less public debate over our support for a "friendly" country that spies on us:

Israel was tightlipped on Wednesday over the arrest in the United States of an 84-year-old American suspected of providing it with U.S. military secrets in the 1980s, a new case that has opened old wounds.

"We received an official update from the Americans. We are following the developments," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Arye Mekel said, a day after suspect Ben-Ami Kadish made an initial appearance in a federal court in New York.

The case, linked to the Jonathan Pollard spy scandal that has been an irritant in the U.S.-Israel alliance, raised fears in Israel it would cast a pall over President George W. Bush's visit next month to celebrate the Jewish state's 60th birthday.

But Environment Minister Gideon Ezra, a former senior security official, predicted that Israel's relations with the United States would not suffer.

"Our strategic relationship with the United States is stronger than this," Ezra told Israel Radio.

Officials with inside knowledge in Israel of the country's intelligence services were not denying it may have had a second spy operating in the United States in parallel with Pollard -- but they were insisting such espionage ceased long ago.

"The Americans know ... that since Pollard was exposed in 1985, Israel doesn't recruit agents or receive classified material (in) the United States," said Yuval Steinitz, a former chairman of the Israeli parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee.

But Danny Yatom, a legislator and a former head of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency, said the current affair had touched a nerve with Washington.

"I think what primarily bothers the Americans is the feeling that Israel didn't tell them the whole truth two decades ago, in 1985, when the Pollard affair exploded," Yatom told Israeli Army Radio.

"The Americans asked if there are additional people that Israel ran or are running in the United States. The answer, to the best of my knowledge, was always no," Yatom said.

Kadish, who was released on $300,000 bail, is a Connecticut-born U.S. citizen who worked as a mechanical engineer at the Army's Picatinny Arsenal in Dover, New Jersey.

He was accused of giving Israel secrets, from 1979 to 1985, about nuclear weapons, fighter jets and missiles.

According to a federal complaint, Kadish reported to the same Israeli handler who was a main contact for Pollard, a U.S. naval intelligence analyst arrested in 1985 and sentenced in 1987 to life imprisonment for spying for Israel.

Israel has said Pollard was recruited in a rogue operation by the since-disbanded Bureau of Scientific Relations, then headed by Rafi Eitan, now pensioners minister.

U.S. authorities did not disclose what led to their discovery of Kadish's suspected espionage.

But they said he had remained in contact with his alleged handler, who left the United States when Pollard was detained and has not returned.

Clinton "Victory Enough to Keep Destructive Campaign Going"

This columnist gets what most in the press keep missing, Hillary is still in this race regardless of what's good for the Democrats. And more importantly, Ms.Clinton wants to make sure that if she doesn't win that Obama loses so she can run in 4 years:

Here's the simple reality of this corrosive slugfest: Hillary Clinton can't win, but she's convinced Barack Obama just might lose.

So unless her cash-starved campaign can't raise or borrow enough to compete, her Pennsylvania victory keeps her in, and she will ratchet up her slash-and-burn tactics that have driven her negatives up but thrown Obama off his game.

[...]Her Keystone State margin was sufficient to keep her alive, but not nearly enough to change the trajectory of the campaign.

Barring an utter collapse by Obama, or a double-barreled win by him in Indiana and North Carolina in two weeks, this war of attrition will end June 3 with the Illinois senator ahead in contests won, popular vote and pledged convention delegates.

Against that headwind, even some of her closest confidants recognize her prospects of pulling off the upset remain minuscule.

[...]Obama's dominant position is all the more significant because he's just stumbled through the worst two months of his campaign.

[...]Meanwhile, John McCain and his handlers smile beatifically from the sideline, savoring the spectacle of Clinton writing their November attack ads for them.

"She's going to lose the nomination, and he's going to lose the election," a dispirited Hillary loyalist despaired.

Here's another column that has it right:

Hillary Clinton's final ad in Pennsylvania was the opening round of a desperate end game that won't be pretty to watch.

The ad - perhaps the source of her respectable if not overwhelming victory - was an attempt to scare voters into supporting her, complete with an image of Osama Bin Laden and an ominous question about who could be trusted to handle another terrorist attack.

The point of Clinton's ad, and her oft-stated position - that she alone is tough enough to handle the Bin Ladens of the world - would mean a lot more if she could handle the skinny kid from Illinois, who remains on track to win the nomination.

But the extraordinary ad signaled that Clinton's most plausible path to the nomination is a knockout blow that has nothing to do with winning over actual voters. She's relying on some scandal, gaffe or act of self-destruction to disqualify Barack Obama as a candidate.

And with the Bin Laden ad, Clinton made clear that she'll throw as much mud as possible to score that knockout.

"A win is a win," is what Hillary Clinton said early Tuesday, hours before the polls closed. True enough.

But as always when dealing with the Clintons, even a simple statement requires an asterisk, a footnote and careful parsing.

Despite Clinton's victory, the fact remains that Obama has won twice as many states as Clinton and racked up an all-but-insurmountable lead in delegates and popular votes. If Clinton wins every remaining state by the same margin as Pennsylvania, she loses.

[...]You would also have to ignore the fact that Obama has nearly matched her in the count of uncommitted superdelegates and currently holds more than four times as much campaign cash.

This unconvincing "my wins good, your wins bad" argument is what Team Clinton has been reduced to, barely 90 days after Hillary predicted she would lock up the nomination by early March.

The 200 or so remaining superdelegates who haven't pledged to either candidate probably won't buy it.

According to exit polls, two-thirds of Pennsylvania voters believe Clinton waged unfair attacks during the primary campaign, far more than said Obama had taken the low road.

Our Failure: U.S. 5% World Population, 25% of Prisoners

We have failed as a society when so many of our citizens are locked-up in prisons. Something is very wrong. We are throwaway society that puts commercial gain above social and spiritual advancement:

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population. But it has almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners.

Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.

Criminologists and legal scholars in other industrialized nations say they are mystified and appalled by the number and length of American prison sentences.

The United States has, for instance, 2.3 million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation, according to data maintained by the International Center for Prison Studies at King’s College London.

China, which is four times more populous than the United States, is a distant second, with 1.6 million people in prison. (That number excludes hundreds of thousands of people held in administrative detention, most of them in China’s extrajudicial system of re-education through labor, which often singles out political activists who have not committed crimes.)

San Marino, with a population of about 30,000, is at the end of the long list of 218 countries compiled by the center. It has a single prisoner.

The United States comes in first, too, on a more meaningful list from the prison studies center, the one ranked in order of the incarceration rates. It has 751 people in prison or jail for every 100,000 in population. (If you count only adults, one in 100 Americans is locked up.)

The only other major industrialized nation that even comes close is Russia, with 627 prisoners for every 100,000 people. The others have much lower rates. England’s rate is 151; Germany’s is 88; and Japan’s is 63.

The median among all nations is about 125, roughly a sixth of the American rate.

There is little question that the high incarceration rate here has helped drive down crime, though there is debate about how much.

[...]The spike in American incarceration rates is quite recent. From 1925 to 1975, the rate remained stable, around 110 people in prison per 100,000 people. It shot up with the movement to get tough on crime in the late 1970s. (These numbers exclude people held in jails, as comprehensive information on prisoners held in state and local jails was not collected until relatively recently.)

The nation’s relatively high violent crime rate, partly driven by the much easier availability of guns here, helps explain the number of people in American prisons.

“The assault rate in New York and London is not that much different,” said Marc Mauer, the executive director of the Sentencing Project, a research and advocacy group. “But if you look at the murder rate, particularly with firearms, it’s much higher.”

Despite the recent decline in the murder rate in the United States, it is still about four times that of many nations in Western Europe.

But that is only a partial explanation. The United States, in fact, has relatively low rates of nonviolent crime. It has lower burglary and robbery rates than Australia, Canada and England.

People who commit nonviolent crimes in the rest of the world are less likely to receive prison time and certainly less likely to receive long sentences. The United States is, for instance, the only advanced country that incarcerates people for minor property crimes like passing bad checks, Mr. Whitman wrote.

Efforts to combat illegal drugs play a major role in explaining long prison sentences in the United States as well. In 1980, there were about 40,000 people in American jails and prisons for drug crimes. These days, there are almost 500,000.

Transcript: Clinton Interview with Keith Olbermann 4-21-08

Hillary Clinton had the nerve to appear on Countdown and get interviewed by Keith Olbermann, who has eviscerated her over the last few weeks. Here's the complete transcript:

OLBERMANN: Let’s start with something that got remarkably short shrift in last week’s debate.

Is the election in the fall, in your estimation, going to be decided on the price of a gallon of gas and is it not true that a president can’t really do anything about the price of a gallon of gas?

CLINTON: Well, I think it’s going to be very much influenced by the economy. I don’t know what else might happen between now and then but it appears to me that the economy is not going to recover and in fact the price of gas is going to be a big issue. I think oil hit $117 a barrel today which is just unbelievable. When George Bush became president it was $20 a barrel.

I do think there are things that we can do in the short run. I would, if I were president, launch an investigation to make sure that there’s not market manipulation going on. I am still haunted by what we learned during the Enron scandal about those electricity traders manipulating the market and causing the people in California, Oregon and Washington to pay such high prices that were not at all related to supply and demand.

Hillary threatens Iran:

OLBERMANN: You mentioned the oil suppliers and that obviously leads us into something else that really flew by during the debate that seemed awfully important. In that debate you were asked about a hypothetical Iranian attack on Israel and your hypothetical response as commander in chief and you said, let me read the quote exactly, “I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would include massive retaliation from the United States but I would do the same with other countries in the region.”

Can you clarify since there was no follow-up to that which hypothetical Middle East conflicts would incur massive retaliation by this country and what constitutes massive retaliation?

CLINTON: Well, what we were talking about was the potential for a nuclear attack by Iran. If Iran does achieve what appears to be its continuing goal of obtaining nuclear weapons — and I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times. We used it very well during the Cold War when we had a bipolar world — and what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

What about the Swiftboat tactics you are employing against Obama, Hillary:

OLBERMANN: Not to equate nuclear conflict or its use as a deterrent to the Pennsylvania primary but that is the other headline, I suppose, of the day. Let me ask you about the campaign and something you said in Pittsburgh today and again, let me read the quote about being president: “It’s the toughest job in the world and you have to be ready for anything. Two wars, skyrocketing oil prices, an economy in crisis. Well, if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

That is almost word for word the narration of this new ad that your campaign put out today, and that ad flashes a very brief image of Osama bin Laden. For nearly six years now since Sen. Max Cleland was cut down by a commercial that featured a picture of bin Laden, that tactic has been kind of a bloody shirt for many Democrats. Is it not just, in your opinion, as much of a scare tactic for a Democrat to use it against another Democrat, as it is for a Republican to use it in a race against the Democrat?

CLINTON: Well, first of all, that ad is about leadership, and I obviously believe I do have the leadership experience and qualities to become the president and the commander in chief. And as you said in the beginning, lots of times important issues get short shrift in the back-and-forth in a campaign.

Pentagon Increasing Recruitment of Ex-Cons as Soldiers

In order to fight his wars George Bush's needs more bodies. You have to get from somewhere since so many have been slaughtered in Iraq. Doesn't matter to King George who they are and whether those same felons will turn around and shoot up their neighborhoods as gang members:

The Army and Marines last year doubled the number of convicted felons they enlisted, raising new concerns about the strain on the military from fighting two wars.

About 861 enlistees convicted of felony assault, burglary, possession of hard drugs and even rape and other sex crimes went into uniform for the first time last year, a House panel reported Monday.

The Army and Marines recruited 115,000 men and women in 2007, two years after reports first surfaced about enlistment standards being watered down to meet quotas.

"Concerns have been raised that the significant increase in the recruitment of persons with criminal records is a result of the strain put on the military by the Iraq war and may be undermining military readiness," said House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).

In 2006, the regular Army granted 249 waivers to felons so they could join up. But the number jumped to 511 last year, Waxman said, citing statistics provided by the Pentagon's top personnel official, David Chu.

The Marines went from 208 waivers to 350 during the same period, Waxman said.

Those numbers are even higher if active-duty and Army Reserve waivers for those charged with felonies who were never convicted are factored in.

Army Recruiting Command spokesman Douglas Smith said the Army uses a 16-step review process to "look at the whole person" seeking to enlist - and the waivers are signed by generals.

As to why waivers have increased, Smith said, "There are more and more young people getting caught up in the criminal justice system than in the past."

"I won't say the military is desperate" to meet Pentagon recruiting goals, said defense analyst John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org, "but they're eager to explore any available avenue."

Some in the Army say the consequence of recruiting more felons is lack of trust and cohesion in the ranks. Other officers argue that soldiers with criminal records often succeed in combat because they're risktakers.

And if Bush starts a war with Iran he will need those extra soldiers:

DEFENCE Secretary Robert Gates said he believes Iran is 'hell-bent' on acquiring nuclear weapons, but he warned in strong terms of the consequences of going to war over that.

'Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need and, in fact, I believe it would be disastrous on a number of levels,' he said in a speech he was delivering on Monday evening at the US Military Academy at West Point, New York.

[...] He said he favours keeping the military option against Iran on the table, 'given the destabilising policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat, either directly or through proliferation.'

Mr Gates also said that if the war in Iraq is not finished on favorable terms, the consequences could be dire.

'It is a hard sell to say we must sustain the fight in Iraq right now, and continue to absorb the high financial and human costs of this struggle, in order to avoid an even uglier fight or even greater danger to our country in the future,' he said.

He added, however, that the US experience with Afghanistan - helping the Afghans oust Russian invaders in the 1980s only to abandon the country and see it become a haven for Osama bin Laden's terrorist network - makes it clear to him that a similar approach in Iraq would have similar results.

Mr Gates said the US military was not organised or equipped for the kind of wars it finds itself in today.

'The current campaign has gone on longer, and has been more difficult, than anyone expected or prepared for at the start,' he said. 'And so we've had to scramble to position ourselves for success over the long haul, which I believe we are doing.'

Michael Moore Endorses Obama Calls Hillary "Disgusting"

The famous leftwing activist and documentarian is the latest celebrity who finds Clinton's lies and deceit tiresome:

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.

Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.

Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.

But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.

How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).

There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.

That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.

- Read the entire statement by Moore

Donna Brazile Slams the Clinton Campaign

Donna Brazil was Al Gore's campaign manager in 2000. She is also a prominent activist in the Democratic Party. Someone like Brazile is dedicated to her party and is sick and tired of the Clinton antics:

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton unveiled new negative television ads and attacked each other personally from the stump this weekend ahead of Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary, stoking more worries among Democrats that the party's eventual nominee will head into the general election badly damaged.

The rising vitriol is prompting more Democrats to demand that party leaders do something to end the battle. But no single leader or clique exists within the fractious party to end the fight, and those with influence insist voters must have their say.

Nevertheless, some party leaders are quietly planning to try to end the clash, said people familiar with the matter. After the primaries end in June, these influential Democrats -- led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- plan to push the last uncommitted party leaders to endorse a candidate, in hopes of preventing a fight at the August presidential convention, party insiders say.

These "superdelegates" -- governors, members of Congress and others who can vote for any candidate at the convention -- would likely tip the balance to Sen. Obama, who holds a sizable and likely insurmountable delegate lead. Sen. Clinton is hoping that a win in Pennsylvania, where she is favored, would lift her campaign and give party officials pause about Sen. Obama as the nominee.

[...]Despite widespread expectations that he won't win in Pennsylvania, Sen. Obama has continued to draw a steady stream of endorsements. Friday, former Sens. Sam Nunn and David Boren, both national-security experts, signed on as advisers. They aren't superdelegates, but both men remain influential with fellow southern conservatives who are. Mr. Boren's son, Oklahoma Rep. Dan Boren, is an uncommitted superdelegate.
[Hillary Clinton]

Sen. Clinton's enlistment of two Ohio superdelegates late last week was an exception to a two-month trend of the local and state party leaders falling in behind Sen. Obama. Other party leaders will likely come off the fence before May primaries in Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky and Oregon.

[...]The party leaders' aim: To thwart the Clinton campaign's vow to fight all summer long to a final, nationally televised round at the Denver convention, so the party can get on with the battle against the likely Republican candidate, Arizona Sen. John McCain. Convention fights in past decades -- notably in 1968, 1972 and 1980 -- left deep divisions that contributed to the nominees' losses and hurt lesser candidates on the ballots.

[...]With Democrats protective of the House and Senate majorities just won in 2006, "Do you think for one minute that Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid will allow this fight to go on and on and on?" says Donna Brazile, an uncommitted superdelegate as an official of the Democratic National Committee, and manager of the 2000 Gore campaign. "There's a group around [Sen. Clinton] that really wants to take the fight to the convention. They don't care about the party. It scares me, and that's what scares a lot of superdelegates."

Clinton supporters vehemently defend their right to fight to the convention if necessary, and deny it would hurt the party.

Ms. Brazile says that starting the morning of June 4, "we'll all talk to each other. I know I'll reach out to some key people, including my ex-boss" -- former Vice President Al Gore, another superdelegate who remains uncommitted.

What Ever Happened to the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?

This time around the VRWC is supporting Hillary--at least until the general election. Ms.Clinton is the ideal candidate for the Republicans. This explains why there has been more attacks on Obama. They also want to prolong the Democratic nomination scuffle. She is nothing but a pawn:

Could it be the "vast right wing conspiracy" is having second thoughts? Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton was endorsed Sunday by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, whose owner and publisher, billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, personally funded many of the investigations that led to President Clinton's impeachment in 1998.

It was one of a handful of endorsements the New York senator has received from Pennsylvania newspapers before the state's primary Tuesday. Most of the state's major papers have endorsed Barack Obama.

In its endorsement, Tribune-Review editors said Obama is too inexperienced to be president and that his recent comments about bitter voters living in small towns showed a lack of respect for middle-class values.

"In sharp contrast, Clinton is far more experienced in government - as an engaged first lady to a governor and a president, as a second-term senator in her own right," the paper said. "She has a real voting record on key issues. Agree with her or not, you at least know where she stands instead of being forced to wonder."

Clinton met with the Tribune-Review's editorial board, including Scaife, last month. Afterward, Scaife wrote an editorial titled "Hillary, Reassessed," declaring how impressed he had been by the former first lady.

"Her meeting and her remarks during it changed my mind about her," Scaife wrote.

In the 1990s, Scaife helped support conservative groups and publications investigating Bill Clinton's financial dealings and sex life.

Scaife spent $2.3 million to fund a series of articles by The American Spectator magazine that dug into Bill Clinton's behavior as governor of Arkansas.

Why isn't the press pointing out that Obama's ability to raise funds is another argument for his nomination. Instead they are allowing the Clinton mob to spin it into a virtue for Hillary:

Barack Obama began the month of April with a 5-1 cash advantage over a debt-saddled Hillary Rodham Clinton, setting the stage for his lopsided spending in the crucial primary state of Pennsylvania.

Financial reports filed Sunday by the Democratic presidential candidates with the Federal Election Commission show Clinton had $10.3 million in debts at the start of the month and only about $9 million cash on hand for the primaries. Obama reported having $42 million for the primary.

Clinton's red ink poses yet another obstacle to her campaign as she seeks to end the primary season with a string of victories. She trails Obama in delegates, states won and popular votes. And she can't dent Obama's superior fundraising.

The March money positioned Obama to undertake an expensive April campaign in Pennsylvania, where he has spent at least twice as much as Clinton and cut into her lead. Pennsylvania votes on Tuesday.

Clinton, who had kept pace with Obama financially throughout last year, had even less cash on hand than Republican John McCain. McCain raised $15.2 million in March and had $11.6 million in the bank at the start of April. It was his best fundraising performance of the campaign, coming after he had essentially secured his party's presidential nomination.

With the Democratic contest still in full boil, McCain has been on the sidelines, saving his money and completing payments on a loan.

Nearly half of Clinton's debt in March is money owed to the firm of her demoted former chief strategist, Mark Penn. The report shows that the campaign owes $4.6 million to Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates. The campaign has already paid the firm $14 million, including $3 million in March for polling and direct mail.

Clinton took away Penn's role as chief adviser earlier this month after he met with Colombian officials to discuss his private work on behalf of a Colombian free trade agreement, a trade deal Clinton opposes.

Obama's fundraising in March led all candidates, but was still lower than the mark he set in February, when he raised more than $55 million. The Illinois senator has raised $235 million in his campaign.

Economy in Crisis: Bank of America’s Profit Drops Sharply

This means less funds to lend to consumers and invest in the economy. It only makes things worse, lengthens the recession:

Bank of America said Monday that it saw a 77 percent drop in its profits for its first quarter this year from last year, as the banking giant announced nearly $2 billion in write-downs tied to its debt underwriting and trading activities.

Monday’s announcement represented the third consecutive drop in earnings for the firm, as its outsized ambitions to rival Wall Street’s traditional financial giants instead hurt the bank again. Bank of America said it lost $1.3 billion in its trading activities, a reversal from the $1.6 billion it earned at the same time last year.

The bank earned $1.21 billion, or 23 cents a share, atop revenues of $17 billion. Analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News had expected on average 41 cents a share.

[...]Though Bank of America’s most immediate pain stemmed from the collapsed mortgage market, its earnings report showed that the credit crisis had seeped into other areas as well. It reported $2.72 billion in net charge-offs, or loans that it thinks are uncollectable, a 90 percent jump from last year. It also raised its credit loss provisions to $6.01 billion from $1.24 billion.

The firm said that its nonperforming assets rose to $7.83 billion, or .9 percent of its total loans, leases and foreclosed properties. That is up from $2.06 billion, or .29 percent, at the same time last year.

In his statement, Mr. Lewis said that the firm still believes that its broad base of operations will allow it to “withstand the jolts” to the economy.

But the sustained shock provided by weak housing markets may not augur well for Bank of America’s acquisition of Countrywide Financial, the troubled mortgage lender that the firm is paying $4 billion for.

The global economies are desperately working to try and avert further drying up of credit worldwide:

The Bank of England announced a near-100-billion-dollar plan Monday to free up Britain's home loan market in one of the biggest moves by a major central bank to combat the global credit crunch.

The BoE said it would allow high street banks to swap mortgage-backed securities for government bonds in a bid to boost their liquidity at a time when banks are reluctant to lend to each other.

Britain's main home loan providers are rapidly tightening their lending criteria as fears persist over the sector's exposure to the collapsed subprime or high-risk housing market in the United States.

"The Bank of England is today launching a scheme to allow banks to swap temporarily their high quality mortgage-backed and other securities for UK Treasury Bills," the central bank said in a statement.

It added: "Discussions with banks suggest that use of the scheme is initially likely to be around 50 billion pounds (63 billion euros, 99 billion dollars)."

[...] A growing number of commercial lenders have recently increased the interest rates they charge to their customers for home loans, contributing to a sharp slowdown in house prices.

The Bank's move to inject such a considerable sum of money into the markets could be seen as a major u-turn as it is traditionally more conservative in its support for banks than the European Central Bank and the US Federal Reserve.

[...] "The credit crunch is of course a global problem and central banks are trying to address it locally, but this particular gesture is mainly aimed at giving the UK lending market, which has clearly started to seize up, a break."

Other analysts were more sceptical.

Martin Slaney, head of spread betting at GFT Global Markets, said: "This rescue plan has been touted as a jump-start to the lending markets but it is more likely to serve as a one-off bail-out which plugs a hole for now.

"We are a long way off from returning to a more liquid lending market where mortgages are freely available."

Transcript: John McCain on This Week 4-20-08

Does McCain really believe we are better off now than we were 8 years? Or does he really believe the American people are that stupid? We'll find out in November. (Read the entire transcript):

STEPHANOPOULOS: And on Friday, you conceded that Americans are
not better off than they were eight years ago, but the Democrats are
launching an ad campaign this week where they’re going to try to pin
some comments you made during the primary. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCAIN: I think you could argue that Americans overall are
better off because we have had a pretty good, prosperous time, with
low unemployment, low inflation. A lot of good things have happened,
a lot of jobs have been created. I think we are better off overall.

UNKNOWN: Do you feel better off?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: The theme is going to be, and you know it,
you’re out of touch, you just don’t get it. How do you respond?

MCCAIN: Well, I have an economic plan. It’s good. It’s strong.
Things have gotten worse in the last several months, as we all know,
in our economy. Americans are struggling. American families are
sitting around the kitchen table today trying to figure out how
they’re going to keep their home, keep their job. Times are very,
very tough. And the worst thing you can do, the worst thing you can
do is raise taxes. Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama want to
raise taxes. That’s out of touch. That’s out of touch.

He has to criticize Bush somewhat if McCain is going to win in the Fall:

STEPHANOPOULOS: But we’re not going to have a balanced budget
before you leave office in your first term?

MCCAIN: Well, that still should be a goal, but the goal — the
goal right now is to get the economy going again.

Here’s $100 billion right here for you, George. Two years in a
row, last two years, the president of the United States has signed in
a law, two big-spending, pork-barrel-laden bills worth $35 billion.
That increases the budget, the baseline of the budget. In the years
before that, $65 billion. You do away with those, there’s $100
billion right there, before you look at any agency of government.

How are you going to balance the budget, John:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s talk about that, though. You claim…

MCCAIN: There’s hundreds of billions that can be saved, and
Americans know that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you only claim $60 billion a year from your
earmark reforms. Every other…

MCCAIN: It will be $100 billion when you look at $35 billion in
the last two years and $65 billion in the years before that, and…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But sir, let me finish the point…

MCCAIN: OK, sure.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Every other estimate I’ve seen says that the
earmarks are about $18 or $20 billion a year. To get to the $60
you’re talking about — that includes an earmark like the aid to
Israel, $2 billion a year, $1 billion a year for military housing.
You’re not going to cut those.

MCCAIN: I’m going to cut at least that — look…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you cutting aid to Israel?

MCCAIN: Of course not. I’m not cutting…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you cutting military housing?

MCCAIN: No, of course not. I am cutting billions and billions
out of defense spending which are not earmarks. The $400 million ship
that they had to scrap that was supposed to cost $140 million. The
$30 billion, I believe it is, add-on for a system in the Army that’s
going up $30 billion and we still haven’t got any result from it. The
$50 million contract to some buddy of Air Force generals. I mean,
there are so many billions out there just in defense…

STEPHANOPOULOS: To hit your number, you say $160 billion in
discretionary spending. The entire non-defense discretionary budget
is $500 billion a year. That means you’re talking about a 30 percent
cut in every program. Education, veterans benefits…

MCCAIN: I’m talking about looking at every institution of
government…

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you’re prepared to (inaudible)?

MCCAIN: I’m talking about changing the way we do business in
Washington.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But are you prepared to cut 30 percent?

MCCAIN: I am here (ph) to cut hundreds of billions of dollars
out of wasteful and unnecessary spending in America, whether they be
ethanol subsidies, whether they be sugar price supports, whether they
be payments to the wealthiest farmers, whether they be the loopholes
that are out there worth I don’t know how many billions and billions
of dollars.

I guess my critics — and frankly from the tone of your question,
from the tone of your questions — think we’re going to do business as
usual in Washington. We’re not.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator…

MCCAIN: I’m their worst nightmare. I’m their worst nightmare, my friend.

NY Times: Bush using Pentagon to Spread Propaganda

Spreading disinformation is keeping with a the Fascist administration:

Many U.S. military analysts used as commentators on Iraq by television networks have been groomed by the Pentagon, leaving some feeling they were manipulated to report favorably on the Bush administration, The New York Times said in Sunday editions.

A Times report examining ties between the Bush administration and former senior officers who acted as paid TV analysts said they got private briefings, trips and access to classified intelligence meant to influence their comments.

"Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks," the newspaper said.

The Pentagon defended its work with the analysts, saying they were given only accurate information.

Ties to military contractors
Many of the commentators also have ties to military contractors who are vested in U.S. war efforts, but those business links are seldom disclosed to viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks on which they appear, the newspaper said.

President George W. Bush has been engaged in a long struggle to halt a drain in public support for the Iraq war, in which more than 4,000 American soldiers have died, and to boost support for his post September 11 war against terrorism.

One case cited by the Times was in the summer of 2005, when accusations were rife over human rights violations at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay on Cuba, where foreign terrorism suspects are held.

The Times said administration communications officials flew a group of retired military officers to the camp on a jet normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney to give their side of the case. Many in the group have subsequently appeared as commentators on the TV networks.

The Times quoted Robert Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, as saying, "It was them (the Bush administration) saying, 'We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you.'"

Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who taught information warfare at the National Defense University, told the Times the campaign amounted to a "coherent, active," sophisticated information operation.

As the situation in Iraq deteriorated, he saw a gap between what analysts were told in private briefings and what subsequently was revealed in inquiries and books.

"Night and day," he told the Times. "I felt we'd been hosed."

Some analysts said they had suppressed doubts about the situation in Iraq for fear of jeopardizing their access.

I imagine part of that disinformation is the lie that the Iraq war is turning in our favor:

Twelve people died in overnight clashes in Baghdad's Sadr City district, which has become a chief battleground between U.S. and Iraqi forces and the Mahdi Army of hard-line cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, police and hospital officials said Saturday.

[...]Security forces in the area also have come under repeated attack by militants trying to prevent the construction of a concrete wall through the district.

The wall — a concrete barrier of varying height up to about 12 feet — is being built along a main street dividing the southern portion of Sadr City from the northern, where Mahdi Army fighters are concentrated.

American commanders hope that construction of the Sadr City wall, which began Tuesday, will hamper their ability to fire rockets and mortars at the Green Zone, the central Baghdad district where government offices and the U.S. Embassy are located.

Mass desertions
The zone has been regularly shelled since the Iraqi military launched an operation against Shiite militias in Basra on March 25. That operation quickly stalled amid fierce resistance from the militants and mass desertions from the security forces.

[...]The near-daily clashes in Sadr City since then have fueled worries over a total breakdown of a truce called last year by al-Sadr, with fears of wider violence.

Hillary Clinton's Friends Abandon Her

Time to abandon ship. This from the NY Times:

It is a question many in the Clinton camp are asking these days, sometimes in conversations far less civil than that one. After nearly two decades building relationships with a generation of Democrats, Mrs. Clinton has recently suffered a steady erosion of support for her presidential campaign from the party stalwarts who once formed the basis of her perceived juggernaut of “inevitability.”

Some of it is just business, practical politicians putting aside ties to the Clintons to follow the will of the voters in their states or making a calculation about who seems best positioned to win.

The immediate fallout, with the Pennsylvania primary only two days away, is electoral. Mrs. Clinton has been losing potential endorsers and superdelegate backing from grass-roots activists like Mrs. Larson as well as elected officials, party luminaries and former Clinton White House aides (the most recent being former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who endorsed Mr. Obama on Friday). It is the constituency that provided Mrs. Clinton with an early lead among superdelegates, one she retains although by a narrowing margin.

But there is something more wrenching at work as well, a reckoning of whether the Clintons, on balance, have been good or bad for the party. It has the feel of a very personal testing of loyalties to a former president who once always seemed to be adding to the “Friends of Bill” list, and to a sitting senator who, if not so driven as her husband to win over everyone, used her fame to help elect other Democrats.

But one person’s “disloyalty” is, to another set of eyes, well-deserved “comeuppance.” And there is no shortage of powerful Democrats who are quick to accuse the Clintons of defining loyalty as a one-way street, with little regard for the sacrifices they have made for a couple whose own political needs seem to their critics always to come first.

This tension was neatly distilled in a heated conversation in January between a prominent Clinton supporter and Cameron Kerry, the younger brother of Senator John Kerry, who had just endorsed Mr. Obama.

In the telling of two Democrats familiar with the discussion, one from each camp, the Clinton supporter, a Democratic fund-raiser with close ties to both Mrs. Clinton and John Kerry, noted that Bill Clinton campaigned for Mr. Kerry in 2004, even though the former president had just undergone bypass surgery.

To which Cameron Kerry parried that his brother had agreed to fly with Mr. Clinton on Air Force One after the impeachment vote “when no one wanted to be seen with him.”

Copycat Attack: 12-Year-Old Beaten Video Posted on Youtube

Something has to be done about the plague of violence glorified by a Youtube culture:

A group of middle school girls videotaped the beating of a 12-year-old schoolmate and posted it on the Internet in an attack that authorities believe was inspired by a similar one in Florida, police said.

No charges have been filed and police said they have not yet interviewed all the girls, ages 12-14, who are students at Clarksville Middle School in Indiana. The girls' identities were not released because they are juveniles.

The victim, who was treated for cuts and bruises at a hospital, was the daughter of a police officer, said Police Chief Dwight Ingle.

Police said the girls lured the victim to a parking lot near a warehouse in the town just north of Louisville, Kentucky, on April 12 and beat her up. The violence was videotaped and later posted on the video-sharing Web site PhotoBucket, Ingle said. It has since been removed.

The video begins with one girl arguing with the victim and escalates into a fight during which the 12-year-old is repeatedly hit in the head as other girls watch and laugh, police said.

Detective Darrell Rayborn said Thursday that police believe the plot was inspired by a similar scheme in which a group of teenage girls in central Florida posted the videotaped beating of a 16-year-old victim online. Parts of that video have been widely seen on TV and Youtube.

It wasn't just Youtube in general that glamorized the beating of that girl which led to the copycat incident. People, especially the young, imitate what they see, especially if it is sensationlized:

The Florida cheerleader whose brutal 30-minute beating last week became one of the most-watched video clips on YouTube.com has spoken publicly for the first time about her ordeal.

"Your No. 1 friend is your family. Don't trust anybody," warns Victoria Lindsay, 16, in an interview with People magazine during an "Inside Edition" preview.

The Lakeland, Fl, teen, who is now being home schooled, suffered concussion, bruising and damage to her left eye and ear during the beating, which took place on March 30 at a friend's home and caused a media storm after appearing online.

In a 911 call requesting an ambulance after the viscous attack and released by police on Tuesday, Lindsay sobbed to the dispatcher, "I just got jumped", while a woman identified as a friend's mother described her injuries as "blood in her mouth, a big old knot on her left eye, and we think she's got a tooth broke."

Commenting on the public nature of the assault, Lindsay's father, Patrick Lindsay, told People magazine that he feels "bitter" about the viral nature of the videotaped beating for which eight of her classmates, six girls and two boys aged between 14 and 18, face charges including battery and false imprisonment.

"You put it on the Internet, it will live in infamy," he explained.

There was another recent incident:

Video of a northwest Missouri boy beating a smaller youth has been removed from YouTube.

The tape shows a Savannah High School student pummeling another boy in the face and head in the school's gym locker room. YouTube removed the 30-second video Tuesday afternoon after the tape was viewed 1,042 times.

The larger of the teens knocked the other down into the fetal position with about a dozen punches, then slugged him another 13 times until the boy's face bled.

The mother of the larger teen defended her son Tuesday, telling the St. Joseph News-Press that the smaller boy was a bully, and that her son "had had enough of it." The smaller boy's mother said the incident is personal business.

School officials said district policy dictated discipline for the March 18 incident but declined to elaborate.

Economy in Crisis: Largest U.S. Bank Reports $5 Billion in Losses

How is this not bad for the economy:

Citigroup Inc (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research) posted its second straight quarterly loss on Friday, hurt by more than $16 billion of write-downs and costs related to credit losses, and said it will cut another 9,000 jobs.

Though the $5.11 billion first-quarter loss was larger than expected, analysts and investors expressed optimism that the largest U.S. bank and its new chief executive, Vikram Pandit, were taking necessary steps to move past credit problems and drive down costs.

Citigroup shares rose $2.22, or 9.2 percent, to $26.25 in premarket electronic trading.

"It's a cathartic quarter," said Arthur Hogan, chief market analyst at Jefferies & Co in Boston. "Vikram Pandit is coming in and making pretty big changes."

Citigroup's net loss totaled $1.02 per share, and compared with a year-earlier profit of $5.01 billion, or $1.01 per share. Revenue fell 48 percent to $13.22 billion.

Analysts, on average, expected a loss of 96 cents per share on revenue of $14.35 billion, according to Reuters Estimates.

"We're not happy with our financial results this quarter," Pandit said on a conference call. Nevertheless, he said his confidence in Citigroup's future is "extremely high."

The job cuts are in addition to 4,200 announced in the previous quarter. Citigroup said it ended March with about 369,000 employees.

[...]Citigroup has lost close to $15 billion in the last two quarters, and has suffered more than $46 billion in write-downs and increased credit costs since the middle of 2007.

The bank has also slashed its dividend and raised more than $30 billion in capital. It ended March with a Tier-1 capital ratio of 7.7 percent, up from 7.12 percent at year-end, and above the 6 percent that regulators deem "well-capitalized." The ratio measures the ability to cover losses.

Book value per share, which measures assets minus liabilities, fell to $20.73 from $22.74 at year end. Return on equity was negative 18.6 percent in the quarter.

Write-downs in the latest quarter included $6 billion tied to subprime mortgages, $3.1 billion for loans to fund corporate buyouts, $1.5 billion for bond insurer exposure, $1.5 billion for auction-rate securities, $1 billion for below-prime "Alt-A" mortgages, and $600 million for commercial real estate.

Spoof Ad: Bruce Springsteen, Obama Bad for Pennsylvania

This is deliciously ironic humor directed against the laughable Hillary Clinton. The video takes the form of an imaginary ad for the Clinton campaign. Thanks to TalkLeft for the video. Although, it was produced by Slate:

More on ABC's Pro-Hillary Debategate Scandal

ABC news and Charlie Gibson were essentially dismissive last night of their highly controversial performance during Wednesday's debate. Nevertheless, the damage was done not only to journalistic integrity, but Barack Obama. This from CNN's Situation Room:

OBAMA: Forty-five minutes before we heard about health care, 45 minutes before we heard about Iraq, 45 minutes before we heard about jobs, 45 minutes before we heard about gas prices. Now, I don't blame Washington for this because that's just how Washington is. They like stirring up controversy and they like playing "got you games" getting us to attack each other. And I have to say, Senator Clinton, you know, looked in her element.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: All right, Jack, what do you think?

Does he have a point?

CAFFERTY: Well, yes he does, except for this. More than 10 million people watched that debate last night. I think it won its time period in the ratings. All the print critics -- Shales and the rest of them -- trashed it pretty good. And he makes valid point. They spent the first 45 minutes rehashing old ground and -- but one of the things we got out of that first 45 minutes that I thought was interesting was when George Stephanopoulos, the former press secretary for President Clinton -- what kind of objectivity is ABC News showing having him moderate the debate?

But when he pinned Hillary Clinton down and said, is Barack Obama electable, can he beat McCain? And she said yes, because all the reports I've read is that she's been saying that he can't win privately. And he got her to acknowledge that, yes, he probably can. So that was a good moment.

But the rest of that first half hour, 40 minutes, was pretty lame.

Related Links:

• ABC Debate Transcript
• ABC Debate Performance was "Shameful"

ABC Debate Performance was "Shameful"

The reviews are in, last night's ABC debate was disgraceful:

All night long, every time I'd think about the ABC "debate" (sic), three reactions rose up - 1) grind my teeth to an angry pulp, 2) let my head explode, or 3) type something to let the steam out.

This morning, I still can't believe I was able to make it through 45 minutes of the broadcast.

This was topflight journalism at its worst. This was ABC's old, flimsy history with threadbare sizzle packaged as news. It was a tabloid debate with tabloid questions. Matt Drudge come to life on a respectable stage. From what I subsequently discovered, they actually, eventually got around to real issues - after over an hour. But watching it for a mere 45 minutes made me feel almost seedy. I wanted to shower to get the smarm off. I love news, I admire professional journalists, I cherish the Mainstream Media, even when they flounder, because it is the core of democracy. But this was embarrassing. This was pathetic. This was just a cheesy press conference with cheesy questions.

Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos should be ashamed. I'm sure they have all of their reasons wrapped nicely with a bow, explaining why they asked what they asked and why it was proper and good and noble. Sorry, it wasn't. They put this on in prime time across the nation, and turned it into a slimy, Fox Network reality show. A cross between "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" and "Temptation Island." Something like, "So, You Want to Be President?!"

This was a disservice to America

Here's another view from the Huffington Post:

In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin -- while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.

Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of rightwing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopolous. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued.

Is Bruce Springsteen Unpatriotic for Endorsing Barack Obama?

Since Barack Obama's patriotism has come into question, shouldn't we then also question the patriotism of those who endorse him:

Bruce Springsteen made his choice for Boss today: Barack Obama.

The rock icon from New Jersey shunned the senator from his neighboring state, and sang out for the man from Illinois in an endorsement on his fan Web site.

"I've been following the campaign and I have now seen and heard enough to know where I stand," Springsteeen wrote to his legions of faithful. "Sen. Obama, in my view, is head and shoulders above the rest."

Celebrity endorsements often don't have much of an impact in political contests, but the backing of a rock legend who is a hero to the working class could actually help in upcoming Pennsylvania, where Clinton's stronghold remains among working people.

"He speaks to the America I've envisioned in my music for the past 35 years," Springsteen writes, "a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that's interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit. A place where ‘…nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone.'"

The endorsement is terrible timing for Clinton with several new polls finding Obama creeping farther ahead, in spite of Obama's "bitter" gaffe that insulted some of those blue-collar folks Clinton has been targeting on small town Main Streets in the Keystone State.

"Critics have tried to diminish Sen. Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships," the Boss says.

And he makes a direct pitch to his millions of fans.

"Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President."

Below is the letter as it appeared on The Boss' Web site...

Read the entire letter by The Boss endorsing Barack.

ABC Philadelphia Democratic Presidential Debate Transcript 4-16-08

ABC showed blatant bias against Barack Obama during tonight's Democratic presidential debate (read the entire transcript). They spent much more time attacking Obama on the Wright matter and the "bitter" controversy. But the shocking part was repeated questions implying Barack Obama is unpatriotic:

NASH MCCABE (Latrobe, Pennsylvania): (From videotape.) Senator Obama, I have a question, and I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag. I want to know why you don't.

MR. GIBSON: Just to add to that, I noticed you put one on yesterday. But -- you've talked about this before, but it comes up again and again when we talk to voters. And as you may know, it is all over the Internet. And it's something of a theme that Senators Clinton and McCain's advisers agree could give you a major vulnerability if you're the candidate in November. How do you convince Democrats that this would not be a vulnerability?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, look, I revere the American flag, and I would not be running for president if I did not revere this country. This is -- I would not be standing here if it wasn't for this country.

And I've said this -- again, there's no other country in which my story is even possible; somebody who was born to a teenage mom, raised by a single mother and grandparents from small towns in Kansas, you know, who was able to get an education and rise to the point where I can run for the highest office in the land. I could not help but love this country for all that it's given me.

And so what I've tried to do is to show my patriotism by how I treat veterans when I'm working in the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee; by making sure that I'm speaking forcefully about how we need to bring this war in Iraq to a close, because I think it is not serving our national security well and it's not serving our military families and our troops well; talking about how we need to restore a sense of economic fairness to this country because that's what this country has always been about, is providing upward mobility and ladders to opportunity for all Americans. That's what I love about this country. And so I will continue to fight for those issues.

And I am absolutely confident that during the general election that when I'm in a debate with John McCain, people are not going to be questioning my patriotism, they are going to be questioning how can you make people's lives a little bit better.

And let me just make one last point on this issue of the flag pin. As you noted, I wore one yesterday when a veteran handed it to me, who himself was disabled and works on behalf of disabled veterans. I have never said that I don't wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins. This is the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with and, once again, distracts us from what should be my job when I'm commander in chief, which is going to be figuring out how we get our troops out of Iraq and how we actually make our economy better for the American people.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, if you get the nomination, you'll have to -- (applause) -- (inaudible).

I want to give Senator Clinton a chance to respond, but first a follow-up on this issue, the general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."

An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?

SEN. OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.

Is Hillary in a Free Fall?

Despite a stall in the national polls for Obama in recent weeks over the exaggerated "bitter" scandal, Obama is surging again. And he is within striking range in Pennsylvania. Superdelegates are watching, including Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. This is the latest ABC/Washington Post poll:

Sen. Barack Obama holds a 10-point lead over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton when Democrats are asked whom they would prefer to see emerge as the party's presidential nominee, but there is little public pressure to bring the long and increasingly heated contest to an end, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The fierce battle, however, appears to have taken a toll on the image of Clinton, who was once seen as the favorite. And Obama has widened his lead since early February on several key qualities that voters are looking for in a candidate and has narrowed sizable advantages for Clinton on others.

He now has a 2-to-1 edge on who is considered more electable in a general contest -- a major reversal from the last poll -- and has dramatically reduced a large Clinton lead on which of the two is the "stronger leader."

While Clinton retains a big edge over Obama on experience, public impressions of her have taken a sharply negative turn. Today, more Americans have an unfavorable view of her than at any time since The Post and ABC began asking the question, in 1992.

This from First Read:

The Washington Post’s headline for the poll: "Democrats Willing to Let Battle Continue." From the article: "While Clinton retains a big edge over Obama on experience, public impressions of her have taken a sharply negative turn. Today, more Americans have an unfavorable view of her than at any time since The Post and ABC began asking the question, in 1992. Impressions of her husband, former president Bill Clinton, also have grown negative by a small margin."

Meanwhile, a new set of state polls from the L.A. Times/Bloomberg in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Indiana, also have bad news for Clinton -- as Obama leads in two of the three states (IN and NC), while Clinton's lead in PA is only five points. "In all three states, Clinton was seen as better-equipped to handle trade and healthcare policy. But she does not appear to have been as persuasive in making a core argument of her campaign: that she would be better-prepared to lead the nation's military and foreign policy. Asked who would be better as commander in chief, voters in North Carolina chose Obama, 45% to 28%; in Indiana, Obama was chosen 37% to 29%. Only in Pennsylvania did voters prefer Clinton as commander in chief, 44% to 39%.”

“There are some ominous signs that the party will not easily unify after a long and contentious primary fight. Fully 30% of Clinton supporters in North Carolina said they would switch to McCain if Obama was the nominee (only 14% of Obama backers would defect if Clinton was the nominee)."