E Pluribus Unum

by shep

Here you can watch one of the cranky white guys from CNN explaining how Hillary Clinton refused to give straight answers on driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants, Social Security and the release of presidential records in that now infamous Democratic debate.

Besides being completely full of it himself when Jack Cafferty calls it “baloney” that Clinton herself can’t release presidential records and asking what “fiscal responsibility” means, the greatest stupidity and moral crime committed by our entire idiot press corps about that debate has to be the one that Clinton “flip-flopped” on the driver’s license issue.

Here’s Russert’s original “gotcha” question:

Russert: Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. He told the Nashua, New Hampshire, Editorial Board it makes a lot of sense.

Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?

And here’s Clinton’s answer as to why it makes sense:

Clinton: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability.

So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum. I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.

And here’s Russert’s flip-flop:

Russert: Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license?

(Unknown): Believe what?

Russert: An illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license.

Now Russert’s question isn’t why Spitzer’s plan “makes sense,” it is now, one Clinton answer later, who thinks illegal immigrants should not be given a driver’s license.

So Chris Dodd answers that question in the negative and Clinton attempts to answer the new question thusly:

Clinton: Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do...

Edwards then opportunistically claims that Clinton said two different things – which she did in response to Russert’s two different questions – and the rest is beltway journalistic malpractice.

(The gotcha nature of the original question is obvious to anyone who’s ever taken a first-year philosophy class: “tell me why it might make sense to kill a criminal” or “write an essay on why it might make sense to start a war with a militarily inferior, resource-rich country.” And Punkin' Head is apparently somewhat ashamed of it since he edited it out of this week’s MTP review of Clinton’s “straight answer(s)” to two different questions).

The Village lurves its empty political narratives – i.e., “the calculating politician” (no, seriously) – because 1) college students who choose journalism aren’t usually the brightest crayons in the box and 2) our beltway press are really a bunch of lazy, pampered know-nothings who, if they couldn’t constantly lean on these mindless narratives, would actually have think of something clever to say or report, you know, the news (as our idiot-in-chief might say: that journalism stuff is hard work). Most maddeningly, they continue to pretend that they themselves aren’t affecting and corrupting the process by creating these narratives and with their laziness, inanity and adolescent-style assaults on politicians, particularly Democrats.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (2) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Democrats , Hillary Clinton , Media , Politics

Times:

“Edwards and Obama are still waltzing around [Clinton] rather than hitting on doubts about her that would really resonate with voters,” said Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University.

Gosh, I don't know: Edwards has been pretty clear. He's saying she talks out of both sides of her mouth at the same time. Not an original charge, nor one that hasn't been leveled at any given candidate at any time (Edwards included).

“One absolutely devastating accusation that could resonate is that she is gullible — she bought into two false story lines, one from her husband about Monica Lewinsky and one from President Bush about Iraq,” Mr. Baker added.

Hillary gullible? Now THAT's an interesting notion. All the more so because I could see Edwards doing that. I could also see Giuliani doing it. Not sure about the others.

Something else to consider: how would the public react?

Many have said if she can't take the heat now, wait til the Republicans have at her. They have a point. Could Clinton take that punch and still remain standing? Or would she be down for the count?

My guess is that she's the toughest and most durable fighter the Dems have -- in fact it might be her one greatest redeeming characteristic. Edwards? Cheney already kicked his ass once. Obama? Not sure he can throw a punch. But Clinton -- a real street fighter. I'm not talking about that nonsense of "fighting for the people against the powerful." That's Bob Shrum talking and we can see where that got him.

I'm talking about the will to win no matter what. Wanting to win more than your opponent and doing whatever it takes to take him down. I see that in Clinton. The others -- not so much.

P.S. Another thing to consider: the bar has been placed such that, unless Hillary is taken out on a stretcher, she wiins the night.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Hillary Clinton

• Breaking News: "Musharraf Expects To Quit As Army Chief By End of Month." Riiiiiiight. And Larry Craig expects to leave the US Senate by the end of October.

• When Brian Williams guest-hosted on SNL a couple of weeks ago, it went a long way in changing my opinion of him. But this softball interview with Rudy Giuliani reminds me again why I didn't like him in the first place.

• Speaking of Williams, apparently his ratings are up post-SNL. Then again, so are Katie Couric's and she wasn't even on the show.

• Judith Regan is suing News Corp. over her firing in the OJ book affair. She's claiming (among other things) that Murdoch tried to ruin her reputation to protect Rudy Giuliani's. You know -- she was boffing Bernie Kerik and they were afraid she'd blab about it. Sounds to me like they all -- Murdoch, Giuliani, Kerik, Regan -- deserve each other.

• Bush's plan for the economy: prop it up with matchsticks and duct tape until January 20, 2009. Then blame the new president for ruining it.

• James Carville compares Don Imus to Bill Clinton.

• A Wiki site has leaked the Gitmo Camp Delta manual online. Or at least, ahem, that's what they tell me.

• Silence of the Lambs: Baghdad, post-surge. [Note: for those of you who didn't read the novel, the reference is to the silence that was heard after the lambs had been slaughtered; it haunted the novel's protagonist.]

• Chris Bowers: "If Obama wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he takes the nomination." Maybe yes, maybe no. One thing for sure -- of all the top tier Dems, he has shown the most upward momentum over the past 30 days or so. Even the prediction markets are starting to reflect that. I just wish he had more of Jack Kennedy in him and less of Adlai Stevenson.

• Matt Stoller asks whether the negative attacks on Clinton are working. Short answer: maybe.

• Got to know when to fold 'em: Apparently, Gov. Spitzer has decided to abandon a plan to issue New York driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Economics , George W. Bush , Hillary Clinton , Media , Rudy Giuliani

[cross posted at Daily Kos]

Notwithstanding Krugman, it looks like a narrative is forming for the general election, and trust me, you've heard this song before: firmness versus nuance. It's a Republican frame and that means the traditional media will be eating it for breakfast, lunch and dinner. And that means there was only one winner (see below).

But first, hear me out:

To the extent that Edwards (and Obama) attacked Clinton on being "for it and against it at the same time," it helps the Republicans as much as it helps any Democrat. Why? Because, for Republicans, right and wrong don't matter -- only firmness and resolve matter. [Note: did I miss something or did Edwards pass when it came to declaring his position on Spitzer's proposal?]

Granted, Edwards is showing he, too, has cojones. The problem for Edwards comes later -- during the general election. Far more people believe Giuliani and/or McCain have the stones than believe Edwards does. So, down the line, Edwards may only have himself to blame. That's what happens when candidates accept their opponents' frame -- it leaves your opponent with plenty of ammunition during the general.

Also: another Republican frame is going to be fear. So when the debate turns to drivers' licenses for immigrants (as it will for at least the next few days) I'll give you one guess as to who that helps. Hint: It ain't the Democrats. [UPDATE: Jonathan Singer addresses the pros and cons of the issue.]

Deal with it: fear is a Republican frame. Fear of terrorists, fear of illegal immigrants, free-floating fear of "colored people." In fact, racial fear will be the most potent theme that the Republican base responds to.

And Giuliani is all about racial fear. Clinton? Buddies with Charlie Rangel and everyone in Harlem (just ask O'Reilly). Edwards --helping those in poverty? Please. You know who that helps, right? Obama? Too black. Not black enough. Can't make up his mind about what his race is. Except we know he's soft. Soft on Islamofascists. And you know what color their skin is.

Bottom line: the real winner last night was George W. Bush. And, by extension, his rightful heir: Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani who (like Cheney and Bush) has made his career out of fear. Long before 9/11, he made a name for himself by appearing at -- and later, as mayor, ordering police riots. And that's not to mention the infamous killing of Amadou Diallo. In fact, before this is over, the 9/11 thing may very well have fallen by the wayside, having been exposed as his weak spot, not his strength. His strength? Giuliani is the one virulent, determined, resolute, angry white male who will stick it to em, once and for all, wink wink nudge nudge.

Will the Dems be ready for that? As I see it, the only way to be truly ready is to be prepared to hang Bush around Rudy's neck and let him sink to the bottom of the fetid ocean he swims in. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Who among the Dems is ready to do that?

Because you know Rudy's coming for you. Don't say you weren't warned.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards , Rudy Giuliani

[Cross posted, with poll, at Daily Kos]

Yaakov Kirschen's cartoon goes like this: "The optimists think that the US Presidential campaign will be about the war in Iraq, while the pessimists think it'll be about the war in Iran." Substitute "Democrats" for "optimists" and "Republicans" for "pessimists" and I think you have a prescription for Democratic electoral disaster.

Hear me out...

Flash forward 6-12 months: tensions are high with Iran; maybe we've had some cross border skirmishes (like the Turks vs. the PKK). Maybe we've concentrated more ships, planes and bombs into the Gulf region. I'm not a betting man but the odds seem pretty strong we'll see that, or worse, in the immediate future. Who's going to stop it? Congress? Riiiiiiight. This is the same bunch that couldn't even compel Harriet Miers to comply with a crappy subpoena.

So now tensions are high. Very high. We're talking 24/7 war mania. Of course, the media is no help. In fact, Murdoch's new WSJ business channel bangs the drums louder than anyone -- whatever is good for the corporation is good for America. Blackwater stock goes stratospheric.

Who do you think this help the most -- Democrats or Republicans? Or more to the point: which candidates does this help most? Don't shoot the messenger, but I'm here to tell you it's short list -- and it has more Republicans on it than Democrats:

• Giuliani -- Death to Islamofascism. No more 9/11's.
  
• McCain -- The son and grandson of Navy admirals, blah blah blah.
  
• Clinton -- Stood (and will stand) shoulder-to-shoulder with the Commander in Chief

For those of you who were electoral optimists (see above) this is not good, my friends: McCain and Giuliani already poll relatively well against Clinton. A looming war with Iran helps them more than it helps her. Whichever one of them gets the nomination, all bets are off for an easy Dem takeover in the White House.

One bit of good news: I think Hillary Clinton intuitively sees these pieces on the chess board and is thinking several moves ahead. The others either don't -- or can't -- deal with it as it stands now.

Am I missing something here? I don't think so.

Bottom line: the worse the situation with Iran, the better it is for the Republicans in November 2008.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (5) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Democrats , Hillary Clinton , Iran , John McCain , Republicans , Rudy Giuliani , War

That's interesting, but not a total shock -- Haggard's people were part of FDR's New Deal Democrats.

What's really interesting is his take on George W:

"The thing that gets under my skin most about George W. is his intention to install fear in people," he said, after walking me down a hallway lined with gold and platinum records. "This is America. We're proud. We're not afraid of a bunch of terrorists. But this government is all about terror alerts and scaring us at airports. We're changing the Constitution out of fear. We spend all our time looking up each other's dresses. Fear's the only issue the Republican Party has. Vote for them, or the terrorists will win. That's not what Reagan was about. I hate to think about our soldiers over in Iraq fighting for a country that's slipping away."

[...]

Haggard sensed a certain reluctance among the Hillarians to embrace his endorsement—in part, I imagine, because he's not shy about saying that one of the biggest things Hillary has going for her is Bill, who ranks up with Reagan in the Haggard pantheon and not only because the former President used to have a pickup truck with Astroturf in the back. "He cared about this country, about our problems," Haggard said, with a twinkle. "And I figure that whatever she doesn't know, he does."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Hillary Clinton

Keith Olbermann interviews Hillary and when it's over I'm thinking, "Wasn't she running against a couple of other guys...? Whatever happened to them?"

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Hillary Clinton

Recently the Washington Post published a list of national security and foreign policy advisers to the Clinton campaign. Buried near the bottom is this entry:

Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings senior fellow and former Congressional Budget Office defense and foreign policy analyst, supporter

Of course I mean that in a nice way.

Glenn Greenwald:

[O'Hanlon is] among the biggest cheerleaders for the war, [and] repeatedly praised the Pentagon's strategy in Iraq and continuously assured Americans things were going well. They are among the primary authors and principal deceivers responsible for this disaster.

He (O'Hanlon) also co-signed the infamous letter from Project for the New American Century (along with, hmmm...let's pick someone at random... William Kristol).

Predictably, this has raised all sorts of hackles around Lefty Blogville.

When I see these folks [O'Hanlon, Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe, et. al.] on Hillary's team, it makes me cringe. I do not want these people to have direct influence on our next president.

Here's the partial list, in alpha order:

• Madeleine K. Albright
  
• Samuel R. Berger
  
• Gen. Wesley K. Clark
  
• Leslie H. Gelb
  
• Richard C. Holbrooke
  
• Martin S. Indyk
  
• Joseph Sestak
  
• Strobe Talbott
  
• Togo D. West
  
• Joe Wilson

Not a bad bunch to have available in your Rolodex.

The real question is: when they talk, will she listen? As of right now, we can't really say, can we?

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (4) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Hillary Clinton

• Judge to Sen. Craig: You're stuck with your plea: Are Republicans stuck with Craig? [Answer: Yes.]

• Kudos to Obama: Blocks odious FEC Republican nominee Spakovsky...for now.

• Conservative "pro-family" activists would rather vote for a third party candidate than they would vote for Rudy Giuliani. I'll believe it when that candidate hands Florida to the Democrats in 2008. IJS. That said, maybe it's time for Rudy to claim he's pro-life now. After all -- 9/11 changed everything!

• Now that Pete Domenici has announced his retirement, will Bill Richardson quit his run for the White House and try for the Senate instead? His campaign says, no, they're in it to win it and they are "confident" of their chances. Right.

• Speaking of losers, do you ever get the impression that Fred Thompson is just going through the motions? What ever could he have been thinking? (Answer below.)

• Sleep-walking his way through Iowa, Thompson tries to out-Reagan the rest of the Republican field by slamming "the Soviet Union." Yes, you heard me. The Hunt For Red October is on again, baby!

• Speaking of the USSR, today is the 50th anniversary of the launch into space of Sputnik. Did you know that what the Soviets were really trying to do was draw attention to the ICBM that launched the little-satellite-that-could?

• Speaking of Sputnik, here's an interview with Arthur C. Clark (now nearing 90) wherein he remembers where he was that fateful day when his prediction finally came true.

• Props to Sergey Korolyov, the genius behind the Soviet space effort. He was called "The Chief Designer" because his identity was deemed a state secret by the Politburo.

• A new AP-Ipsos poll has Bush's approval ratings at 31 percent, the "lowest level" ever recorded in that poll's history. Not sure if they mean lowest for any president or just lowest for the Bush family.

• Surprise! People still really, really like Bill Clinton.

And here it is, your moment of Zen:

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Fred Thompson , George W. Bush , Hillary Clinton , History , Odds & Sods , Republicans , Rudy Giuliani

Sen. Clinton made the rounds of all five Sunday talk shows and apparently played the pundits like a fiddle. They said she was tough, strong, serious, smart, disciplined, and so forth. This could be a turning point in the campaign: Hillary has landed.

Todd Beeton:

[T]he progressive movement took one lesson from Gore and Kerry's losses: that to win, Democrats need to forsake the down the middle politics that have led us to losses in the past and instead stand up clearly and strongly for progressive values...[but] Clinton appears to be banking on a slightly different lesson: that in fact running down the middle is a winning strategy as long as you convince people that your positions are sincere and come from a place of strength, not weakness, a feat Clinton appears to be accomplishing, if the reactions to her Sunday talk show appearances are any indication.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Hillary Clinton

by Mark Adams

If you answered that "unabashed Marxist" Hillary Clinton, (go ahead and giggle at that one, I did), you win.

Seriously, Hillary is best know to Wingnuttystan as the failed author of what they like to call "Hillarycare" and I've been waiting since 1994 for it to be implemented. But instead of immediately entering the presidential race by offering a health care plan she has been identified with for a decade and a half, she originally said that she'd like some kind of vague "universal" program to be implemented by the time she leaves office after her second term.

She's upped the timetable to the first term, and echoing John Edwards includes a mandate that requires medical coverage for all (Obama's plan does not) making it truly universal, sets up a competing public system to compete with private insurers like Edwards proposes, removes obstacles to access for pre-existing conditions (Edwards, ditto), and except for the devil-in-the-details tax considerations and the relative burden on small businesses, it does look every bit as "very, very sound" as the one offered by John Edwards.

Continue reading "Pop Quiz: Who Stole John Edwards' Health Care Plan?" »

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Health Care , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards

• It's Petraeus Day on Capitol Hill. Can you stand the suspense??

• David Brooks compares OBL to ... lefty bloggers! Of course -- we're all for fundamentalist religion taking over the government.

• Gallup has Hillary with more support than the next two candidates put together. Obama is set to make a major policy speech on Iraq this week. Can these two facts have anything to do with each other?

• A sign that maybe this blogging thing is washed up: Alan Greenspan has a blog.

• Iraqis overwhelmingly say that the surge has made things worse, and they want the US out. Now. The only people left who disagree are the 70% of Republicans who give Bush a positive approval rating.

• When Petraeus is done on Capitol Hill today (giving his non-report that wasn't written by nobody at the White House) he'll take a victory lap participate in an exclusive interview on Fox News.

• Here's how bad it sucks to be Bill Richardson: Unavision would not allow Richardson to speak Spanish during the all-Spanish-broadcast of the recent Democratic debate.
  

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Hillary Clinton , Odds & Sods , Republicans , War in Iraq

(cross posted at Daily Kos)

I'm not the first one to point out that there are only two things that can rehabilitate George W. Bush's reputation and legacy:

• Total victory in Iraq
  
• Another massive terror attack on the US.

Now, Hillary Clinton is addressing this chilling reality:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday raised the prospect of a terror attack before next year's election, warning that it could boost the GOP's efforts to hold on to the White House.

Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault while campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton also insisted she is the Democratic candidate best equipped to deal with it.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.

"So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that," she added.

What do you think?

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (10) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Hillary Clinton

by Mark Adams

From his lust for Kralizec to his desire to privatize Social Security, Rudy unites left and right, by his stupidity.  Seriously, the guy is absofreakinglutely bat-shit crazy.

Obama figures out he's just not that good at the 30 second sound-byte debate format -- cuts and runs from attending any more debates than those already scheduled.  I assume that means there will be a hard limit of no more than 47 more until we begin voting -- probably right after Thanksgiving.  Hopefully, there will be lots of arugula.

After watching some TPMtv, spotlighting Mitt Romney's profound ignorance of anything east of Boston Harbor, Raising Kaine concludes "Multiple-Choice Mitt" is a "Giant Foreign Policy Goofball."  News Hounds gets the hypocrisy of Romney's schpeel, but you really need to watch Josh Marshall put it all together to understand how profoundly delusional Romney is. 

Meanwhile, Eleanor Clift has a question for Mitt & Co. that might stop some of the GOP hopefuls in their tracks -- since of course, they'd have to think instead of regurgitating their 30 year-old talking points or trying to remember whether they we talking to an audience that preferred the flip to the flop.

Stop asking Romney and the other Republican front runners about abortion and start asking them where they stand on family planning.

Fred Thompson, who turns 65 today (thus eligible for all the entitlements he vows to abolish), is the only candidate who needed to have his fat, lazy ass trucked around the Iowa State Fair in a golf cart. 

Actually he looked kinda gaunt.  He'll need to scarf down a few more elephant ears to be the right's answer to Michael Moore. 

She really ought to take it easy on the old guy.  How many little blue pills can one man take?

I noted before that Mike Huckabee was kind spoken towards the Clintons, to the point where he would sound almost gushing if he weren't a Republican.  Rights Field's David Dayen thinks these remarks point to where Huckabee first got the idea that cars and buses were lame, that his super-coolness would be enshrined forever once his Harley cleared the shark tank.

This kid came from a dysfunctional family — alcoholic abusive father. And yet he didn't just aspire, he was elected president of the United States not once, but twice. That is an affirmation of the system. And it's a wonderful testament to give to every kid in America that no matter where you've come from, you've got an opportunity to do something extraordinary.

Wingnuttystan still says, "Gotcha," cuz that's all they got.  I mean, what are they gonna do?  Buy into McCain trying to be the anti-war candidate?  Puh-Leeze.

More Wingnut News...

Vice President Cheney is a dildo, what else to you call a dick substitute? (Do not Click if you are under age ... 40.)  Doctor BooMan advises us to use a condom anyway.

Speaking of nuts and other guilty pleasures of the alternate universe ... you know you just gotta click on a link that says Ron Paul teams up with Dennis Kucinich.

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Ann Coulter , Barack Obama , Dick Cheney , Fred Thompson , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards , John McCain , Mitt Romney , Politics , Rudy Giuliani , Social Security , War in Iraq

by shep

So Barack Obama says, if president, he’d meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

And in a conference call with reporters set up by the Clinton campaign, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said, "I would think that without having done the diplomatic spadework, it would not really prove anything".

Badly coded offer of the Secretary of State job?

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Funny , Hillary Clinton

• Patrick Fitzgerald for ... Attorney General?
• Hillary asks SecDef Gates if he supports Under Secretary Edelman's smear of her. I think she's being far too 19th-century-polite. I would have gone all Harry Truman on his -- and Edeleman's -- ass.
• And while we're at it, let's define what a smear really is: attacking someone's reputation instead of their message.
• Colbert finally gets his free iPhone.
• Wake me up when September ends. LIke, for example, in November.
• A couple of weeks ago, dick Cheney declared there were four branches of government. Now, the White House is claiming there are only two.
• And in a related story, Sen. Leahy points out that charging Harriet Miers with "inherent contempt" of Congress would likely result in a trial in the Senate presided over by -- wait for it -- dick Cheney.
• Saturday night at midnight the last Harry Potter book will be released from captivity. Or not. The NYTimes has already gotten a copy -- from a legit source, they say -- and published a review. Sorry, no link -- Miss Julie made me promise. JK Rowling is shocked -- and saddened. Noting the tremendous costs associated with sequestering the book copies until the witching hour ($20 million, not counting Fedex shipping costs), Seth Godin has a solution, should a publishing phenomenon like this occur ever again. "Books are great at holding memories," he says, "They're lousy at keeping secrets."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Hillary Clinton , Humor , Marketing , Odds & Sods , Politics , Technology , Television , Video , War

Bill Clinton's record is Hillary's greatest strength -- and also her greatest weakness. She can rightfully claim his legacy -- and/but she'll always be called upon to defend it as well. The good news is she's very well suited for this fight. The bad news is she'll be fighting it all the time. Al Gore had to deal with it in 2000; but that was nothing compared to what it'll be like this time around if Hillary gets the nomination.

This alone might be the best argument for nominating Barack Obama. But I digress...

The fallout from the Scooter Libby fiasco is a good case study of what we're all in for if Hillary gets the nomination:

Whatever you may think about the merits of the Rich pardon versus the Libby pardon, the debate is one the Bush team wants. The White House would rather have everyone debating the relative merits of the two than debating the inconsistencies in the Libby decision alone...

If Hillary Clinton is elected president, how often will this phenomenon be repeated? With each piece of legislation Hillary Clinton proposes or each assertion she makes, Republicans will offer an analog from the Clinton years. They'd do the same with any Democratic president, of course, but another Democratic president would have an easier time walking away from such attacks.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , George W. Bush , Hillary Clinton , Republicans

What's wrong with this picture?

• In head to head national polling, she does worse against the top-tier Republican candidates than the other top-tier Democratic candidates.
  
• Her disapproval numbers are higher than any other top-tier Dem candidate.
  
• The percentage of people that say they would definitely not vote for her (if she was the Dem nominee) is above 50%.
  
• Barack Obama has raised more money than her.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Hillary Clinton

My money and Miss Julie's (and Bill's!) was on Smashmouth's I'm A Believer. Has there ever been a bad version of that song?

I'll save you the suspense: she picked You And I by Celine Dion, which (oddly enough) was originally written for an Air Canada commercial. Before it made it to air, Celine Dion recorded it. Then it went on TV. And now it's a part of Hillary's campaign.

P.S. And, yes, that really is Johnny Sack at the counter.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Democrats , Hillary Clinton

• Karl Rove has been among a small group of Bushies visiting Presidential libraries in preparation for planning the one for his boss. When I bumped into Rove last week, the flight we were both on was going to Atlanta, which (coincidentally?) is the location for the Carter Library.

• Jane Hamsher asks the musical question, "Who Is The Scariest GOP Presidential Candidate?" Rudy's nuts so he's plenty scary. But Romney is scary because he is willing to say just about anything to get elected. [P.S. Is it just me or is Mitt Romney filling a hole left by George Allen, i.e., tall-dark-and-handsome?]

• Sen. Barack Obama's Secret Service codename is "Renegade." Hillary's is "Evergreen," left over from the Clinton White House years. The other candidates will have to wait and see if they get their own handles. This article details the codenames for past and present POTUS' and candidates for POTUS. Here's an interesting bit of trivia:

  [A]ccording to a Secret Service spokesman, all code names are chosen by military officials, suggesting that they should not be examined too closely for deeper meaning.

• NBC seems interested in Jon Stewart. Stewart's contract with Comedy Central is up in 2008.

  Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
  Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , George W. Bush , Hillary Clinton , Humor , Mitt Romney , Odds & Sods , Politics , Rudy Giuliani , Television

Walter Shapiro:

The question of how tough a Democratic presidential candidate needs to sound to get elected hovered over the debate, as it may over the coming primary races.

Edwards boldly defended his prior comment that the "war on terror" was little more than rhetoric: "This global war on terror bumper sticker -- political slogan ... was intended for ... George Bush to use it to justify everything he does: the ongoing war in Iraq, Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture."

That was too much for Clinton, who, as the first woman to wage a serious candidacy for president, must understand the political risks of seeming weak in any setting.

Responding to Edwards, she said flatly that she disagreed, before adding, "I am a senator from New York. I have lived with the aftermath of 9/11, and I have seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists who are intent upon foisting their way of life and using suicide bombers and suicidal people to carry out their agenda."

The second most interesting moment was when Edwards and Obama sparred -- but not about Iraq. On that score I think Obama ate Edwards lunch, cooly reminding him that he [Edwards] was "4-1/2 years late on leadership."

No, I think their exchange on health care plans was more telling. Edwards' plan is mandatory (good) -- and Obama's is not (bad). Honestly, I hadn't thought about that until the debate. Of course neither plan is much good compared to Kucinich's -- the Ohio congressman has the best idea: Medicare for all. The only way you fix the system is to make it universal. Not only that -- you have to exclude the insurance companies completely from the equation. Health care should not be subject to profit and share price calculations. So anything shy of that is a cop-out -- and Edwards' plan (and Obama's) fall far short. That said, if either one gets elected, their plans will be subject to congressional influence (to say the least).

Bottom line? These are not really debates but rather candidate interviews. And based on last night, I'd hire Hillary Clinton for the job. Luckily for the other top-tier candidates there's time for them to improve their presentations.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (7) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards

I thought Fred Thompson's video rebuttal of Michael Moore was pretty skillful.

But I hadn't seen this video from Hillary Clinton.

Yes, yes -- totally different topic but isn't she great?

P.S. Don't forget to vote to choose Hillary's campaign theme song.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Democrats , Hillary Clinton

by Mark Adams

In a time when our President is identified merely by one initial, "W," and the spine of the congressional Democratic leadership cannot be identified at all, I yearn for the days when 3-initial Democrats, FDR, JFK, even LBJ and the promise of RFK were something quite different than the breed in attendance today.

Democrats with Balls.

I, like so many on the left -- some far left, others only moderately so -- and even those wandering in the middle cannot express their reaction to the "Capitulation Bill" without using the word, "disappointment." Even that word hardly seems to capture the proper emotion.

I've seen weak displays of rhetorical tricks masking the inability to follow one's convictions before; swallowing principles to pursue the practical, pragmatic politics of the day. But what we witnessed yesterday with the cave-in by the Democratic leadership giving Bush yet another blank check for his Iraq war was nothing short of pathetic.

The most egregious example came from Speaker Pelosi herself, indicating that she probably would not vote for a bill she is actively helping to get to the floor. Could there be a more cravenly cowardly stance? Explain how this is not the height of hypocricy.

The oft quoted maxim by Margaret Mead advising us never to underestimate the power of a small group of dedicated people's ability to change the world because that's the only thing that ever has, neglects to consider the sheer stupidity of those people when they've been in elected office too long.

The only thing that gives me some solace is that the candidate I've been supporting for President came out on the right side of this issue, and so many others in the way he urges us to look at our foreign policy and reject the GOP framing.

The only way to beat them is to stand our ground and not give an inch. That's what John Edwards did today.

Today, he went to the heart of America's foreign policy establishment and called out the Bush crowd for their misuse of patriotism. He had the guts to say what all of us know—that the Bush Terror Doctrine has failed our troops and failed America by straining our military to the breaking point and sowing chaos around the world.

John Edwards offered a clear plan to rebuild our forces and cure the damage inflicted on our military by Bush's policies. He offered a vision of an America where moral leadership is once again the rule, and where we are stronger and more secure because of it.

Their choice, however, should not be that difficult -- if they really meant they way they voted on Feingold-Reid. We shall indeed see if they will put their money (rather, our money) where their mouths are. So far, their silence is deafening, and as you know, "silence is betrayal."

UPDATE: Chris Dodd is going to vote no on the Capitulation Bill, putting more pressure on Obama and Clinton -- and giving hope to those of us who still hold out hope...and want action.

UPDATE II: Kerry says NO too.

"An Iraq Bill Without a Deadline is Meaningless"

"We support the troops by getting the policy right and this bill allows the President to keep getting the policy wrong. We need a deadline to force Iraqis to stand up for Iraq and bring our heroes home, not watered down benchmarks and blank check waivers for this President. We support the troops by funding the right mission, not with a White House that opposes a pay raise for our brave men and women in uniform," Kerry said. "The original Senate legislation offered a roadmap to change course in Iraq. This new version enables the Administration and Iraqi politicians to deliver more of the same. I am determined to continue pressing this issue until President Bush changes course. We owe our troops nothing less than a strategy that is worthy of their sacrifice."

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (2) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards , War in Iraq

Mark, in the comments, pulls up the recent gem from John Zogby:

And [Hillary] has the misfortune of running her history-making campaign against both Jack Kennedy (Obama) and Bobby Kennedy (Edwards).

Here's the quiz:
Who was the last candidate to run against both Jack AND Bobby?

Ten bazillion political junkie points for the first one who knows the answer.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (4) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Hillary Clinton , History , John Edwards

by Mark Adams
Cross-posted. Also in Blue and Orange.

Let me be clear on one thing. Every single Democratic presidential candidate condemns the Bush Administration for its disastrous fiscal, domestic and foreign policies. Every single one knows Bush is a joke when he pretends to be the least bit competent on anything whatsoever. They understand that "compassionate conservativism" is a fraud. They all realize that the next president, who will undoubtedly be a Democratic president, faces a monumental task rehabilitating our nation's reputation in the world and economic and social rifts at home.

Nobody gets a cookie for being the "most" unlike Bush. Everybody will do their best to correct the disastrous course of our ship of state.

All of them.

Continue reading "No Democrat Started The War" »

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (2) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards , War in Iraq

If you want to understand Hillary Clinton (and more importantly, her campaign) read up on Mark Penn.

Anne Kornblut has the goods:

While not her campaign manager in name, Penn controls the main elements of her campaign, most important her attempt to define herself to an electorate seemingly ready for a Democratic president but possibly still suffering from Clinton fatigue.

Armed with voluminous data that he collects through his private polling firm, Penn has become involved in virtually every move Clinton makes, with the result that the campaign reflects the chief strategist as much as the candidate.

Continue reading "Mark Penn: Power Center in the Clinton Campaign" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Democrats , Hillary Clinton

Here are the full results from MoveOn's Virtual Town Hall vote (remember, this does not imply a MoveOn endorsement):

Sen. Barack Obama 28%
Sen. John Edwards 25%
Rep. Dennis Kucinich 17%
Gov. Bill Richardson 12%
Sen. Hillary Clinton 11%
Sen. Joe Biden 6%
Sen. Chris Dodd 1%

I would have thought John Edwards would be stronger than this. Well like they said, this isn't equivalent to an endorsement from MoveOn.

UPDATE: But wait -- there's more! MoveOn members who watched the Town Hall at one of the parties voted differently from those who did not. Here are how the folks who attended the event ranked their choices:

Sen. John Edwards 25%
Gov. Bill Richardson 21%
Sen. Barack Obama 19%
Rep. Dennis Kucinich 15%
Sen. Joe Biden 10%
Sen. Hillary Clinton 7%
Sen. Chris Dodd 4%

Good news for Edwards, Richardson, Biden and Dodd. Not so good for Obama and Clinton -- the two front runners.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Barack Obama , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards

by Mark Adams

They should be renamed, because they are the Democratic Party's leading compromisers and capitulators.

I'd like you to read something, and see if you agree that the official party-within-a-party-line of the Democratic Leadership Council is no better than President Bush when he says his sworn duty is to protect the American people -- when it actually is his sworn duty to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.

Normally, we would be skeptical of attempts by Congress to write war strategy into law -- as opposed to exercising its Constitutional duties to declare and finance wars.

However, the DLC throws this framing into their argument to give George Bush exactly what he want's, a "clean" supplemental spending bill. Their "plan" is to (1) cave into Bush on funding after he vetoes the conditional bills, complete with their timetables, then (2) take a look at whether the surge escalation is working, and finally (3) to call for a diplomatic strategy.

(Cross-Posted and KOS-Posted)

Continue reading "The DLC Doesn't Lead" »

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Hillary Clinton , Iraq , John Edwards , Politics , War in Iraq

by shep

After reading David Broder’s piece on Sunday (I know), coming off of reading Matt Stoller on Hillary Clinton’s relationship with Fox News, I got to wondering why Rupert Murdoch and David Broder, ostensibly representing different center-right to right-wing perspectives, both seemed at least amenable to Clinton’s frontrunner status. Actually, no I didn’t. I know they both want the most establishment (read: corporatist) candidate from either party.

But I did start to wonder why so many Democrats were so wary of Clinton (Republicans are easy, they hate whomever they are told to hate). Her negatives, even among progressives, now seem fundamental. Yet overall, Democrats like the Clintons. They have both charmed us with activist rhetoric and framed many Democratic successes against Republicanism since the Reagan era.

A Hillary Clinton presidency would certainly be an agent for evolutionary change. She’d make a fine president, no doubt, in the context of the previous Clinton administration and, obviously, in stark contrast to the criminal enterprise now ensconced in the executive.

Yet, so far, Hillary is offering only incremental changes in policy: fewer troops in Iraq, corporate-run healthcare that is universally available (eventually) and, shockingly, not much at all about reducing fossil fuel consumption, rolling back the Republicans’ treasonous assault on the Bill of Rights and the rule of law, or the outrageous unfairness of income distribution and tax policy in America.

The trouble is, we may no longer have the luxury of incremental change. We’ve blown the last thirty years of opportunity to do something about fossil fuel consumption leading to climate change and now it may be too late to prevent utter catastrophe. We may have already traded our children’s future for a 3,000 sq. ft. builder’s special in the ex-urbs and driving around alone in a 3/4-ton truck.

Our healthcare system is killing us and that is not hyperbole. It directly kills 100,000 people a year just from mistakes in hospital care, many more from prescribed drugs, with a widely reviled tort system as its ultimate remedy. It is unaffordable for both individuals and employers, further undermining our competitiveness in world markets. It does little to help prevent disease. It is barely accessible to 46 million Americans, yet it is expected to collapse under the weight of the baby boomers (we are many and we are huge).

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration, aided and abetted by the most partisan and corrupt congress in generations (no small feat), have functionally gutted the Bill of Rights and the rule of law: the preeminent centuries-old law to protect citizens from tyranny – habeas corpus – gone in the blink of Alberto Gonzales’ eye, government torture, for god f*cking’s sake, unprovoked war and foreign occupation, the politicization of our justice system from top to bottom and corruption of our electoral system from coast to coast.

Finally, Republicans have so successfully deployed authoritarianism to demonize liberals and Democrats and otherwise corrupt the thinking of their followers; America is now so politically polarized we can no longer agree on the observable reality before us.

I am not overstating when I say: these things require immediate and radical change.

The non-authoritarian-following public, amazingly even the mainstream press, are awakening from the narcotic effects of 9/11 and WOT fear-mongering and seeing what the Republican movement is doing to wreck the government, the people’s instrument of power against industry-generated threats. They are anywhere from anxious to angry at what they see. Democrats may be selling everyone short if we fail to offer them a revolutionary, rather than evolutionary, opportunity for change.

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Democrats , Hillary Clinton , Politics , Republicans

Mark details Wolcott's post on Hillary below; but something else struck me from his (Wolcott's) words:

Just this morning Chris Matthews compared [Clinton] to Madame DeFarge, and she's been pelted so frequently with the words "cold" and "frigid" that it's a wonder she hasn't developed snowburn.

WTF?

And not only that: they are actively against the idea of her running. Oh, they'll all vote for her if she gets the nomination, but they've all gone Kerry-like with her. You know -- holding their noses and pulling the lever.

Here's the thing: I am not a real blogger -- I just play one on the Internet. And my friends are not bloggers either. They (and I) are just simply long-time, yellow-dog Democrats. These women do not fault her for being a DLC corporate shill. No one slams her for sucking up to Joe Lieberman. No one picks apart her Iraq vote. No one even holds her "controversial" abortion statements against her. None of that enters into it.

WTF?

It makes me think of Chris Rock's hilarious rant on SNL, comparing the plight of white women candidates versus black candidates:

Everybody loves white women -- except white women. White women are the majority of the country and they've had the right to vote for almost a hundred years and still they've never elected a white woman president. What are you bitches waiting for?

And while we're on the topic -- what's up with questo scandalo ridiculous del YouTube? Is this more of the same over-protectionism? What exactly is the harm done by this ad? Let's assume the worst and say that Obama signed the check paying the guy who made it (which he didn't). So what? Politics ain't beanbag.

Oh, wait, excuuuuse me: Obama said he wanted [airquotes] a new kind of politics.

Well, guess what: he still wants to win. So that makes him old-school to me. And I mean that in a nice way.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Hillary Clinton

by Mark Adams

Please, James? It's great sport.

Wadda ya mean, "Tosh!?"

I'm open to any Democratic candidate, though I lean more towards Edwards than anyone else, but I don't think Hillary's merits and qualities should be minimized.

It doesn't have to be a pointed stick.

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Hillary Clinton

by Mark Adams

Shep (who really should start his own blog) points us here:

John Dean: Refocusing the Impeachment Movement on Administration Officials Below the President and Vice-President: "The House Judiciary Committee Should Undertake Appropriate Proceedings

Given the number of officials within the Bush Administration who may have been engaged in Constitutional high crimes or misdemeanors, and the nature of the impeachment process, there is no shortage of civil officers worthy of consideration. Where there is clear prima facie evidence of such constitutional misconduct, impeachment action should be commenced."

Currently Alberto Gonzales is the focus of much of the left's wrath with a growing chorus calling for his resignation, and some intra-party partisans will point out that many of the current Democratic presidential contenders voted against his nomination, notably Clinton, Obama and Biden. John Edwards came out against the nomination as well even though he wasn't in the Senate at the time.

My question is, (since so much has been made about Edwards' vote for the Iraq war lately, suggesting that he should have done something then and not just speak out now) is why Gonzales wasn't given the same treatment as John Bolton or even a closely fought battle like we saw with Alito?

Obama:

The President is not the Attorney General's client - the people are. And so the true test of an Attorney General nominee is whether that person is ready to put the Constitution of the people before the political agenda of the President. As such, I cannot approach this nomination the same way I approached that of Secretary of State Rice or VA Secretary Nicholson or any other Cabinet position. The standard is simply higher.

This isn't sour grapes, this is outrage that the man who gave cover to an administration engaged in kidnapping, torture, murder and wholesale spying on you and me was given the job in the first place -- without a fight.

NOW we're suprised, shocked! Shocked that there was some shenanigans going on?

Well, at least they didn't vote for Gonzo.

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (9) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Corruption , Democrats , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards

The Hotline has the latest buzz on the other public opinion poll -- the one where one dollar equals one vote:

1. We're fairly certain that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) raised $12 million through the first of March. Banked means banked; pledges don't qualify. If that figure is correct, and we have reason to believe that it is, Obama will probably amass northwards of $18 million this quarter, and we'll bet that he banks a little more than $13 million. Can Obama build a mid-to-small donor base in time to reap its rewards by the end of the 2nd quarter? Unclear.

2. Expect Sen. Hillary Clinton to transfer $11 million from her Senate campaign account into her presidential account. Informed donor-types believe that she's be able to raise more than $20 million in "new money," giving her a grand total of more than $32 million. One caveat: a not-small percentage of the new money has been shunted to Clinton's general election account and can't be used for the primaries. So expect Clinton to have roughly $16-20M cash on hand when she reports. How much Clinton raises in the second quarter will determine how large her fundraising network really is. Plenty of donors are hedging their bets.

3. Equivocal signs from Sen. John Edwards's camp. But a $12-15M quarter is reasonable. His second quarter matters more than his first quarter. He probably needs to raise just as much. His fundraising drop-off from Q1 to Q2 in 2003 hurt his campaign more than some of his advisers care to admit.

Bottom line: there is no correlation between raising the most money and actually getting the nomination -- wiki Howard Dean. But if I had a choice, I'd want more money, not less.

Update: The Note includes the Republicans and has it like this:

Clinton, Obama, McCain, Edwards, Romney, Giuliani. Or — Clinton, McCain, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney. Or — Clinton, McCain, Romney, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani. Or — something else, as long as you've got Clinton first.

Our point: It is all about the fundraising, and yet not even Susan Page knows how it's all going to turn out. Our second point: Clinton, McCain, and Romney will have the highest burn rate of spending money this quarter, and their disbursement records are going to be required reading.

Update: From Kos:

There are a couple of things I'll be looking at when these numbers will be reported. First of all, how many donors will each campaign have? A campaign heavy on $2,300 contributions may look good in Q1, but like Edwards learned in 2003, it leaves little for subsequent quarters. A campaign with lots of small dollar donors can continue hitting up those donors and build exponentially in further quarters. I suspect all three of the top-tier candidates -- Clinton, Edwards, and Obama will be heavy on the small dollar donors. Those candidates with the most will be in better shape (and if Obama clears $6 million online for the quarter, those are shockingly high numbers).

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards

by Mark Adams

This is precisely the kind of thing that the Clinton obsessed will simply devour. Wingnuttistan, already crowing about the "scandal" that Tipper likes to do it with the lights on, will just work themselves into a moist froth over a questionable record keeping financial flap that involves the Clintons losing money.

(Political Wire): Clinton Failed to Disclose Charity: "Sen. Hillary Clinton and former president Bill Clinton 'have operated a family charity since 2001, but she failed to list it on annual Senate financial disclosure reports on five occasions,' according to the Washington Post.

The foundation has enabled the Clintons to write off more than $5 million from their taxable personal income since 2001, while dispensing $1.25 million in charitable contributions over that period.

Mother Jones has more, and you can follow along with Josh for all things completely unlike a smoking gun.

The Senator's office immediately corrected what they characterized as a clerical oversight, but you just know the damage is done. This is red meat Drudge's Dimmwits.

For your debunkature convenience: Why Is This Front Page News? Clearly this will go on, and on. The only thing worse than protracted, substance-less attacks on the Clintons for the next 2, 6, 10 years, is Bush v. Clinton II.

3.

2.

1.

Malkin: Hillary's inconvenient "oversight."

Lincoln Logs: Heck of an oversight if you ask me.

And they haven't even gotten started.....sigh. Geez, if you liked Ken Starr, you'll love the sequel.

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Hillary Clinton

by Mark Adams Cross-posted

Ara has the video of a Barack Obama rally with some 15 to 20 thousand very enthusiastic supporters in Austin, Texas. Impressive crowd. What his advance people lack in experience, cash and infrastructure (and he's getting more good people every day) his supporters make up in enthusiasm.

Obamania, Obamanon, catch it. It's a wave, and anyone who worries that he's peaking too soon might be on to something,

Obama's in a weird place and is going to get squeezed from both ends. Hillary and her "vast" network and practically unlimited cash will hammer him from above while Edwards and Richardson (who I think gains most from Vilsack's departure -- as do those closer to the scene) will keep the pressure on from below.

Continue reading "Crystal Ball Triangulation - Getting To Super Tuesday" »

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards

Somehow, Fox News convinced the Democratic Party to let Fox host a nationally-televised Democratic presidential primary debate this summer in Nevada.

This is a bad, bad, bad idea because, let's face it: Fox isn't a legitimate news channel! It's a right-wing mouthpiece like Rush Limbaugh—dedicated to smearing Democrats. For example, Fox falsely claimed Sen. Barack Obama attended a terrorist school.

There's a growing backlash of people demanding that Democrats drop Fox and you can help make it happen. Here's how:

Sign the petition to the Democratic Party of Nevada.

Don't wait -- do it now before you move to the next blog or open your email. It'll take just a minute and will make a difference.

Tell the Dems in Nevada to wake up and smell the coffee. Sign the petition now. Thanks.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards

McCain and Giuliani? Bring em on:

In general election matchups, the independent Quinnipiac University poll [in Ohio] finds:

• Sen. Clinton squeaks by Arizona Sen. John McCain 46 - 42 percent;
  
• Clinton inches by former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani 46 - 43 percent;
  
• Clinton tops former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 52 - 31 percent;
  
• McCain edges Illinois Sen. Barack Obama 41 - 38 percent;
  
• Former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards edges McCain 44 - 41 percent.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards , Republicans

I've often wondered if Barack Obama might not have a glass jaw; and technically the smear from the Fox Noise Channel didn't really test him because they threw the punch below the belt. But I think we know now that the Senator can fight back in style:

Continue reading "Obama takes a punch -- and punches back" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Barack Obama , Hillary Clinton , Republicans

...during last night's SOTU speech?

And if so, how'd you feel about it?

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Hillary Clinton

by Mark Adams

My advice, consistent with the five basic principles of the Progressive Netroots, is not to play Hillary's game. Don't be defensive and apologetic, insisting that no offense was intended, but ask rather what size shoe the former First Lady wears, because her lack of an affirmative, absolute rejection of the escalation of the war seems like a perfect fit to John Edwards' call to stop the madness.

Any apologetic response, a "hey, I didn't mean you personally," defense, will come off weak and mitigate the importance of Edward's message.

Continue reading "Untwist Yer Knickers" »

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards , War in Iraq