John McCain solicited now dead Russian Ambassador for donation to his presidential campaign in 2008
John McCain, who once called Russia a bigger threat than terrorism, asked Vitaly Churkin for campaign money during the 2008 election. He was turned down. Maybe THIS is why McCain hates Russia so much?
Isn’t it illegal to solicit campaign donations from foreign governments?
Found this while searching Wikileaks for Russian hacks (spoiler: there aren’t many).
Russian mission On Fundraising Letter from John McCain Election Campaign, 20 Oct 2008
Release date
October 20, 2008
Summary
20 Oct 2008 statement from the Russian Federation to the United states in relation to an alleged letter from the McCain campaign requesting a financial contribution from Russia:
“We have received a letter from Senator John McCain requesting financial contribution to his Presidential campaign.
In this connection we would like to reiterate that Russian officials, the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations or the Russian Government do not finance political activity in foreign countries.”
Wikileaks staff have verified the authenticity of the document. Obviously the statement is designed to undermine the McCain campaign and is an extremely interesting Russian intervention into US domestic politics. It remains to be seen whether the play, which lacks subtlety, will backfire and generate support for McCain.
According to the document metadata (which can be manipulated, though rarely is), the document was created by “INT10”, underwent two revisions and was saved by “INT9” with a version of word is registered to organization “MID”. Although Wikileaks normally removes metadata, we have not done so in this instance since the document is intended to be public and may be a significant political play by Russian intelligence.
Memo To: George and Jonathan Soros, Peter and Jonathan Lewis, Herb and Marion Sandler, Steve Bing, John Sperling, Michael Vachon From:John Podesta (writing as a private citizen) cc: Anna Burger, Rob McKay and Tom Matzzie Date:October 30, 2007 RE: 2008 COMBINED FUNDRAISING, MESSAGING AND MOBILIZATION PLAN
This memo serves as the follow-up to our September meeting in New York. Coming out of this meeting, I was charged with putting together a more detailed and structured overview of what the combined messaging and voter mobilization elements of an independent expenditure would like in 2008.
Since then, I have met closely with Anna Burger, Rob McKay, Tom Matzzie, Susan McCue, Martin Frost, Stan Greenberg, Paul Begala and others to discuss these questions and flesh out a concrete plan for action in 2008. Tom Matzzie has produced a comprehensive campaign plan and institutional framework for the messaging effort and this memo will draw upon many of his ideas. This planning is on top of the existing work already under way by the America Votes-Catalist-Atlas network on the mobilization side. I am confident that collectively we have produced a viable and successful model for achieving victory in 2008 (and beyond) built on transparency and full accountability for everyone involved.
To win in 2008 we will need to mount two large campaigns. The first will use national, state and local media to define the issues and narratives that will ultimately shape the election—a progressive “Messaging Campaign.” The second will be a voter contact and mobilization effort in targeted states to move swing voters and mobilize progressive voters—a progressive “Mobilization Campaign.” A successful joint strategy must be developed and executed to connect the messaging component to the ground game.
We suggest that you keep in mind the following strategic goals as we try to develop a framework for electoral activity in 2008:
Create the conditions for a tidal wave against the GOP. The stakes of the election need to fit the historical moment. The country is massively off track. Nothing will change until Bush and his supporters are out and new leaders are in—leaders who will be willing and able to do what is necessary for the country. A likely downturn in the economy, the protracted war in Iraq, rising inequality and Republican resistance to change can help set the stage for widespread gains up and down the ballot in 2008. This must again be a nationalized election in terms of scope and message.
Keep the President’s numbers down and brand all conservative candidates as “Bush Republicans.” Bush’s lame duck status cannot be allowed to create space for the Republicans to claim the mantle of change or conservative principle. The Republican presidential candidate will attempt to be the true heir of Ronald Reagan and may try to position himself as an agent for change, Sarkozy-style. We must continually remind voters that the nominee and all the rest of the Republican candidates are the residual forces of the failed Bush years.
Exploit the particular weaknesses of the Republican presidential nominee. Beyond tying the candidate to Bush, we must not be shy about reminding voters of the personal faults and character limitations of the Republican Party leader. The current crop of candidates is relatively unknown to Americans and will be ripe for definition through serious opposition research and media work. This will not happen organically. It will require sustained pressure and a willingness to play politics by their rules.
Ensure that demographics is destiny. An “emerging progressive majority” is a realistic possibility in terms of demographic and voting patterns. But it is incomplete in terms of organizing and political work. Women, communities of color, and highly educated professionals are core parts of the progressive coalition. Nationally, and in key battleground states, their influence is growing. Latinos and young voters are quickly solidifying in this coalition as well. But many of these voters are new to the process. All of these groups—in addition to working class voters and independents picked up in 2006—will require significant long-term engagement in order to keep them reliably on our side.
Control the political discourse. So much effort over the past few years has been focused on better coordinating, strengthening, and developing progressive institutions and leaders. Now that this enhanced infrastructure is in place—grassroots organizing; multi-issue advocacy groups; think tanks; youth outreach; faith communities; micro-targeting outfits; the netroots and blogosphere— we need to better utilize these networks to drive the content of politics through a strong “echo chamber” and message delivery system.
Set the stage for future progressive actions. All of this electoral activity will be for naught if we do not simultaneously advance a larger vision for why progressive change is necessary and how specific progressive legislation will achieve these goals. Should progressives win in 2008, the next president and Congress will face serious challenges in both cleaning up the mess of the Bush years and moving significant reforms in health care, energy, foreign policy and Iraq, poverty and mobility.
Leave something behind. We should think of investments in 2008 as building blocks for ongoing strategic campaigns and issue work in 2009 and beyond. Simply getting progressives elected will not be enough to maintain the political pressure and support necessary to pass progressive legislation and build a long-term, working majority.
Given the existing work on the voter mobilization side, primarily through the enhanced American Votes-Catalist-Atlas network and ongoing union efforts, most of our discussion in the New York meeting centered on the messaging side. The primary questions raised were: “What is the scope of the messaging campaign?” and “Who is going to run it?”
In this memo, I want to focus in greater detail on the messaging campaign, describe the mobilization effort again, and provide an overview of the governance and linkage between both efforts plus the joint fundraising through a new 527.
…. EXCERPT …..
The Messaging Campaign
The messaging component will be set-up through an existing 501(c)(4), currently named The Campaign to Defend America. This name will be changed when appropriate.
A (c)(4) board, with overlapping but not identical members from the other boards, will control the messaging component. Assuming resolution of some outstanding legal questions, I am prepared to serve as Chairman of the Board for the (c)(4) so long as I can continue to lead CAP/Action Fund. The messaging effort itself will be led by a President with full executive authority along with an executive team of three key individuals described below.
…. EXCERPT …..
• Developing a “Media Nerve Center” to align messaging across TV, radio, print, Internet, single-issue and advocacy organizations, progressive media, surrogates and new media. This “Media Nerve Center” would be connected to the Mobilization Campaign and eventually become a part of the permanent progressive infrastructure to last beyond the 2008 election.
If the structure of voter contact/voter mobilization is relatively mature, the structure of using outside forces to control the messaging and the debate in the campaign is almost nonexistent.
Ever since the 1996 Clinton campaign discovered the soft money loophole in the campaign finance law to run “issue ads” that pummeled Bob Dole before he even got the nomination, national and local television campaigns have been waged using non-federal dollars. The McCain-Feingold law closed down the loophole Clinton used to run that advertising through the DNC, but a new avenue for soft dollars to be spent on advertising quickly was found through spending by so-called 527 organizations. The FEC was in the process of narrowing this new loophole when the Supreme Court, this June, blew a hole in the McCain-Feingold laws to permit 527’s, unions, corporations, trade associations and others to run “issue ads” right up until Election Day.
The Media Fund in 2004 was built on this theory of soft money advertising and the notion that the candidate would be without resources from the spring through the convention.**
sehrman@earthlink is the original recipient of the memo; much speculation is in play over the identity of this poster – who only appears once in all the Wikileaks files – but this may in fact be a rare sighting of the elusive DC Power Maven and Hillary’s Mentor, SARA EHRMAN…
Sara currently serves as a Senior Advisor to the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace. Sara’s extensive career has provided her with a dynamic and unique knowledge of the regional issues in the Middle East.
Sara has held several key positions over the years, including Legislative Assistant to two U.S. Senators, Co-Director on the McGovern Presidential Campaign, Director of Federal Affairs for the Governor of Puerto Rico, Political Director for the American Israel Public Committee, Founder/Director of the Texas/Israel Exchange, Deputy Political Director for Clinton for President and a member of the Clinton/Gore Transition team, and Deputy Political Director of the Democratic National Committee.
This was a good strategy on their part. Unfortunately, their nominee was Hillary Clinton, the most corrupt politician possibly of all time, and the Republican nominee was Donald Trump, who is not actually a politician, is not actually a Republican, and cannot be accused of being in concert with the Bush doctrine.
A new book called First Women: The Grace and Power of America’s Modern First Ladies by New York Times bestselling author Kate Anderson Brower reveals that Michelle Obama hates former First Lady Hillary Clinton and that Mrs. Obama is largely unhappy with her position as First Lady.
Michelle has apparently refused to invite Hillary and former President Bill Clinton over to the White House for dinner due to built up animosity over the 2008 primary election between then-Senator Obama and Hillary.
“Michelle’s feelings towards Hillary were blatantly obvious when no couple dinners were scheduled at the Obama White House while Hillary was secretary of state and frequently meeting with the President,” reports The Daily Mail UK.
Brower’s book says that relationships between First Ladies can often be warm and sorority-like, while some are rivalistic, “fraught with hurt feelings and resentment, like that between Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama.”
“The 2008 presidential campaign left deep and lasting scars on both the Clinton and the Obama camps, and they are still shockingly fresh,” writes Brower. Apparently, Michelle is still miffed that Hillary dared mock her husband’s (failed) message of “Hope and Change.”
For example, at a 2008 campaign rally in Ohio, Hillary ridiculed Obama: “The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know that we should do the right thing, and the world would be perfect.”
The First Lady is no fan of Bill either: “When Michelle Obama views the Clintons, I don’t want to say she’s looking down her nose at them – but she kind of is,” a former Obama advisor told Brower.
The Clinton inner-circle seemingly feels the same underwhelming sentiment for Michelle, specifically as a First Lady: “Those Clinton acolytes also suggest that ‘Michelle has not done enough as first lady’ and has failed to prioritize funding for some programs that subsequently lost their federal support,” notes The Daily Mail UK.
One of the programs not taken up by Michelle was “Save America’s Treasures, a program that Hillary started to help preserve and protect historic sites, arts and published works and was lovingly carried on by Laura Bush, the next first lady.”
Mrs. Obama “felt no such obligation to those treasures and let the program dissolve.”
Michelle is reportedly unhappy as First Lady, too, once telling Late Show host Steven Colbert that she looked forward to the day she could escape “the watchful eye of the Secret Service.”
“Over the past seven years, Michelle’s unhappiness is evident in the increasingly difficult access to her as first lady,” says The Daily Mail UK. “Friends of the first lady say that Michelle’s unhappiness as first lady is the reason for that hard line.”
“Requests to the first lady’s East Wing office for an interview are normally politely declined,” said CBS News’ Bill Plant.
Further, Mrs. Obama shut down the idea of becoming too politically involved, explaining that being submersed in policy would bore her.
“The notion of sitting around the table with a set of policy advisers – no offense – makes me yawn,” she said.
The First Lady has instead become deeply passionate about fashion and famously campaigns for the “Let’s Move” initiative intended to end childhood obesity by monitoring youngsters’ food choices.
Evidence of a cold, even hateful relationship between Michelle and Hillary comes as no surprise. The former secretary of state and President Obama have had a suspect relationship for years, only becoming warmer publicly in recent months as Hillary is under federal investigation and running for president, and Mr. Obama is doing everything in his power to buildup and strengthen his legacy.
