Daily Tidbits: April 11, 2008

• GOP Focused on Obama in NC. North Carolina newspaper politics writer says his email inbox is getting filled with anti-Obama stuff from the RNC, but he can’t remember getting a single email about Hillary. He speculates that GOP expects Obama to win Democratic nomination and are trying to soften him up before the general election.
• In lengthy interview in LA Times, Bill Richardson says Clintons and surrogates over-played “loyalty card” and were heavy handed in their recruiting effort. He also disliked the 3am ad and other attacks on Obama. In the end, he said any loyalty he had to President Clinton wasn’t transferable to Hillary because he doesn’t believe in dynasties.
• Bush’s approval rating hits an all-time low for his Administration: 28%. Only 6% of Democrats, 24% of Independents and 66% of Republicans approve of his presidency, according to Gallup.
• Daily Tracking Polls. Gallup shows slight uptick for Obama, 51-42%, while Rasmussen shows some tightening, 47-44%.
• As reported by MSNBC’s First Read morning email report, NBC’s Lisa Myers reported on the Clintons’ private fund raising and enormous post-presidency income on the Today show this morning:

Bill resurrecting the Bosnia sniper story isn’t the only Bill story today that might be giving the Clinton campaign headaches. On TODAY this morning, NBC’s Lisa Myers looked at the money that Bill, his foundation, and his library have received — from Frank Giustra, Vinod Gupta, the Saudi Royal Family, and others — that might be potential conflicts of interest if Hillary ends up winning the White House. “Over the last seven years,” Myers said, “the Clintons have brought in huge amounts of money, earning more than $100 million to build their personal fortune and raising $500 million for the Clinton foundation and library. Critics complain there are many unanswered questions about who gave the money, and why.” More from Myers: “Sen. Clinton’s campaign maintains she has provided more information than any other candidate. And the Clintons say IF she becomes president, they will reveal any foundation donors from that point on.”

• At two campaign stops, Bill Clinton brings up Hillary’s lies about Bosnian sniper fire. He mischaracterizes Hillary’s remarks as a one-time misstatement made while exhausted at 11pm and 60 years old, for which she immediately apologized, and he adds that she was essentially correct about the danger she faced at that Tuzla airport (link to video). But she made the assertions repeatedly, often at press conferences during regular business hours. She was confronted with contrary evidence and dismissed it, first by belittling Sinbad’s contrary account (who was on the same trip with her) and only finally relenting when more and more video and first person accounts from TV network reporters who were there at the time contradicted her account. What benefit does Hillary’s campaign see in having Bill revisit this again and even challenge the accuracy of clear video evidence of her lies? Again, this was not a mere “gotcha” moment about a harmless error — Hillary made her Bosnia claims to substantiate her fundamental argument for voters to choose her over Obama: that she met her own “commander in chief test” and that Obama did not because of her trip to Bosnia, her role in brokering the Northern Ireland peace accord (ahem), among other revisionist tales.

Tapper of ABC News closely examines Bill’s statements at the two campaign stops in Indiana, and finds the following eight (8) factual “misstatements”:

(1) Her most glaringly wrong telling of the tale, on March 17, 2008, was in the morning.
(2) She actually told versions of the story several times. (And none was at night.)
(3) In an e-mail to journalist Eric Jansson, former acting Bosnian president Ejup Ganic said “we didn’t expect snipers,” though, “we still believed that some positions on the hills were occupied by radical Serbs, so I was worried about the overall safety.”
(4) Not according to the pilot Colonel William “Goose” Changose (Ret.), who said, “nobody under my watch has ever directed anyone to sit on their flak jackets. … We do not direct people to sit on their flak jackets.”
(5) It wasn’t immediate at all — it was 11 days later, first in an editorial board meeting with the Philadelphia Inquirer/Philadelphia Daily News, then later in a press availability.
(6) She never apologized.
(7) It was 1996, not 1995.
(8) He qualified it with “I think,” but then-first lady Pat Nixon went to a combat zone in Saigon, Vietnam, in July 1969.

• WaPo examines Obama’s wealthier donors. Among other issues with the general thesis of the article, it chooses a curious term of art to refer to successful minority business folks who have contributed: “African American elites.” Although “elite” is often used in a positive sense (e.g., “Jerry Rice was among the NFL’s elite performers”), it’s also used to suggest having a superior, almost aristocratic status. It’s this latter sense that has been used by Karl Rove and others to paint Democratic candidates like Gore and Kerry as “effete,” “elitist” and just plain different from the rest of us. The GOP has already made it clear that they plan to “define” Obama this way. Never mind he grew up with no special advantages of family, wealth or status. I think if you asked most of the country’s few wealthy minorities (99.9% are “self-made”) if they feel they enjoy elite status, they would say no, noting that a nice suit doesn’t always help you hail a cab in New York City.
• Clinton Administration’s second term welfare reform legislation being revisited by critics now that the economic crisis is hurting many people.