The actress Scarlett Johansson has revealed that she has regular email contact with presidential hopeful Barack Obama in which she offers advice and consoles him after difficult debates.
The Hollywood starlet said she had been communicating with the Democratic candidate for months and was "amazed" that he always found the time to reply.
"You'd imagine that someone like the senator who is constantly travelling and constantly 'on' - how can he return these personal emails?" she told the Politico website.
"But he does, and in his off-time I know he also calls people who have donated the minimum to thank them."
She described how after a particularly tough debate earlier this year, she sent an email congratulating him for "holding his ground".
He responded that the questioning was "difficult" and he was being pounded on "one silly question after another."
"I feel like I'm supporting someone, and having a personal dialogue with them, and it's amazing," added Johansson.
The blonde 23-year-old star of Matchpoint and Girl with a Peal Earring has made no secret of her deep admiration for the Democratic candidate.
In January she told reporters: "I am engaged to Barack Obama - My heart belongs to Barack".
...She hinted that she may also participate in more high profile fundraising events. "There are other ways, too – being part of a benefit concert or show, and then perhaps hosting after-parties or dinners beforehand."
Will you sing "Happy Birthday Mr. President" for him?
Obama may not actually be the one writing those replies.
He has claimed that some rhetoric on an older website of his (about abortion, thread posted today) was written by a member of his campaign staff and not him (although he says it came from basic positions of his).
“the buck never got here”.
In 2005, he wrote his second book, The Audacity of Hope, and described an e-mail from a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical School. The message expressed how the campaign’s website made it impossible for the doctor, a pro-life Christian, to support Obama:The reason the doctor was considering voting for my opponent was not my position on abortion as such. Rather, he had read an entry that my campaign had posted on my website, suggesting that I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.” He went on to write:“Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded. ... I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”
I checked my website and found the offending words. They were not my own; my staff had posted them to summarize my pro-choice position during the Democratic primary, at a time when some of my opponents were questioning my commitment to protect Roe v. Wade. Within the bubble of Democratic Party politics, this was standard boilerplate, designed to fire up the base. The notion of engaging the other side on the issue was pointless, the argument went; any ambiguity on the issue implied weakness.
Rereading the doctor’s letter, though, I felt a pang of shame.