Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Lands Coveted Endorsement in Iowa

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (N.Y.) Iowa campaign received a nice boost today when Jerry Crawford threw his considerable weight behind her candidacy.

"Hillary Clinton is ready to be president on Day One," said Crawford today. "She has the experience to get us out of Iraq in a responsible fashion." He added: "Our field of candidates for 2008 is the best field of my lifetime, but Hillary stands out as the one most ready to lead."

Crawford, a Des Moines lawyer, has been a major force in Iowa politics for decades. He served as Iowa campaign chairman for the last five Democratic presidential nominees and is a major financial and organizational force in the state.

Crawford originally committed to former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack in the 2008 contest but became a free agent when Vilsack dropped his bid.

Crawford's support for Clinton isn't terribly surprising. He was one of a handful of supporters of Bill Clinton in Iowa in 1992 (the caucuses were dominated that year by homestate Sen. Tom Harkin) -- and is close to Vilsack, who is backing Clinton.

Clinton will be in Iowa this weekend at the Iowa Democratic Party's Hall of Fame Dinner Saturday night.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 1, 2007; 12:57 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Line: Battle for House Taking Shape
Next: The Fix on Facebook

Comments

zsdwq lgnmza bfhpkqdws akpxsig zksyit kmug yamvdqbui [URL=http://www.bnzkuqhiw.fxanz.com]jlidrha dilbmnxva[/URL]

Posted by: tkgsxio vabn | June 18, 2007 1:36 AM | Report abuse

zsdwq lgnmza bfhpkqdws akpxsig zksyit kmug yamvdqbui [URL=http://www.bnzkuqhiw.fxanz.com]jlidrha dilbmnxva[/URL]

Posted by: tkgsxio vabn | June 18, 2007 1:35 AM | Report abuse

evblq fwmebo ctwj nbfcj pmjer gbswdyki dogn wzlqcj uovbi

Posted by: mndsh xkowserph | June 18, 2007 1:34 AM | Report abuse

evblq fwmebo ctwj nbfcj pmjer gbswdyki dogn wzlqcj uovbi

Posted by: mndsh xkowserph | June 18, 2007 1:32 AM | Report abuse

sytvpqj mfhxqty hcvn xneu kmqzrpuxt azuyehqsf rjagqnyf http://www.vthcby.xrthy.com

Posted by: ywvi hrbnz | June 18, 2007 1:32 AM | Report abuse

sytvpqj mfhxqty hcvn xneu kmqzrpuxt azuyehqsf rjagqnyf http://www.vthcby.xrthy.com

Posted by: ywvi hrbnz | June 18, 2007 1:31 AM | Report abuse

sytvpqj mfhxqty hcvn xneu kmqzrpuxt azuyehqsf rjagqnyf http://www.vthcby.xrthy.com

Posted by: ywvi hrbnz | June 18, 2007 1:31 AM | Report abuse

lizuvwf xylao nvdxfp grqev jemg cgarjxlu ailjdvw

Posted by: mybqznef tnelrwh | June 18, 2007 1:29 AM | Report abuse

This WashingtonPost/ABC News poll was just published this morning, June 3rd. It is extensive. Hillary is way out ahead of the others.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_060307.html

Hillary will very likely be our nominee.

Poor John Edwards is now polling in the single digit range. He's down to 8!!!!
I know so many people who do not trust John Edwards. I think he needs to learn how to run an effective campaign.

Posted by: Marissa Daley | June 3, 2007 1:53 AM | Report abuse

Just because you humor me so much Zok:

"1. why no pro-choice speaker at your convention? the Rs had an pro-abortion speaker and is about to nominate a pro-abortion candidate."
I assume you meant anti-abortion, and this is probably a dig at Casey, who was supposedly denied a speaking role in 1992 because of his anti-abortion views. In truth, it was because he refused to endorse the ticket, which shouldn't surprise anyone as a condition for speaking. Anti-abortion speakers at that convention included Richard Daley, John Breaux, Howell Heflin, and 5 anti-abortion governors.

"2. No pro-war Dems anywhere?"
Lieberman's already been mentioned, but we don't try to seek out someone to represent the party on an issue supported now by about 30% of the country, almost all Republicans anyways...

"3. No tax lowering Dems amywhere?"
Nor should there be with the massive deficits the last cuts for the wealthy gave us. But almost all of them want to keep or increase the middle and lower class tax cuts while fixing the AMT mess, which if not fixed will result in a huge tax hike for most Americans that Republicans have ignored for far too long.

"4. No Ron Paul at your debate?"
Since he's a Republican and uber-conservative, this shouldn't be a surprise, but if you're talking fringe candidates with off the wall views, we'll give you Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich

"5. No SS privitization advocates?"
Like #2 above, being a party of inclusion doesn't automatically mean having someone who indorses every moronic idea out there

"6. No anti- teachers union pols?"
I'm sure there are some, but no one outside the right wing really cares about this one so who cares

"7. No private health care"
Every healthcare plan by a serious candidate is about federal support within a private system, not replacing the system with a centrally mandated one, but I suppose that's over your head to comprehend the difference...

Posted by: Michael | June 2, 2007 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Whine, whine, whine.

Posted by: lylepink | June 2, 2007 7:52 PM | Report abuse

FYI: I have went back to 26 Mar 2007 over the past couple days and found some very interesting comments/posts. I have also tried to find [google] the "No Name" by statements made, and have found it is not worth the time, and could be the reason we are seeing so many of them, despite the "RULES" that are under-- Post a Comment.

Posted by: lylepink | June 2, 2007 6:18 PM | Report abuse

KoZ, how long ago were Repubs touting Tall Afar as a great sign of success? Why is it we declare spectacular gains in one area one month, and then a different area the next month while failing to acknowledge that the area that made great gains the previous month has descended into chaos?

Posted by: Michael | June 2, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

The suggestion from that a civil war and al Qaeda involvement are mutually exclusive is hilarious. Someone should notify the Shia and Sunni that they are now the best of friends.

Posted by: ctr | June 2, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

No Name: I gave it to you. Go to "The Fix" for that date and title. Easy as pie, and suggest you read the whole range of posts, really a good day.

Posted by: lylepink | June 2, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

No Name: I gave it to you. Go to "The Fix" for that date and title. Easy.

Posted by: lylepink | June 2, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

No Name: I gave it to you. Go to "The Fix" for that date and title. Easy.

Posted by: lylepink | June 2, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

lylepink - how about a link to the Bill Shaheen endorsement, or whatever it is.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Zouk says: "the Rs had an pro-abortion speaker and is about to nominate a pro-abortion candidate."

oh really, zouk? Is they?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

In the normal world, news that Crawford's endorsement isn't "teribly surprising" couldn't justify a headline asserting that "Clinton Lands Coveted Endorsement..."

Only if you understand the standard Washington Pundit script can it make any sense at all: positive news (the endorsement) about Hillary must also contain negativity (not a surprise) or you don't get invited back to Chris Matthews' Hardball.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2007 9:43 AM | Report abuse

In the normal world, news that Crawford's endorsement isn't "teribly surprising" couldn't justify a headline asserting that "Clinton Lands Coveted Endorsement..."
Only if you understand the standard Waashington Pundit script can it make any sense at all: positive news about Hillary must also contain negativity or you don't get invited to the next cocktail party.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2007 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Razorback, Zouk,etc..:--You can find a good idea of why I support Hillary by reading the 26 Mar 07 6:30PM ET, Bill Shaheen:..--Will only take a few minutes and you can be educated.

Posted by: lylepink | June 2, 2007 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Adele and Walter in Iowa, does this endorsement carry with it the weight to get people to go to the polls? Does Jerry Crawford have an organization? Phone banks? Fund raising capacity? Swat with undecided likely D primary voters?

We have been waiting all day to hear from someone in IA who could verify or deny the weight and effect of the Crawford endorsement.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 9:58 PM | Report abuse

CLERMONT COUNTY, Ohio -- Target 5 has discovered that an alarming number of U.S. troops are having severe reactions to some of the vaccines they receive in preparation for going overseas.

"This is the worst cover-up in the history of the military," said an unidentified military health officer who fears for his job.
A shot from a syringe is leaving some U.S. servicemen and women on the brink of death.

"When the issue, I believe, of the use of the vaccine comes out, I believe it will make the Walter Reed scandal pale in comparison," said the health officer.

Lance Corporal David Fey, 20, has dialysis three days a week. His kidneys are failing, his military career is over, and he feels like his country abandoned him.

"I can't look at my old pictures. I really can't," said Fey. "I start looking at my old pictures, and I start crying."
Fey grew up amid the farm fields of Clermont County.
"I never missed a day at school," he said. "I was never sick. I was never sick."

A passion for sports and a sense of patriotism prompted the Blanchester High School athlete to join the Marines the day he turned 18.

"I looked at every branch, but I wanted the Marine Corps, because the Marine Corps was the few and the proud," said Fey.
Fey said he loved every minute of boot camp and combat training at 29 Palms in California. But on Nov. 28, 2005, his life would change forever. Fey was one of a group of Marines who lined up for an undisclosed shot.

"They asked us our name. We stood on these yellow footprints, and they gave us this shot, and we got the rest of the day off," he recalled. "After that shot, I started swelling up. I gained 30 pounds of water. My eyes swelled up where I couldn't see. I started snoring. I developed a rash on my hand."

Three weeks later, Fey was back in Clermont County on his death bed at Clinton Memorial Hospital. His kidneys were failing, and his body was so swollen that it left stretch marks.
"I would pray a lot," said Fey's mother, Cindy. "I would pray a lot, 'God take him.' When I couldn't hug my son because he would scream in pain or yell at me for touching him and stuff, I used to pray to God, 'just take him tonight.'"

Cindy Fey began pouring over medical records in search of answers. She said the shot was never listed in he son's medical records. The military claimed he never received a shot.
But as Target 5 discovered, the military's story would change.
The Department of Defense stated that "all service members' vaccinations are documented in the individual's permanent medical record." But Fey's military medical records revealed no shot on that day. Another Marine in Fey's unit told Target 5 that there is no shot listed in his medical records either and also said that the people who administered the shot never told his unit what it was.

When Cindy Fey called the U.S. Marine Hospital in 29 Palms to find out what kind of vaccine her son was given, she was told that the information was confidential.

Eleven months later, her son's medical records were mysteriously changed with a handwritten notation indicating that the mystery shot was a flu vaccine.

The military official who spoke to Target 5 on the condition of anonymity said that it was not surprising that nothing appeared originally in Fey's records.

"We have a lovely term for that," he said. "We call it C.Y.A. That's unfortunately an S.O.P. in the military."

Fey is one of a growing number of U.S. servicemen and women who are getting sick after receiving vaccines. And the highly praised Department of Defense medical officer who spoke with Target 5 said that the number is up in the thousands. The symptoms range from joint aches and pains and arthritic symptoms to death.

The Department of Defense said that it encourages "healthcare workers and vaccine recipients to report adverse (reactions) events." But the military never reported Fey's reaction to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FDA.
"I see the way the propaganda and information war is waged against America's sons and daughters and how patients are treated who claim to be injured from a vaccine," said the unidentified health officer. "That's troubling. That should trouble America." The officer said those who have claimed to have had adverse reactions to shots are treated like it is all in their heads.

Asked whether servicemen and women are receiving experimental vaccines, the officer said, "I would hope to God not. But from what I've seen, I would have to say yes."
The Department of Defense maintains that the vaccines given to U.S. troops are safe.

Meanwhile, Fey is still waiting for a kidney transplant.
"My biggest wish -- just to get up and be without pain," he said. "To get up and just be happy again."

http://www.wlwt.com/news/13271378/detail.html#

Posted by: killing our troops, rumsfeld style | June 1, 2007 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Guess who has a financial stake in untested military vaccinations? Why, it's Donald Rumsfeld himself, who was the CEo of a pharma commpany befor3 he became, laughably, 'defense secretary'. All he ever did as 'DS' was to promote the private sector whic h he was, and still is, owned by.

But it's okay if our troops die with untested drugs -- they don't have a choice -- as long as Don makes a huge profit. Which he is.

You know, he was the main guy in propping up Saddan Hussein --ever see the photo of them shaking hands? Saddam loved him because don brought him chemical warfare agents to use on the rebellious kurds and the iranians. Him and cheney -- because their ideas about foreign relations have always worked out so well.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Military Source Believes Experimental Shots May Have Been Given: Target 5 has discovered that an alarming number of U.S. troops are having severe reactions to some of the vaccines they receive in preparation for going overseas."This is the worst cover-up in the history of the military," said a military health officer who fears for his job.A shot from a syringe is leaving some U.S. servicemen and women on the brink of death.

http://www.wlwt.com/news/13271378/detail.html#

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 8:55 PM | Report abuse

ANKLE BITING PUNDITS

Disappointing New Growth Numbers
President George W. Bush was already having a rough go of it in the twilight of his term in office. Public approval of his job performance was historically low. Then came the immigration compromise. While I have not seen any conclusive data to show his support among conservative Republicans eroding because of the compromise measure, if conservative bloggers are a bellwether for conservative opinion at large, it only stands to reason that his impossibly low job approval numbers will tumble even more. He did not need this.

Posted by: con blog | June 1, 2007 8:51 PM | Report abuse

'Expectations for a turnaround in Iraq further dimished in May, the 50th month of the president's Forever War, and it was 31 days of bloody superlatives: the worst month for U.S. casualties since November 2004 when U.S. forces were repulsed in the first Battle of Fallujah.... Except for small pockets of improvemen, the surge is not working and shows no sign that it will as Iraq continues its slide into chaos.'

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 8:47 PM | Report abuse

jeez, zoukie, do you have any other life besdies this blog?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 8:39 PM | Report abuse

We are for Hillary all the way and we will caucus for her and do all we can for her.

Posted by: Adele and Walter in Iowa | June 1, 2007 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Bill Clinton Knows | June 1, 2007 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Bill Clinton Knows | June 1, 2007 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Chris, your blog is the only place where I saw "news" about this endorcement. It must be that only you think the endorcement is newsworthy, but then again you are so "in the tank" for Hillary Clinton its disgusting. I, a democrat, cannot stand her, and feel she is bad for the country. Bush and his crew of cronies have so hurt the standing of this country, that we cannot dare have another 4-8 years of a divisive president. I want someone who can inspire us and bring us back together. Thats why I'll take Obama, Edwards or Richardson, anyday over Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: janet | June 1, 2007 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Sorry for the double posting!

Posted by: ricroc | June 1, 2007 6:47 PM | Report abuse

So...we need to get used to Preident Hilary and Veep Obama, AKA The Hillarama twins? If so, YOU'D better get used to a Repugnant Congress, as loads of folks in red states have indicated. Hillary at the top of the Democratic ticket will bring out the Goopers and downticket Dems will bear the brunt

Posted by: rocric | June 1, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

So...we need to get used to Preident Hilary and Veep Obama, AKA The Hillarama twins? If so, YOU'D better get used to a Repugnant Congress, as loads of folks in red states have indicated. Hillary at the top of the Democratic ticket will bring out the Goopers and downticket Dems will bear the brunt

Posted by: rocric | June 1, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

I see KOZ is hitting the crack pipe early today.

How about some more of your brilliant alternative history rants about "today's libs," so I can write one about "today's cons" and shut you up, like I did yesterday?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | June 1, 2007 6:38 PM | Report abuse

In from pool for a minute, I look for an update from an Iowan on Crawford, and find that Blarg and Judge have asked the same questions I did at 4:38p.

When we want an answer about FL we can get a straight one from JimD.

We need a correspondent in IA and in NH. Lyle says TruthHunter is in IA and she may be the Iowan I read the other day who said Edwards had it wrapped up.

Come on, cornpeople!

Back to pool and glass of wine.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 1, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

"when the time is right"

Hey, it's only the difference between life and death for a few thousand Americans. It's easy to be blaise about it when you hate America.

Posted by: Could you be a little more vague? | June 1, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

MikeB: Your visa questions is on Lou Dobbs. Should be interesting. I'm going to watch.

Posted by: lylepink | June 1, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

We will leave when the time is right, not when Generallissimo Pelosi finds it convenient to win an election.

Lyle - do you think that with the level of message control required in this day and age, that any surprises which could alter things will emerge? I think the polls and results are pretty predictable, short of a maccacca moment (possible with Obama), things will stay the same.

Posted by: kingofzouk | June 1, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

"U.S. and Iraqi officials have claimed recent success in the effort to isolate al-Qaida, particularly in the western Anbar province, where many Sunni tribes have banded together to fight the terror network."

If true this means that if we leave al-Qaida will definitely NOT take over if even fellow Sunnis are fighting them. And of course the Shiites will attempt to kill Sunni al-Qaida members on sight. Another neocon myth bites the dust. Why are we staying there again?

Posted by: Thanks! | June 1, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Razorback: Of course, I would like Hillary to win Iowa, but the way Edwards has almost lived there these past few years, my hopes for a good strong showing, and by that I mean for her not to be blown away. I think a 15% loss could easily be understood, and anything less could be considered pretty good. Truth Hunter would be a good source on polling, since she is there, although I don't think polling this early means much.

Posted by: lylepink | June 1, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Crawford uber-strategist and head of the Crawford Law Firm, a small litigation boutique in Des Moines, supports Hillary in 2008; his ties with the Clintons go way back.

Lawyers and bums with money.
Which candidate will be their honey?
Doesn't matter I say,
They'll both make us pay!
And the damage they'll do won't be funny.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 1, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

I will decide who to vote for after Paris gets out of jail and gives an endorsement.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

"when Jerry Crawford threw his considerable weight behind her candidacy."

I scrolled down through all the comments looking for a weigh-in by an Iowan stating either "Oh yeah! Crawford's endorsement is a very big deal here!" or "Jerry who?" So far I have the same questions as Blarg and no answers.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | June 1, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Correct, Hillary has been very effective in getting things done in the Senate. Like the IRAQ WAR. She was very helpful in getting us into it.

How's that working out for you?

Posted by: lyn | June 1, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Correct, Hillary has been very effective in getting things done in the Senate. Like the IRAQ WAR. She was very helpful in getting us into it.

How's that working out for you?

Posted by: lyn | June 1, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

"With the insurgency appearing increasingly fragmented, Iraqi officials congratulated Amariyah residents for confronting al-Qaida.

"Government security forces are now in control of the Amariyah district," Iraqi military spokesman Qassim al-Moussawi was quoted as saying by Iraqi state TV. He also lauded "the cooperation of local residents with the government."

U.S. and Iraqi officials have claimed recent success in the effort to isolate al-Qaida, particularly in the western Anbar province, where many Sunni tribes have banded together to fight the terror network."


I thought this was a civil war, what is al queda doing there? you Libs better not pay any attention, this good news is bad for your cause. continue to ignore any good news on the war, economy, etc. Our nation's gain is your parties electoral loss.

Posted by: kingofzouk | June 1, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

"She's been effective in the Senate"

How so? Provide some data. I see McCain and Kennedy doing things. Not a thing from Clinton.

Posted by: kingofzouk | June 1, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

One thing you can certainly say about Clinton: she knows who to go to get things done. She's been effective in the Senate. Richardson has the best resume. Obama is the best speaker, and he'll make a great candidate in a future election.

Whoever thinks any Republican have a chance isn't paying attention to what Americans think about the war these days.

Posted by: lart from above | June 1, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

We just don't like to fight. We prefer to talk, talk. If we can't all get along, we Dems prefer to go home. We have no convictions so it doesn't matter anyway.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Libs retreat to cricket land when confronted. Look at big mouth rosie. they will return after the facts go away. If they can't hog up all the airtime and spew nonsense without retort, they quit.

Posted by: kingofzouk | June 1, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Here is the address:
Dirty Harry Reid
Crooked land deal road
blacklight Nevada
The zip code is being rezoned commercial.

Be sure to remind him that Lamont didn't win and Joe voted for him.

Posted by: kingofzouk | June 1, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Sure is quiet out there. I guess all the cavemen and cavewomen went to sleep or they just can't bring anything to the table.

Posted by: Mike | June 1, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Harry Reid and I agree that Joe Lieberman is a pro-war Dem.

Before all of you go off on Joe, do me a favor: Send your comments to Harry rather than posting them on this blog.

Posted by: Razorback | June 1, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

I think Hillary needs at least second in Iowa at the end of the day. She is the presumed front runner and coming in third would get a negative perception from the casuals who only occasionally pay attention. Second could be explained away as "Iowa's a little kooky". If Edwards doesn't take first for whatever reason he's finished after all the time and money spent there regardless of what happens in SC. If he can't take Iowa after being on a permanent campaign there he can't win. Obama is stronger in second than third. If either Richardson or Dodd get a fourth that is close to the percentage going to third they have some momentum going forward but if the gap is too big- toast.

Does the endorsement help? For Clinton I think its marginal. The endorsement has a slight resonance with people who know and trust the endorser more than they know and trust/mistrust the endorsee. In Clinton's case those are few and far between. Depending on his organization it might get her donors (which she doesn't really need all that desperately) and campaign workers (maybe a few pamphlet pushers/phone operators/get out the voters) to a small effect.

Posted by: bluemeanies | June 1, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink:

Analysis isn't telling us what you want to happen. It is telling us what you think will happen and why.

Edwards seems to be making Iowa the cornerstone of his strategy. Obama has struck some kind of a chord with Dem primary voters. For all her strenghts in a Dem primary, Hillary is third in the polls in Iowa.

I know you want Hillary to win Iowa, but you havn't provided any analysis of why that will happen.

Posted by: Razorback | June 1, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

The worst president ever is clearly and without a doubt Jimmy carter, who betrayed the entire nation and no Lib will still call him on it. In terms of keeping the party in line, yes, for legislation Cons are disciplined and effective and Dems are not. Even in the majority they can't pass a law other than naming post offices. I was actually referring to policy stances which never make it to the floor.

1. why no pro-choice speaker at your convention? the Rs had an pro-abortion speaker and is about to nominate a pro-abortion candidate.
2. No pro-war Dems anywhere?
3. No tax lowering Dems amywhere?
4. No Ron Paul at your debate?
5. No SS privitization advocates?
6. No anti- teachers union pols?
7. No private health care
Is Nancy running the politboro? not according to any measurable results.

All the way down the line the entire party agrees on everything, except how to pass a law of course. amusing. that is not an indication of intellectual honesty or depth of conviction. but hey, you're Libs.

Posted by: kingofzouk | June 1, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

lyn: A little reminder that Al Gore turned his back on Bubba and LOST. BTW, try and not be suprised when Hillary makes a very good showing in Iowa, much to the dismay of her opponents.

Posted by: lylepink | June 1, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

"that would be "portray" her as, lyle you idiot"

that is really the best i can do. I have racked my brains, visited Kos and Huff and i am out of ideas. my intellectual abilites is just not up to much these days. i will return to cut and paste some news soon. wait for me.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

mark in austin asks
"Does that not seem like pandering, when in fact there was some good armor for the troops packaged in the bill? Am I just emotional about that because I am Trustee for two guys who are there?"

Yes, it seems like pandering and yes, you may be overreacting.

Posted by: bsimon | June 1, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

KoZ writes "We cons don't require 100% agreement like you Libs do."

See, there you go again. Why assume I'm a liberal just because I think GWB is the worst president ever & his party has betrayed their ideals by not calling him on it? Then you go and rewrite history, pretending that DeLay & Hastert didn't run the tightest Congress the country has likely ever seen, in terms of keeping their party in line. Whatever you're smoking, lay off - that stuff will kill you if you're not careful. Though, I fear, it is already too late for the majority of your brain cells, may they rest in peace.

Posted by: bsimon | June 1, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

that would be "portray" her as, lyle you idiot.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

the new jobs are in potatoe harvesting.

Posted by: kingofzouk | June 1, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Razorback.
Check out the ABC news story where hillary is standing in front of a sign that reads "New Jobs For Tommorrow". I don't know about you, but that's not how I spell tomorrow.

Posted by: Mike | June 1, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Anyone in IA know if this endorser can turn out votes on primary day?

In Texas, we have not had a statewide since Sen. Lloyd Bentsen hung up his saddle who could move more than a few hundred local votes on to the polls on an election day.

Razorback thinks it is possible this endorser can do some good for Sen. Clinton in that very hands-on turnout sort of way, and I want to know if anyone up there in the cornfields thinks so.

Is anyone else here who has not committed to a candidate and who might vote D disappointed that Obama and Clinton and Dodd voted against the Iraq funding bill?

Does that not seem like pandering, when in fact there was some good armor for the troops packaged in the bill? Am I just emotional about that because I am Trustee for two guys who are there?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 1, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, We cons don't require 100% agreement like you Libs do. I don't care for many things bush has done or not done. On the two important things to me, he did the right thing - lowered taxes and took the war to the enemy. all the spending, aggrandizing of government and the like, are contrary to my views. But we don't hold our pols to be in total agreement like you Dems. why kick out Lieberman - one reason. why no pro-life speakers at the convention?

And that is why Rudy will do well, he is correct on war and taxes. the rest of the stuff is not federal business anyway. you see our candidates say what they think and take their chances, your candidates say what they think you want to hear and you take your chances.

Posted by: kingofzouk | June 1, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

MikeB: I am the main one you refer to as 'Wackos", and all this time I have been asking everyone to get as much information as they need to choose your favorite. I have made my choice, Hillary. A few others have taken the time to check out the life of Hillary and most of them find she is "A real person", and not what her opponents try to betray her as. Hillary will win in 08. Take it to the bank.

Posted by: lylepink | June 1, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

razorback writes
"I have already seen the Guiliani footage. At least Guiliani is being real. My objection to Romney is he is pretending to be something that he isn't so I don't know what he really is."

That's reasonable. I think old Mitty is a bit too slick for his own good.

Posted by: bsimon | June 1, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

bsimon- I understand where razor is coming from. Romney had those positions when gov of mass but now has almost directly opposite stances trying to build his pres bid. Giuliani has had stances that Razors against but he's had them his entire political carrear. Its a common feeling of 'I disagree with you, but I respect you' instead of 'I agree with you but you're a slimy weasel and I'm not sure you're telling the truth'. And supporting the first guy is more respectable to me than going "I think you're a weasel but I agree with you so you're my weasel."

Posted by: bluemeanies | June 1, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, I have already seen the Guiliani footage. At least Guiliani is being real. My objection to Romney is he is pretending to be something that he isn't so I don't know what he really is.

Posted by: Razorback | June 1, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Good old 'king' of zouk also writes
"Diplomacy - always talk more, action is never warranted. Even if your enemy is building a very big bomb and has told you he intends to use it"

Boy, it must burn a bit that old GWB is starting to promote the Baker Hamilton plan, of all things. Why in today's Washington Post (online anyway), there's an article claiming that Condi Rice INSISTS the Vice Presidency backs diplomatic efforts in Iran. She claims the President has made it clear that diplomacy is the plan for Iran, and the VP is nothing, if not loyal to his President. Right?

Posted by: bsimon | June 1, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Is MikeB in the house?

Get a load of this MikeB:

"The New York senator and Democratic presidential hopeful said she's trying to increase the number of so-called H1B visas aimed at highly educated workers. Silicon Valley companies use H1Bs to sponsor thousands of software engineers from Russia, India, China and other countries, but many must return home when their temporary work permits expire."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070601/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_silicon_valley_2

Just think of all those white union boys who could have those engineering jobs if those furriners would go home.

Posted by: Razorback | June 1, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

zouky tries his hand at metrics
"three provinces in Kurd country were handed over last week. smells like..........victory. Are you so simple you can't understand more than a single bumper sticker slogan."

HA Ha ha!! The Kurds have been running the show up there since the no fly zones popped up after GW I. Your smell of 'victory' reminds me of a barnyard. Quick, get yourself a shovel before you're buried alive.

Posted by: bsimon | June 1, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Oh. This is great stuff. Show me what the cavewoman has done besides put little check marks in the senate vote box.

Posted by: Mike | June 1, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Razorback writes
"[A] pro-life pro second amendment capitalist like me would vote for Guiliani over Romney, mostly because of a video in which a slick polished earnest Romney is doing his best to convince Ted Kennedy that he will fight for abortion and gay rights just as hard as Teddy would."

To whom will you turn when comparable video footage of Giuliani shows up? Not that I have any. But given Giuliani's positions on the same issues, I fail to see how it kills the deal in one case, but not the other.

Posted by: bsimon | June 1, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Jerry Crawford is a knowledgeable and influential Iowa insider. We'll done Hayler!!

Posted by: Jus Cogens | June 1, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

three provinces in Kurd country were handed over last week. smells like..........victory. Are you so simple you can't understand more than a single bumper sticker slogan. I thought you Libs were nuanced?

Posted by: kingofzouk | June 1, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

razorback writes
"I also do not think anyone will take a chance on hitting Edwards. In a multicandidate race, the hitter loses support and the hittee loses support."

I think the front-runners in both races are going to play that game & hope someone else strikes their opponents first. The primary battles are likely to be wars of attrition.

Posted by: bsimon | June 1, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Mike, you might love Romney, but you should be concerned that a pro-life pro second amendment capitalist like me would vote for Guiliani over Romney, mostly because of a video in which a slick polished earnest Romney is doing his best to convince Ted Kennedy that he will fight for abortion and gay rights just as hard as Teddy would.

Posted by: Razorback | June 1, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Another of Zouks off-topic anti-liberal rants includes
"How Libs measure...
War: count the number of dead US soldiers, ignore goals, interests, civilians, progress, any other metric."

Well, given that the Administration hasn't offered any other metrics, how would you suggest measuring progress? Remember when the President used to say "when they stand up, we'll stand down"? Well, we're told the Iraqi army is standing up - helping out with this 'surge'. Yet, we're standing up even more! Whoops! Another credibility moment come and gone for the Bush White House. Must be time to change the rhetoric.

Posted by: bsimon | June 1, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP:

I think Edwards and Obama will have a mini-primary to see who is the "anti-Hillary". The only question is whether the "anti-Hillary" will be crowned early enough in the process to be a real threat to Hillary.

I also do not think anyone will take a chance on hitting Edwards. In a multicandidate race, the hitter loses support and the hittee loses support. Negativity is risking business in a multi candidate race. Gephardt and Dean's hitting each other in Iowa in 2004
contributed to Kerry and Edwards overperformance.

Posted by: Razorback | June 1, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

I find it amusing that conservatives are getting mad and fed up with our President's antics in regards to immigration. His name calling and emotional argument (w/ a lack of facts or substance) is the only trick he has in his playbook. He's been doing it for at least 6.5 years. About time you get a taste of your own medicine. It's not so easy to swallow is it?

Posted by: Nutmegger | June 1, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Mike repeats himself with the rant starting "Mitt Romney's resume crushes all other candidates on both sides."

Yo- Mike. When you post the same thing multiple times without responding to people who rebut your comments, you look more and more like a paid troll. So please take a message back to Mr Hair's headquarters: they're going to have to be more clever than that to win this thing. Thanks for your assistance in this matter.

Posted by: bsimon | June 1, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

How Libs measure things:

Health care: count the number of uninsured poor people. Ignore cost, quality, choice, development, fairness

War: count the number of dead US soldiers, ignore goals, interests, civilians, progress, any other metric. also ignore count relative to other conflicts, compare to zero deaths only

elections: count the number of journalists who write columns endorsing Libs or take push polls. Ignore actual voting booth results, sue if you lose

Taxes: more is always better, no math needed

Spending: more is always better except for defense, the military can be eliminated and the money sent to the UN.

Schools: Spend more at all times, ignore any metrics whatsoever except number of teachers retained and new administrators hired.

Race: find the most extreme version and assume the entire population is the same

Corruption: ignore unless Repubs are implicated

Environment: plan for most extreme case and make most unwise action - see DDT ban for example, followed by global warming. save animals, kill humans.

Diplomacy - always talk more, action is never warranted. Even if your enemy is building a very big bomb and has told you he intends to use it.

Posted by: kingofzouk | June 1, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Yes, June and he did it by running away from the Clintons not embrassing them. When will Democracts face the fact that I it doesn't matter how much we hate Bush or embrace Bill, two things are FACT
1) Hillary is not Bill trying to recapture that with her is a dangerous thing
2) She can NOT bring this country together. There is too much hate out there for her. It would only be 4 more years of hate and fighting in this country. The last thing that it needs.

FYI..the Republicans would love for her to win (have you noiced they say very little about her. They know if she wins its what they need to motivate their base to get out there and its their best chance to win. Stop and think when you hear Republicans who have never had nice things to say about the Clintons say good things, WHY are they doing it!!!!

Posted by: Lyn | June 1, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

razor says "the third place person nationally (Edwards) is first in Iowa"

Possibly due to the fact that he's been in Iowa ever since 2004; he never left! Iowa is an anachronism. He surged into second place in Iowa in 2004 during the final week of the campaign and was thus never a target of negative campaigning.

This time around, he will be hit early and often, but he has started the race from an enviable position.

But Edwards is not likable enough or electable enough to assume the mantle of "The Anti-Hillary".

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 1, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin:

The benefit of an endorsement is not a bounce in the polls, its is someone who has their personal credibility on the line who is making calls and doing work to turn people out for the caucus.

Posted by: Razorback | June 1, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney's resume crushes all other candidates on both sides. As governor he turned around the mess in Massachusetts, he conquered the private sector and doesn't need to work another day in his life, and after 9/11 he served our country well and saved the 2002 Winter Olympics for us all. If you want to know how to protect the American people from terrorists, just ask Mitt how he protected the athletes and spectators of the world just a few months after 9/11 during the Olympics. No one could turn around this country better than Mr. Romney. Even a caveman/cavewoman or Elmer Fudd could cast votes in the senate, or be a mayor. How come so many of the candidates look like Elmer Fudd?

Posted by: Mike | June 1, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

bill o'ranty and james carville will be on cspan 2 at 5 pm pst. should be illustrative of why voters will go D no matter who gets the nomination.

also shows why cspan is the BEST!

Posted by: py | June 1, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Someone from IA posted the other day that Edwards was consolidating his position in IA and the IA polls seem to bear him out.

Razorback, your assumption about IA endorsements sounds good at a distance, but the IA poster noted that Vilsack was popular in IA and his endorsement of Sen. Clinton did not seem to give her a boost. In fact, Obama and Richardson and Biden seem to have gained ground at Clinton's expense more than at Edwards.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 1, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

I know all sorts of things that sound good and make no sense.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

"Al Gore won the popular vote, lyn. remember?"

and the Yankess got the most runs of the season but didn't make the playoffs. so what? when your math skills arrive in the real world, let us know. Or maybe that new math suits you just fine. Raise taxes to boost the economy. silly Libs.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin writes
"I am going to leave work early and drink by the pool."

Not a bad ideer. That's leadership I can follow!

Posted by: bsimon | June 1, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Is there anyone more unskilled and ignorant than Ben Afflack? I saw him on Moyers. All he could say is F this and F that. I noticed his title said actor/activist. Haven't seen him in any movies for a long while. Maybe he is pretending to be an activist. why would anyone give a hoot what he thinks, they can find his views 100% on Kos. If he is as good an activist as he was an actor, and he is on the Lib side, you are going to lose.

what will Moyers do when bush is gone, his material will be all dried up. Bush derangment syndrome in spades.

Posted by: kingofzouk | June 1, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Al Gore won the popular vote, lyn. remember?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

While someone in a recent post correctly observed that the influence of endorsements is very limited, an exception to this might be Iowa, because of the caucus system.

It only takes a few minutes to vote (usually) in a primary. A caucus participant is signing up for a lengthy meeting. This puts a premium on organization and motivation of supporters.

A long time politico's endorsement in Iowa is valuable. The network of supporters of a politico who participates in the process is more valuable than a politician who endorses, but is always looking at their own bottom line (reelection).

The D's in Iowa is an interesting race. The national frontrunner (Hillary) is in third in Iowa, and the third place person nationally (Edwards) is first in Iowa. Edwards is also big threat to Obama, who wants a 2 person race between him and Hillary.

Posted by: Razorback | June 1, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

I sincerely hope that Obama won't elect to be her VP( I'm not convinced she will get it..I hope not and I am a democrat). talk about a career ending move. Attaching your wagon to her. Ask Al Gore what happens after the American people have had to deal with the Clinton scandals and hate for 4-8 years. Not exactly the road to the White House

Posted by: lyn | June 1, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

'All these years, liberals were right about one thing: George Bush is an idiot.'

Posted by: conservative blogger | June 1, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

"Attention all Hillary Haters"
Maybe I shouldn't reply to this. I don't hate Hillary. I just think she's a bad candidate and would be terrible for the Democrats.

"(1) She is going to win the nomination, so get over it."
Really? Jake, in your world, why do we even bother holding primary elections?

"(2) Obama is going to be her running mate, a more appropriate position for someone who has been in the Senate for less than half a term."
That would be a tremendous mistake. You'd end up with a ticket of two junior senators, neither of whom is traditionally "electable." If the presidential candidate is a woman or a minority, the VP needs to be a white man.

"(3) The two are going to blow away the Rs."
No more than any other Democratic ticket would.

"You may hate her, but she moved to a state that she didn't even live in or have connection to and won their senate seat."
Isn't that illegal? Or at least highly unethical?

"All the hatred on these blogs is only going to get your blood pressure up."
Thanks for your concern about my health, Jake. I guess you're right. Nobody should think about politics or take part in the process at all. We should just wait for you to tell us who's going to win.

Posted by: Blarg | June 1, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

he president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic-they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."

Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives? It is odd, but it is of a piece with, or a variation on, the "Too bad" governing style. And it is one that has, day by day for at least the past three years, been tearing apart the conservative movement.

I suspect the White House and its allies have turned to name calling because they're defensive, and they're defensive because they know they have produced a big and indecipherable mess of a bill-one that is literally bigger than the Bible, though as someone noted last week, at least we actually had a few years to read the Bible. The White House and its supporters seem to be marshalling not facts but only sentiments, and self-aggrandizing ones at that. They make a call to emotions-this is, always and on every issue, the administration's default position-but not, I think, to seriously influence the debate.

"Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens?" Good question, Peggy, glad you raised it. It certianly must come as a shock to those who have been applauded for their bigotry within a party that has fueled its ascendency with hatred of anyone who can't check the "white Christian male" box:

Why have Republicans found themselves on the point of this wedge? Because in the two decades since the last major immigration measure, the makeup of the national Republican Party and the demography of the country have both changed dramatically. In 1986, radio talkers like Limbaugh could not harness the power of millions of devoted daily listeners to bring national Republican political figures to heel, and the Hispanic vote share was negligible. Twenty years later, Limbaugh is the most popular talk radio host in America, and there are millions of Spanish-speaking immigrants living alongside Rush's listeners in the kinds of red states where Spanish was rarely heard before. At the same time, the Latino vote has grown to 10 million. The GOP is now forced to choose between its reliable base of close-the-border, English-only cultural whites and the rapidly growing bloc of swing-voting Hispanics.

The demographic winds explain why Karl Rove has been obsessed with corralling the Hispanic vote since he was the little-known sidekick of a would-be Texas governor. He made George Bush a uniquely successful candidate among Latino voters in both state and federal elections by embracing Hispanic culture and avoiding any whiff of anti-immigrant rhetoric. After Bush won a startling 40 percent of the Hispanic votes in 2004, double the GOP total from a decade earlier, the Democrats rightly panicked. The conventional wisdom among pollsters like Republican Matt Dowd -- a former Democrat who admits he was attracted to Bush precisely because of the then-Texas governor's views about Hispanic assimilation -- was that if Republicans could reach 40 percent of the Hispanic vote, they would be unbeatable, but if they sank below 30 percent, they would be in a world of electoral trouble. Sure enough, after many 2006 Republican congressional candidates ran nasty, anti-immigrant ads -- some juxtaposing the faces of Hispanic immigrants with Islamic terrorists -- the GOP share of the Hispanic vote collapsed to 29 percent in the midterm cycle. "The Republicans have to choose if they want to be a 21st-century party, and right now they are making decisions like they're a 20th-century party,"

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Jake claims, about Sen Clinton,
"The woman knows what she is doing."

I'm not convinced. In fact, I'm convinced of the opposite. The last thing this country needs right now is Hillary Clinton as President. What we do need is someone who can bring this country back together and lead us forward, instead of exacerbating the bickering and infighting. Frankly, if Senator Clinton were to consider the good of the country rather than her own political ambitions, she would withdraw from the race.

Posted by: bsimon | June 1, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, you have been taking happy pills again - oh, its Friday, as you reminded me this morning.

On the previous thread I replied to your thought that home prices and sales in the northland may affect the election and said my wife was thinking of investing in Minnesota realty because of the rampant foreclosures.

On this thread I want to suggest to you that Joe Biden has actually shown leadership with long term goals and solutions for the Middle East.

Otherwise, as the candidates seem to drift off into pandering to their core constituencies, I would agree that the leadership vacuum yawns.

I was disappointed in the late votes by Sens Obama and Clinton against funding a bill that included mine resistant vehicles for Iraq.

I have been disappointed with Sen. McCain suggesting that the bastards attacking us again is contingent on keeping troops in Iraq. It could be argued that it is only contingent on the porousity of our borders and ports, but otherwise it will happen.

I was disappointed in Richardson's appearance on MTP, which I read as a transcript at ProudtobeGOP's suggestion.

I am going to leave work early and drink by the pool.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 1, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic-they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."

Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives? It is odd, but it is of a piece with, or a variation on, the "Too bad" governing style. And it is one that has, day by day for at least the past three years, been tearing apart the conservative movement.

Why have Republicans found themselves on the point of this wedge? Because in the two decades since the last major immigration measure, the makeup of the national Republican Party and the demography of the country have both changed dramatically. In 1986, radio talkers like Limbaugh could not harness the power of millions of devoted daily listeners to bring national Republican political figures to heel, and the Hispanic vote share was negligible. Twenty years later, Limbaugh is the most popular talk radio host in America, and there are millions of Spanish-speaking immigrants living alongside Rush's listeners in the kinds of red states where Spanish was rarely heard before. At the same time, the Latino vote has grown to 10 million. The GOP is now forced to choose between its reliable base of close-the-border, English-only cultural whites and the rapidly growing bloc of swing-voting Hispanics.

The demographic winds explain why Karl Rove has been obsessed with corralling the Hispanic vote since he was the little-known sidekick of a would-be Texas governor. He made George Bush a uniquely successful candidate among Latino voters in both state and federal elections by embracing Hispanic culture and avoiding any whiff of anti-immigrant rhetoric. After Bush won a startling 40 percent of the Hispanic votes in 2004, double the GOP total from a decade earlier, the Democrats rightly panicked. The conventional wisdom among pollsters like Republican Matt Dowd -- a former Democrat who admits he was attracted to Bush precisely because of the then-Texas governor's views about Hispanic assimilation -- was that if Republicans could reach 40 percent of the Hispanic vote, they would be unbeatable, but if they sank below 30 percent, they would be in a world of electoral trouble.

Sure enough, after many 2006 Republican congressional candidates ran nasty, anti-immigrant ads -- some juxtaposing the faces of Hispanic immigrants with Islamic terrorists -- the GOP share of the Hispanic vote collapsed to 29 percent in the midterm cycle. "The Republicans have to choose if they want to be a 21st-century party, and right now they are making decisions like they're a 20th-century party.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

'the GOP could run 2 guys named Moe' -- aren't they? those two bald old geezers...

anyway, last time they ran a stooge, so why not this time too? and you're sure looking at different polls than the rest of us.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Republcians love to hate, Jake. That's what they live for.

They hate Hillary, they hate Bill, they hate Pelosi, they hate Reid, they hate 'dems' and 'Libs', they hate women, they hate gays, they hate Mexicans, they hate blacks, they hate the Constitution, they hate the idea of peace... they hate everything except money and war.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

All the hatred??? I don't see it.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Very authoritatively stated, Jake.

And your evidence is....?

(certainly not the polls, which show her trailing pretty much Rudy, McCain, Thompson, hell the GOP could run 2 guys named Moe)

Posted by: JD | June 1, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Attention all Hillary Haters - (1) She is going to win the nomination, so get over it. (2) Obama is going to be her running mate, a more appropriate position for someone who has been in the Senate for less than half a term. (3) The two are going to blow away the Rs. You may hate her, but she moved to a state that she didn't even live in or have connection to and won their senate seat. The woman knows what she is doing. All the hatred on these blogs is only going to get your blood pressure up.

Posted by: Jake | June 1, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

No Mas!

Posted by: The Rest of Us | June 1, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

JimD writes
"Jeb Bush speaks Spanish fluently and his wife is Hispanic."

Bueno! Jeb Bush por el Presidente!!

Posted by: bsimon | June 1, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Mike, as a Massachusetts resident (one of those in the country who actually - albeit for only about 1/3 of his last year as governor), I'll take you on point by point. "Mitt Romney's resume crushes all other candidates on both sides."

Maybe as the manager of an investment fund, although see below. As a politician, it is one of the weakest.

"As governor he turned around the mess in Massachusetts"

That's what his commercials say. The reality is that he left his successor an over $1 billion deficit, while claiming it was a surplus. That's fiscal incompetence.

"He conquered the private sector and doesn't need to work another day in his life"

This may be difficult for you to grasp given the current administration and the wealth of those serving in it, but having money does not qualify you to lead a democracy.

"and after 9/11 he served our country well and saved the 2002 Winter Olympics for us all."

I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that after 09.11, the Olympics were not my primary concern. In any case, so what? He may have gotten through the Olympics without incident, but he didn't do so well in / for Massachusetts. Which is a better predictor of his performance as president?

"If you want to know how to protect the American people from terrorists, just ask Mitt how he protected the athletes and spectators of the world just a few months after 9/11 during the Olympics."

No, don't bother asking. Whether or not you're curious, I'm sure he will take it upon himself to tell us in great detail, over and over again, for the six months or so.

"No one could turn around this country better than Mr. Romney."

This statement is supported neither by his skimpy record as a legislator nor by his willingness to adjust each of his social positions in an attempt to appeal to the Christian right.

"Even a caveman/cavewoman"

'That is so unfair.'

"or Elmer Fudd"

'Dagnabbit!'

"could cast votes in the senate, or be a mayor."

Neither of those positions appears on Mr. Romney's resume. Consider: Mr. Romney never had to debate or vote on issues of national importance. For that matter, prior to the 2002 olympics, his foreign experience consisted of time spent in France as a Mormon missionary. True, he was governor of Massachusetts... served about 3 years of one 4-year term. That's 75%, or to put it in academic terms, a "C."

"How come so many of the candidates look like Elmer Fudd?"

Well, it's true that Giuliani has the ears and both he and McCain have the temper. And they're both bald! Of course, Bush has the speech patterns, but then he's not running. Meanwhile, Romney looks like - who? Jonny Quest? Speed Racer?

Except we're not voting for best impression of a cartoon character - already done that twice. Mitt Romney wins Best Hair, but we're voting for Most Likely To Succeed.

Posted by: Bokonon | June 1, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Mike writes
"after 9/11 [Mitt Romney] served our country well and saved the 2002 Winter Olympics for us all."

Wow! Thank's Mitt! You're the BESTEST!

Posted by: bsimon | June 1, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

MikeB:

she's able to unite "an assortment of corpporate interests, globalizers, the worst of the man hating feminist nutcases, and brainless "progressives""?

I'd say she's doing a pretty good job then of attracting support from somepretty disparate interest groups, could any other candiadte hope to unite man hating feminist nutcases & gobalizers? That's impressive!

Posted by: Drew | June 1, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Jeb Bush speaks Spanish fluently and his wife is Hispanic.

Posted by: JimD in FL | June 1, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Mike, Mitt says your check is in the mail. Glad to know Romney saved Christmas for all the Whos in Whoville.

Posted by: DCAustinite | June 1, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

This information is almost devoid of context, and therefore useless. What does this endorsement actually get Hillary? Has Crawford's endorsement raised candidates' poll numbers or helped their fundraising in the past? Have Crawford's chosen candidates gone on to win Iowa or the primary? He originally backed Vilsack, whose brief campaign never got off the ground; what does that say about Crawford's influence?

Posted by: Blarg | June 1, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Ken Mehlman is also working on reaching out to his natural constituency -- gays.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | June 1, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney's resume crushes all other candidates on both sides. As governor he turned around the mess in Massachusetts, he conquered the private sector and doesn't need to work another day in his life, and after 9/11 he served our country well and saved the 2002 Winter Olympics for us all. If you want to know how to protect the American people from terrorists, just ask Mitt how he protected the athletes and spectators of the world just a few months after 9/11 during the Olympics. No one could turn around this country better than Mr. Romney. Even a caveman/cavewoman or Elmer Fudd could cast votes in the senate, or be a mayor. How come so many of the candidates look like Elmer Fudd?

Posted by: Mike | June 1, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

MikeB writes
"What they will be doing to Democrats is what Bush has done to Republicans; further dividing us and wrecking any chance for genuine liberal ideas."

There may be a kernel of truth in that statement. Both parties specifically - and the country as a whole - are suffering a leadership vacuum. Who's promoting the big ideas for the future? Certainly none of the Presidential candidates - and certainly not the current President. We're largely drifting rudderless, at the moment. Its time for someone to step forward and actually lead.

Posted by: bsimon | June 1, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Chris quotes Jerry Crawford, who says
"Hillary Clinton... has the experience to get us out of Iraq in a responsible fashion."

Huh? Based on what? She certainly hasn't offered any fresh ideas on the subject. In fact, given her current job, doesn't she have some influence *now* to get us out of Iraq?

Posted by: bsimon | June 1, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

"This is a woman who led a camouflaged life and continues to," Carl Bernstein.

I still am amazed at the brainless support for this candidate. No one knows what she really stands for or believes. We have a few ideas, based on her voting record, and none of them sound remotely good for this country. A look at her campaign donors reflects an assortment of corpporate interests, globalizers, the worst of the man hating feminist nutcases, and brainless "progressives".

My guess is that the respected reporter, the man who blew open Watergate, Carl Berstein's book will become more widely known over the next few months and will further polarize views of Clinton. The fanatics that currently support her will continue to mindlessly support her and everyone else will loathe her. She has no chance of being elected President, but she could be nominated if the whack jobs currently in control of my party succeed. What they will be doing to Democrats is what Bush has done to Republicans; further dividing us and wrecking any chance for genuine liberal ideas. God help us.

Posted by: MikeB | June 1, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

"She has the experience to get us out of Iraq in a responsible fashion."
That's the reason Hillary isn't running away with the nomination.
http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | June 1, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

In a new column in the Wall St. Journal, Jeb Bush and Ken Mehlman argue that Hispanics, being social conservatives and overall pro-business, ought to be natural Republicans -- but the GOP needs to stop alienating them by pushing the immigration issue. "Republicans have shown we can win Hispanic voters when we reach out," they write. "We've also seen what happens when Republicans adopt a different approach." Many in Jeb's organization have gone for Mitt Romney, but this could signal a possible split between the two over immigration.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Conservative Catholics opposed to Rudy Giuliani's positions on abortion, gay rights and other issues have been working hard to organize against the candidate. "Rudy Giuliani is an unacceptable Republican nominee for President of the United States," declares the Michigan-based Conservative Declaration, which claims supporters in 30 states. "He is pro-abortion, pro-partial birth abortion, pro-registration of handguns, and pro-homosexual rights."

I didn't realize Jesus was such a big fan of handguns...god forbid you might have to register it so if you killed someone, the police would know you did it. Who would Jesus shoot?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Leading a party that is taking a beating in the polls, House Minority Leader John Boehner is forming a group of allies to work on "branding" for the GOP -- finding a way to polish and even change their image. "We're trying to look into our conscience and define ourselves, and as we define ourselves, decide how we can best communicate that to the rest of the world," said Rep. John Carter (R-TX). "In other words, what are Republicans?"

LOL

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Quick! Bring out the Hillary Haters...

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Giuliani told reporters yesterday after a visit to a restaurant on the edge of California's Silicon Valley. "She wants to go back to the 1990s. ... It would hurt our economy. It would hurt this area dramatically."

Back to the nineties? What a truly awful prospect. Not back to the long nightmare of peace and prosperity.

Posted by: Cassandra | June 1, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse


Come on now -- did she land the endorsement or did she pay for it? We know she has bloggers on the payroll and also clergymen.
So nothing is a surprise with the hill & bill show.

Posted by: leo l. castillo | June 1, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

something has to change. it may take something as dramatic as having a sex change in the "white" house (hope she paints it purple or something) and she has the backbone to put up with people assailing her for her mistaken vote and the loyalty to stick with a cheating husband.

plus, we know her past already. the only way to run for any elected position is to have your best enemy publish a youtube video of you in your worst moments, then show how much better you would be at governing than some pious sob that has been able to conceal it. she has had constant attention for years and still, she shows she can survive even more intense scrutiny and can remain strong enough to defend our country.

it is still early but it makes sense to start singing, (from Oklahoma) "Oh, What A Beautiful Morning!"

Posted by: py | June 1, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company