Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Capitalizing on Kerry's Exit

One of the last remaining questions in handicapping the 2008 presidential field was answered Wednesday when John Kerry removed himself from consideration as a candidate for the Democratic nomination.


Sen. John Kerry takes part Wednesday in a debate on Iraq. He used a speech on the Senate floor to announce that he won't run for the White House again in 2008. Sen. Christopher Dodd looks on at left. (AP)

Kerry's decision caused an immediate scramble for activists and supporters who had pledged to support a second run for the White House by the Massachusetts senator. So what impact will Kerry's no-go decision have on the political world? Without further ado, here are winners -- and losers -- as a result of Kerry's announcement.

WINNERS

Sen. Barack Obama: Kerry was a serious figure in the netroots as evidenced by the vast sums he was able to wring out of his huge campaign e-mail list. Without Kerry or Al Gore in the contest, Obama seems the likely to win over a majority of the money and energy on the liberal left. Also, without Kerry in the race, Obama becomes the leading candidate for the endorsement of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) -- the nation's only African American governor.

Sen. Chris Dodd: If voters are looking for an experienced hand who hails from the Northeast (and we're not entirely sure they are), then Dodd is well-positioned to fill that slot. Dodd should also do well among the donors who had previously committed to Kerry; he has long ties to the party's top donors as a past chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Sen. Joe Biden: Many members of Biden's political inner circle have Boston roots, and he should pick up some of Beantown's money men without Kerry in the contest. How many big fish Biden will recruit is a matter of some debate (Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton also has VERY strong Boston ties), but the Delaware senator is in better financial shape today than he was yesterday.

LOSERS

Reps. Ed Markey and Marty Meehan: Markey and Meehan have been waiting for years for a chance to run for an open Massachusetts Senate seat. They nearly got their wish in 2004 when Kerry came within a whisker of the presidency. But now comes the news that Kerry is planning to seek a sixth Senate term. What will Markey ($2.4 million cash on hand) and Meehan ($4.9 million on hand) do with all that money now? And, if you were wondering, Sen. Ted Kennedy isn't up again until 2012.

Sen Ted Kennedy: Kennedy had the perfect excuse not to choose between Obama, Clinton and Dodd. How could he not go with the home state guy? But now that Kerry is out, Kennedy is one of the most prized free agents in the Senate. Let the courting begin.

David Letterman/Jay Leno/Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert/Conan O'Brien: From asking for swiss cheese on his cheese steak to his love of windsurfing to this, Kerry provided scads of fodder for the late-night comics. Sorry guys, you won't have John Kerry to kick around anymore.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 25, 2007; 9:22 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: John Kerry Opts Out of Second Presidential Run
Next: Will Louisiana Gov. Race Hold Lessons for Obama?

Comments

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate. Winner.

Posted by: anonymous | January 31, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Interesting.

I will absolutely agree with you that where one stands has influences one's view of the spectrum.

I would say that BOTH parties are in a bit of trouble. This is the Democrats moment (2007-???), for sure, but I think you may underestimate the divide in the Democratic party which seems to keep the Dems from taking strong stands; or making bold statements outside of harsh criticism of Bush, Cheney, and the GOP only in name.

The GOP has gotten to the point where many of its base voters wonder if they're in the right party. But it's not just Rockefeller vs. Goldwater split. In fact, I think it's the Goldwater types that are in open rebellion (on the net at least). So yes the GOP seems to have made drastic changes in policy without so much discussing it within the Party as expecting everyone else to follow.

So I agree with your description generally, but I think there are alot of folks on the Left of the Democratic Party who hold anti-religion views in a country that even in the middle is still deeply religious though without really wanting to impose their's on other people.

I DO think there is a strong center out there that goes largely unrepresented but the Left is strong enough in the Democratic party to help prevent it being represented very well there either.

Posted by: cavalier829 | January 27, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

It all depends on where you are standing as to how the "label" fits.

To me, Sen. Kerry is no Centrist. Sen. Clinton will be whatever she thinks will get her elected.

Most Republicans in the Northeast tend to be Rockefeller Repubicans (fiscally responsible, socially responsible - what could be more Center? In theory at least).

Rep. Shays always seemed to be a Rockefeller Republican to me, but suprised me in the last election with the attacks on Sen. Kennedy (which simply didn't make sense to me in a House race in Connecticut.)

Sen. Lieberman actually is independent, so being an Independent now fits. Voting in the Democratic caucus keeps his committee seniority for him.

I only know Sen. Biden from his foreign policy positions, which are all grounded in reality, not the "Best and Brightest" or "Think Tank" theoretical Worlds.

I think that "counter-culture" concept is left over from Spiro Agnew and lives on only on Fox News and with those in power positions to whose advantage it is to keep us divided (pedagogues and those who use religion for political purposes). The average Democrats I know, and I know them all over the country, are hardly pot-smoking, etc. Hippies; and never have been. They tend to mirror the Republicans I know.

I'm not really sure what the "base" of the Democratic Party is right now. As the Republican Party was being taken over by the far right, the Democrats were becoming a different party also. Since the Democratic Leadership Council was formed, the Party as an organization has been more representative of the country as a whole, and stopped being a vehicle for single-issue pressure groups. Hadn't thought about the balance scale changing, but the Republicans are now the party hog-tied by single-issue pressure groups. And, that may be coming back to haunt them, as it did the Democrats for 20 years.

While there is a Democratic "voting base," I'm not really sure that there is an absolute Democratic "philosophical base." What I'll call the "Redemption of the (Bob) Caseys" may evidence that.

The Will Rogers' line would be descriptive of today's Democrats, "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat!"

Democrats are less easy to label now than they were 20 years ago. Though Republicans don't see it this way, they may be stuck with the "Curse of Ronald Reagan," in a way he probably never would have condoned; by selectively choosing only a couple of his philosophical positions and placing all of their bets on those.

So, right now I see Democrats covering the political spectrum, while the Republicans continue to purge those not on the far right. Ten years from now, the pendulum may have further to go, or it be moving back in the other direction.

For now as parties, the Democrats cover a broad spectrum, while most Republicans live in a narrow band of that spectrum.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 27, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

"You really need to stop talking about the joke" he said. When you have to tell people to stop mocking you, you are toast. He can be defeated in a senatorial primary because he is so aloof and detached. But, I am sure no one will try to take him on, wimps.

Posted by: Gerard | January 27, 2007 12:43 AM | Report abuse

"You really need to stop talking about the joke" he said. When you have to tell people to stop mocking you, you are toast. He can be defeated in a senatorial primary because he is so aloof and detached. But, I am sure no one will try to take him on, wimps.

Posted by: Gerard | January 27, 2007 12:43 AM | Report abuse

"You really need to stop talking about the joke" he said. When you have to tell people to stop mocking you, you are toast. He can be defeated in a senatorial primary because he is so aloof and detached. But, I am sure no one will try to take him on, wimps.

Posted by: Gerard | January 27, 2007 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, Nor'Easter for the clarification.

Believe it or not, my use of the term "Pseudo-" wasn't meant as a putdown. Many folks characterize themselves as Centrists (I'm talking voters now) who would not agree with each other on the issues if they were brought together.

I'll take this as an opportunity to clarify what you might consider Centrist from what I would and ask you whether you genuinely believe that John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are centrists?

Jim Leach of Iowa. Chris Shay of CT. Olympia Snowe of ME. Arlen Specter of PA. Or if you need a Democrat Joe Lieberman of CT, Bob Casey of PA, or even Joe Biden of DE could be considered Centrist.

But Sens. Clinton & Kerry are kind of the base of the Democratic Party. I'll concede they are in the mainstream of the Democratic Party, but I don't think it's just partisanship to say they're kind of faking when they assert themselves as not Liberal but Centrist.

The Dems have this counter-culture ethos that's a political problem with America. Do you not admit this?

Posted by: Cavalier829 | January 26, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Cav829, the reference was to the blanket "North-Eastern" labeling of Kerry, as if everybody from the Northeast is automatically a Liberal and out of touch with the "real America."

It's been appearing more often in posts on The Fix as what appears to have become a favorite Conservative putdown. I suspect by people who have probably never been there.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 26, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Well it took Clinton three years to realize Iowa was a state. This helps to prove she is a fence sitter. she is a reactor instead of an acter. She and John McCain should buddy up on that style of politics. She will also be attacked for her close alliance with the Jewish Federation lobby, one of Americas puppets, Israel. She also uses hubby as a political crutch when seen in public and viewed as needed. Obama's Islamic schooling will be counter acted by "being small mined in the broader realm of political science. The issues you sight on ethnicity are from the South, well we know how open minded many of those people are. His book has already been published on his not so "American social value" ideals & virtues. This way no one can back door him. Ms. Clinton also voted for troops to Iraq he did not. Even before his formal announcement he was getting plenty of free media coverage. He is new, with fresh ideas. He must just make the correct political moves over these next 14 months and he may just surprise the rather "hawkish" Ms. Clinton.

Posted by: paganlofland_9 | January 26, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Nor'Easter,

Not sure where you're getting the 'Confederate' inference. The GOP is filled with too many careerists who have lost their ideals. Conservatism needs a party divested of their instinct for defeat.

Posted by: Cavalier829 | January 25, 2007 7:22 PM | Report abuse

What???

Care to explain that one, Nor'Easter, or do you prefer to remain an engima?

Posted by: Cavalier829 | January 25, 2007 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Cavalier, still got that residual inferiority complex from losing the Civil War?

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 25, 2007 7:07 PM | Report abuse

William,

I think you understand well the lack of humility within the GOP leadership, but I doubt it's a lesson too many of them are capable of learning, to be honest.

This fact is reinforced by the number grassroots Republicans who don't seem to see the need for them learn it either.

I think we'll see that 2008 will be the year we discover whether the Republican party is capable of returning to its conservative roots or is now a
permanently Neo-Conservative instrument; cynical and void of idealism.

I sense this contest will be the biggest free-for-all we've seen in our lifetimes and candidates who wouldn't have had a prayer in '96 or '00 will each have their 15 min. of fame.

"'94" can happen again, but I think the GOP itself is going to have to be replaced in order to see that happen. Even Mike Pence, if you recall, was pining for an amnesty-type deal during the 2006 campaign.

Like the President, the GOP leadership just isn't capable of seeing it's own faults and atoning for them.

Posted by: Cavalier829 | January 25, 2007 7:03 PM | Report abuse

As a North-Eastern Pseudo-Centrist John Kerry's core vote was already taken up by Hillary Clinton, so it's really hard to say what Kerry brought to the fight which could now benefit those remaining in the race.

To whatever extent Sen. Kerry's absence from the contest benefits anyone it benefits her at least as much Sen. Obama.

If Kerry's run in 2004 benefited from an untested field of candidates, his hopes for 2008 suffered from America's experience with his 2004 run. His narrow loss isn't viewed as a sign of strength but of weakness against a President the Left considers to be a lightweight.

Posted by: Cavalier829 | January 25, 2007 6:38 PM | Report abuse

>>>Our party needs to be rescued, and repaired, from the devastation that Bush and his foul ilk have wreaked on the GOP.

Why don't you just blame darkie like white supremacists have done for hundreds of years? Ok, that's harsh I know, but I'm making a point.

For one, you shot your credibility load in your first posts on this blog. And yes I read both of your recent exhaustive posts. And no I will not comment on specific matters b/c as I said A) you have no credibility and B) your whole spew boils down to a desire to return to "traditional values" which you choose not to define (nevermind the fact that choosing "traditional values" over modernity is exactly what the Taliban and AQ seek as well).

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to eliminate the cognitive dissonance -- that must be simply AWFUL in your mind -- in order to "explain" your views. And to do that means embracing modern liberalism, tolerance, diversity and inclusion. Good luck with all that.

Posted by: F&B | January 25, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama endorsed Deval Patrick in the MA Gov primary, came to Mass to campaign for him repeatedly, something no one outside of Kerry and Pres. Clinton did for Patrick.

Posted by: Worchester_gal | January 25, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

'the only idea you are floating around these days.'

this guy zxouk jst repeats the same incoherent stuff day after day. he says he 's okay with republican leaders, no matter how bad they are, bcause the alternatives are worse. i'm sure he would have said the same thing about hitler.

i don't know why you bother. he's a parrot, a cipher, a clone.

Posted by: Lindsay | January 25, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Of course most of the speech watchers approved. Only the small percentage of americans left who can stomach watching bush watched anyway.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 25, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

William: Your Posts of 03:29 and 03:49pm are indeed an indorsement of Hillary. The GOP leadership is completely out of touch with the folk of this country. How the rank and file repub can support this Administration goes much farther than party loyalty and borders on insanity. Look up the meaning of the word and I think you will see what I am talking about. There are so many things that have been proven wrong and yet they insist on doing the same things over and over, again and again. I will admit I cannot understand why this is happening and have not a clue as to why.

Posted by: lylepink | January 25, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

William, I "like" your plan for the short-term reason that I can imagine you giving your GOP vote to my favorite Democratic candidate, Obama. But realistically, I have to point out that those "get better after hitting a low point" moments only come naturally and are sometimes surprises -- they can't be calculated and contrived, the real world is too complicated and contrived plans fall apart.

But please do check out Obama's social values and consider voting for him over Giuliani, just because you genuinely prefer him! Genuinely strong transformations occur when real preferences take precedence over convoluted, brittle "master plans".

Posted by: Golgi | January 25, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

william,
Never give up the fight I say! I do not agree that we should settle for at least 4 years of liberal hell for some sort of pennance. I also don't care that much about the social issues. I don't agree that we must lose in order to reclaim the fiscally conservative GOP agenda.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 25, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

william, i am not willing to concede defeat to obtain eventual victory. I am not as hard core as you and think rudy would do splendidly. I don't care much about social issues and am particularly nervous about government intervention into this arena. the abysmal result of a three winged government under hillary could be worse than the reprecusssion we still feel fromn Peanut. I will not sacrifce a city or my values for some sort of game theory victory. the r leadsers ate what they are, let's give them the benefit of the doubt, as we will with bush and know that the alternative is always worse.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 25, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

So what do y'all think of my plan for the GOP's future?

Posted by: William | January 25, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

KOZ...continued from my previous post...

In order for our party to be renewed, so we can be proud of it again, I believe the following must happen.

1. We must lose the presidential election in 2008, and the Dems must retain control of the House and Senate, and preferably increase their majorities.

This is because the GOP leaders must be shown that something is wrong, and that the answer is not to try to pander to moderates and the amnesty/Hispanic lobby. They are trying to do this now, and they must be shown that it is conservatives, not only moderates, who are mad at the direction of the GOP.

If we win in 2008, not only will we be stuck with a RINO neo-con (McPain and Guliani are practically George W. Bush Reloaded), but the GOP leadership will think that pandering to the moderates and amnesty/Hispanic lobby is the way to go.

So we must lose. Things have to get worse before they get better for the GOP. If we win in 2008, there will be no reason for the GOP leadership to change the status quo.

2. When Hillary or whomever wins the White House, and when the Dems take Senate seats in Co, NH, MN, OR, Me, and possibly other places, and have a 55 or so to 45 majority, and when the Dems take another 12-15 seats in the House, in conservative (not moderate or swing) districts, the GOp leadership will realize that conservatives are mad at the direction of the party and are staying home.

3. The loss will lead to the discrediting and removal of "Slick John" Boehner the Lobbyist Lover, and "Fat Cat Roy" Blunt, from the GOP leadership. These two men are corrupt, conniving insiders, driven by raw ambition, who no longer represent the grassroots spirit of the GOP. It's time for a clean start, and new leadership.

McConnell in the Senate needs to go from the leadership, too.

3. In the House, the Republican Study Committee will be given renewed power and credibility, and the GOP realizes it needs to reinvigorate the conservative base, and maintain conservative loyalty.

Pence should be elected as minority leader, Shadegg as whip. Putnam is good, and he should stay where is is. Tom Cole I don't know much about, but he seems OK.

In the Senate, Lott would probably move up to leader. Hopefully, Kyl would be bypassed and Coburn or Demint or Thune could be Whip.

4. Amnesty Mel should be fired as GOP chair, and replaced by someone who actually represents conservatives and our values. JD Hayworth, who is no longer in office, would be an excellent choice. Reinstating Jim Gilmore may not be a bad idea either.

If we want a really fresh face, then there are many to choose from.

5. The renewed GOP would capitalize on Dem mistakes and the Dem support of far out initiatives to try to foster another 1994 in 2010 or 2012, and this time make sure to remain loyal to conservative values.

6. The renewed GOp would nominate a real conservative, and not another neo-con statist amnesty-lover like Bush.

True conservatives who would make excellent nominees include: Hayley Barbour, Mark Sanford, Mike Rounds, Jeff Sessions.

Tim Pawlenty would also be good, I guess, and Thune, DeMint and Coburn, though they need more experience, are fantastic, too.

7. The conservative GOP comeback would mark a new morning, to quote Reagan, for America, and true conservatives, who are actually dedicated to traditional values, work to make America a better place for everyone.

Posted by: William | January 25, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Looks like William agrees with aspects of both Bush's speech and Webb's speech. Hey, isn't that the exact thing that you just said would never happen? Amazing!

See, not everyone is as binary as you. Most people are capable of having more than one opinion at a time. It's possible to agree with Bush's foreign policy but prefer Webb's stance on domestic issues. Or to like Bush on immigration but not on Iraq. Or many other combinations of views which would lead to liking both speeches. Or, for that matter, disliking both speeches, as I'm sure some people did. And that's why you don't understand polls

Posted by: Blarg | January 25, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

KOZ...while I don't particularly like Jim Webb, especially since he defeated Allen, whom I hoped would run for president, I do understand where Webb is coming from, and why he became a Dem.

He was a Republican until 2005, but because he was upset with the War in Iraq, which he considered a mistake and capricious and unnecessary before it began, and because he was upset with Bush and Gonzalez shredding the Constitution with their illegal "surveillance" programs, he became a Dem.

Also, the concern about our manufacturing base and our blue and white collar jobs being outsourced, and our markets being flooded with cheap 3rd world goods is a legitimate one. Adam Smith was a genius, but he lived in a time when it was inconceivable that British jobs would be lost overseas.

I favor free trade and laissez faire economics, but I also think that it may not be a bad idea to impose some trade barriers on countries like China and India, and it may not be a bad idea to slow the export of our jobs overseas.

Finally, it is certainly a good idea to pass legislation banning foreign companies (especially those of rival nations like China) from acquiring US companies, like they tried to do with Unocal.

Free trade is good, BUT allowing other countries to take our jobs and buy up our largest companies is not.

When all our companies are foreign owned, and we have no manufacturing capacity, and our white collary jobs have been outsourced, and Chine et al no longer need to buy our services, then we will be in a hole that it pretty deep :(

Better to put a stop to that scenario while we still can.

I am, however, a dedicated supporter of supply side economics.

But getting back to Webb, I am afraid the GOP is going to lose a lot more voters in the Webb or Ellsworth or Shuler mold, who are socially conservative, but also care about keeping our country free, and not letting Bush and Co turn our beloved country into a police state.

I believe that concern over Bush's unconstitutional "anti-terrorist" escapades led, in part, to the defeat of conservative GOp senators and reps in conservative districts.

For example, in conservative Montana, Jon Tester boldly denounced the "Patriot Act" and said he wanted to repeal it entirely. He won. Of course, discontent over Iraq and corruption also doomed Burns, and he only lost by 2K votes.

I believe that many conservatives are deeply, deeply, concerned by the Bush admin's brazen, despicable contempt for the Constitution, and the illegal, unconstitutional programs that have been going on.

As much as I detest the NY Times, I believe they were right to disclose the illegal spy program that Bush maintains we need otherwise there will be mushroom clouds over US cities.

I know how serious the terrorist threat is, but if we give up our freedom in the name of fighting terror, then the terrorists have WON. We might as well move to Britain or Sweden or some other police state.

When was the last time there was a terrorist attack in North Korea?

"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." - Benjamin Franklin.

Also, conservatives are furious with Bush and the GOP leadership over immigration, corruption, the war, etc.

Bush is not really a conservative at all.

The Dems have, so to speak, welcomed conservatives who are upset with Bush into their tent, and if we continue to hemorrhage voters, the Democrat party may wind up looking like it did years ago, with a liberal wing and a conservative wing.

Look at Webb, for instance. He is anti-amnesty, pro-gun, anti-outsourcing, and pro-American. We should be asking why someone like Webb, who was Reagan's Nav Sec, became a Democrat.

We should be asking why voters in some of the most conservative districts and states voted out their GOP reps or senators in the past election. In Indiana, Kansas, North Carolina, Kentucky, Montana, Missouri, Virginia, and many other places, GOP reps were defeated by moderate or conservative Dems.

I believe this is because the GOP no longer stands for conservatism, and now stands for a neo-con, interventionist, police state, which would also happen to restrict abortion and gay marriage.

How out of touch the GOP is is demonstrated by the reelection of Boehner and Blunt, and the continued strong support of Bush by much (though not most) of the GOP, not to mention the selection of "Amnesty Mel" Martinez as Gen Chair.

Our party needs to be rescued, and repaired, from the devastation that Bush and his foul ilk have wreaked on the GOP.

We need to remake our party as the party of Reagan, Coolidge, Jefferson and Jackson, a party which stood for LIMITED GOVERNMENT (not a police state), freedom, conservative, Christian values, and a strong America.

America was strong and safe under Reagan, yet he never got us into a war. He only invaded Grenada (to rescue potential hostages), and bombed Libya.

Posted by: William | January 25, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

So if 67% of the population believes the speech pointed in the right direction (the question that was asked) and if Webb's nonsense was the polar opposite your conclusion is that I don't understand math and I must be wrong because you don't like the implications of the result.

I see. Is this like surrender leads to winning? taxing leads to savings? educational failure leads to success? I guess you are at least consistent.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 25, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

My bet is Kennedy eventually endorses Edwards

Posted by: Anonymous | January 25, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Elizabeth,

Ralph Nader has not owned a car since 1955, lives in a cheap boarding house, has never been married, has no children and has no connection with mainstream American culture of any kind, save to constantly criticize the vast majority of Americans for living the lifestyles that we do. Why would we ever want to elect such a pathetic weirdo as our President?

This is not an election to choose a head of consumer affairs. We're talking about a President of the United States. Somehow, I don't see this hollow-eyed old loner in a cheap suit being our best bet as a Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the largest superpower in the world. I fail to see how critiquing the Chevy Corvair translates into good material for negotiating peace treaties or shepherding a legislative agenda through Congress.

The Ralph Nader following is no less fringe and irrelevant than the Lyndon LaRouche moonies. But eventually I guess that Phish will start touring again and the Nader following will suddenly disappear.

Posted by: J. Landers | January 25, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

The number by itself means nothing. You need to look at the context. And the context is that State of the Union speeches generally have very high support. So the fact that this speech got good poll ratings isn't surprising. The fact that this speech got much lower poll ratings than previous speeches, however, is worth noting.

"One must assume that Webb's speech was the complement - 33% agreed and 66% disagreed. Live by the poll - die by the poll."

Or in this case, live by the poll - die by an idiotic assumption based on a binary worldview and a misunderstanding of how polls work. Close enough.

Posted by: Blarg | January 25, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

It's fun to see the People's Socialist Workers Party loyalists that dominate this blog go apoplectic over The Fix's perceived (in their eyes only) bias.

I'm sure Chris merely forgot about Edwards, I'm sure it wasn't intentional. I guess his thinking is you have to actually have a chance at the nomination, before any events can damage those chances.

Posted by: JD | January 25, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

The decision by Kerry was expected, so much for the news value. The odd thing is I think the more the better for a discussion point of view, but when it comes down to who he helps or hinders, IMO, the folks are the winners in that they will be spared from another proven loser. I also think the same about Al Gore, who was handed the POTUS on a silver platter and frankly blew it. The loser in this is the Media for it will cut down on their paid political adds.

Posted by: lylepink | January 25, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Only the anti-Bush zealots could find the cloud in this silver lining. so 100% of the population didn't love it. did you think the move-on's would? And in its effort to find anything bad to say the commie news network compares it to stellar ratings from before. typical. 2/3 agree with the policies. what happened to your addiction to polls now that they don't confirm your defeatist world view?

One must assume that Webb's speech was the complement - 33% agreed and 66% disagreed. Live by the poll - die by the poll. Bat-eyes Pelosi looked dazed and confused - "should I clap, should I stand, should I scowl? I will scowl if he mentions that dreaded victory word, that would surely steal my thunder." Meanwhile Obama his his face to avoid taking any position on anything and Hillary made her usual ice queen faces. so overall, nothing new here. the people still don't like war but want to win and recognize the Dems won't do it. they are generally happy with the economy and don't want more taxes to pay for more big government. too bad for you since that seems to be the only idea you are floating around these days.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 25, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, those statistics really make Bush's speech look good. Until you read the article.

"Forty-one percent of 370 adults who watched the speech said they had a "very positive" reaction to it...In 2006, however, the "very positive" number was 48 percent; in 2005, it was 60 percent."

"Sixty-seven percent of speech watchers said they believe Bush's policies will move the country in the right direction, the lowest total of his presidency. In 2006, the number was 68 percent; in 2005, it was 77 percent."

In other words, public opinion of State of the Union speeches is always very high. This year's speech had lower approval than his last couple. How do you figure that this is a good sign for him?

Posted by: Blarg | January 25, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Hi Chris
On my version of the online column, when I click on "Sen. Joe Biden" I get the webpage for Chris Dodd.
Just FYI.

Posted by: Erin13 | January 25, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

For some actual facts from Iraq - (note this does not comport with the required mindset of the Libs who demand all efforts overseas be labeled as doomed to failure - Read at your own risk, if you dare.)

Question - are you angry Dems fighting George Bush or our actual enemies?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzRhMzI1ODExYWNhYThmNzRkY2UzYWJhMzQwYzFjNjM=

My take on Kerry - he pulled a French thing - surrender and retreat before you actually stand a chance of winning. sounds like the standard Dem response to confrontation.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 25, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- More than three-quarters of Americans who watched President Bush's State of the Union address had a positive reaction to it, although the reaction was muted from that in past years, according to a poll released Tuesday.

this from the commies. Looks like the Webb analysis is spot on for 3/4 of the people who actually watch politics. No word on the ones who watched Grease, that is, the Dem base.

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 25, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

sorry for the double post. It's the post from 1/24 11:45 AM PST @ crooks and liars.

Posted by: F&B | January 25, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

So basically Webb made himself out to be a total fool and relied on such flawed reasons and analysis that it proved once and for all that Dems and/or Libs have absolutely no sensibilites when it comes to economics or foreign policy.
for example:
"Manufacturing dismantled? "Over the 12 months ending in December, total industrial production increased 3 percent," reports the Federal Reserve, "to a level that was 112.4 percent of its 2002 average." U.S. production of cars and trucks rose 3.5 percent in 2004, 5.9 percent in 2005 and at a 7.3 percent rate in the first three quarters of 2006. Overseas auto plants were sent here, not the other way around.

U.S. jobs are disappearing? Employment was 145.9 million in December, up from 142.8 million a year before. If only bad jobs are increasing, why are average and per capita U.S. incomes rising? Why are so many U.S. shopping malls, restaurants and highways so infuriatingly crowded? "

Well?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=dismal,_dreary_democrats&ns=AlanReynolds&dt=01/25/2007&page=1

Posted by: kingofzouk | January 25, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

AndyR sed: Chris Dodd, sorry is he still in this.

Did you see the Daily Show the other day? Cluster*** Nation '08?

His Dodd line is priceless. Hilarious. I posted the link but it was rejected by The Fix. It's the post from 1/24 11:45 AM PST.

To be honest tho, imho he will have his time and will be a factor in shaping the debate. Major kudos to him in my book.

Posted by: F&B | January 25, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

How can you leave Edwards off "your" winners list? Don't you believe that some of Kerry's people will back Edwards? I don't know what Kennedy brings to the campaign, but word is he likes Edwards. As for Dodd and Biden, Kerry's people are smart enough to realize that neither one of the Senators can win. Smart money will go to Edwards.

Posted by: ScottT | January 25, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Patrick and Obama have very similar styles and their message of hope and being beyond partisan is a huge thing they have in common. It makes a ton of sense for him to endorse Obama.

Posted by: CBC | January 25, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Whoever our next president is, he or she must show that they are ready to work hard toward the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. For those of you who don't know, the Millennium Dev Goals were agreed on by 191 nations in 2000, and included things like eradicationg world hunger, all by 2025. We can do it, we just need a leader who is dedicated to the goals too!

Posted by: KatieL | January 25, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

'Pakistan's tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan have become an accepted haven for al Qaeda leaders such as Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, a senior U.S. intelligence official told CNN on Wednesday.

That's not a formal assessment, the official said, but a growing view by U.S. intelligence analysts in the months since the Pakistani government reached an agreement with tribal authorities to not threaten the region's autonomy as long as the tribes agreed not to harbor foreigners.

The official told CNN that "the training camps are full" in the region, suggesting al Qaeda activity.

"This is a real safe haven to operate from. I am not talking about Taliban, I am talking about al Qaeda central," he said, referring to core members of al Qaeda.

The official said that before the agreement, Pakistani authorities were able to impede the ability of al Qaeda to regroup in the region. Now, the official said, it is easier for al Qaeda to operate.

U.S. military officials for some months have said the region became a Taliban haven because the agreement had no real enforcement penalties. There had been a strong suspicions that many of the attacks in Afghanistan have been organized by Taliban elements based inside Pakistan.'

So what do we do? Give US taxpayer money to Pakistan -- because they're privatizing, you see?

There is NO such thing as a war on terror. If you believe in that, I've got a used car for you...

Posted by: as i've been saying | January 25, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Seems that Obama might be the really big winner already.

Top Kerry fundraiser backing Obama
By Brian C. Mooney
GLOBE STAFF

One of John F. Kerry's chief fundraisers, Alan D. Solomont, said today he has signed on to help the presidential campaign of Illinois Democrat Barack Obama despite his long-standing ties to another Democratic hopeful, Hillary Clinton of New York.


Posted by: Andy R | January 25, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte, in testimony to a Senate committee earlier this month, wrote that al Qaeda leaders were holed up in a secure hide-out in Pakistan, without naming bin Laden or his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri.

Last week, Afghan officials released a video in which captured Taliban spokesman Mohammad Hanif said Mullah Omarand bin Ladin were living in the Pakistani city of Quetta under the protection of Pakistan's ISI intelligence service.

...

Aziz also said Pakistan's economy was in for a good year as the government carried out reforms, including privatizations, and as more foreign investment flowed in.'

You see how it works? We know Osama and Omar are being protected in Pakistan. But the Pakistanis are privatizing, and global corporate money is pouring in. That's what it's all about.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 25, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I was upset that Kerry did not conclude what I would have perceived as a strong finish with endorsement of EDWARDS, the proper thing to do, from my view in light of his having selected Edwards as his Vice Presidential Running mate.

Edwards is strong on the anti-war momentum that was supposed to have net results in the new majority of Democrats in Congress from the November 7th election.

Kennedy has shown leadership in that direction. Bring the troops home with a proper exit plan. Restore the Iraq Rule for Iraqi's. Two members of Congress, Kerry and Edwards, have shown strength that matches public opinion.

If the nation wanted Nader as the true challenge to Bush and his Warrior King status, the nation could have voted it.

I am a Massachusetts resident, and campaigned for Ralph Nader for President in 2004 because I believed the nation had learned something about the corruption of our politics in 2000 and that backing monied people who are powerbrokers instead of backing people with principle when the monied people prove themselves not worth the backing, is soooo bad.

One woman said to me, "Wouldn't it be great if Nader took the whole state?"

49% of MA registered voters are unaffiliated to any party, 13% Republicans and 35% Democrats and 3% minor parties. Nader is Unaffiliated registered.

26 of the 50 states show party affilation preferences stated if the voter so chooses. Of those, statistics current for November 7 election showed about 25.5 million Republicans; 35.5 million Democrats and 20.5 million OTHER (not two party registrants, when given the choice).

I was shocked when people cried out against a strong challenge to the TWO parties who had copycatted themselves with money over principle in view. It seemed the public didn't want the parties challenged even if both admittedly were corrupt and easily seen as such, when the policy advocated was war from both...and the media backed it.

The media needs to force the majority rule of honest opinion. Out of Iraq with a proper plan is very likely closer to 90% than 76%

Nader knows that coziness of corrupt FAT CAT POLITICIANS belong kicked out.

Principles are on the line, international law is on the line, restoring public majority rule is on the line, and the truth of the Democratic Party and its leadership winning the public opinion representation with true leadership is on the line.

I want to believe Edwards can be sincere in his stand against the continued war and desire to Bring the Troops Home with a sane plan.

Nader had offered the sane plan. But, the nation did not get the view. WHY?

Enough.

Time for the public to start demanding the media to behave and present the public opinion demand with honor expected from Congress.

One person put it well on this Post Blog...Peace then Impeach.

It is possible now.

Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader is a public advocate and is listed as a Political Activist in reference books regarding his recent career track. He worked on the government regulation required to force the safety of products on the market. Now he is actively seeking to force the corruption out of politics.

Politics needs to face the fact that the public opinion is valid, but also needs leaders to represent that majority opinion. Public interest at a leadership level on track and with honor is due.

Posted by: Elizabeth | January 25, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Somebody should tell Terry McAuliffe, that if he had done what Howard Dean is doing with his 50-state strategy, when he was the party chair, maybe Ohio wouldn't have even been anything to worry about. I find it ridiculous that McAuliffe would criticise anyone, when under his watch the Democratic party was trounced Twice by a bald-headed toolbox named Karl Rove.

Posted by: Andy R | January 25, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

To call this "propaganda" is an insult to the word itself. Besides, it makes the word "drivel" feel left out.

Now, the interesting thing about Liz is that she's a cornucopia of vacuousness. Early in 2005, her Dad got her appointed as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs and Coordinator for Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiatives. She also headed up the Iran-Syria Operations Group (ISOG), a unit with the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. The latter outfit's goal, to put it bluntly, was to topple the governments of Iran and Syria. (Or bring them democracy or fish sticks or something.)

In an article by Robert Dreyfuss of "The American Prospect," last year, there was this telling quote. "She came in knowing very little about the Middle East," says Marina S. Ottaway, senior associate and co-director of the Democracy and Rule of Law Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who has worked with Liz Cheney on democratic reform issues. "She had a mandate to do democracy promotion, but she had very little familiarity with the subject. ... They deliberately picked a person who was not a Middle East specialist, so that the conventional wisdom, well, let me rephrase, so that real, actual knowledge of the issues in the region wouldn't interfere with policy."

In other words, Liz was a shill for the NeoCon's plan to re-shape the world in America's image.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 25, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Every so often, something emerges from D.C. that is SO outrageous; it gives you the intellectual equivalent of freezer burn. Such was the case, this week, when "The Washington Post" ran a guest editorial by Liz Cheney entitled "Retreat Isn't An Option."

It wasn't so much an opinion piece as a pouty, barely post-pubescent exercise in petulance. (Not particularly well written, either.)

To any of you unfamiliar with Ms. Cheney, up until recently, she was known, in some circles, as "Dick's Draft Deferment Daughter."

These days Liz is better known as Daddy's little political appointee, dabbling in State Department duties and feeling free to bring her pugnacious point of view wherever she likes, including the "The Post."

It is beyond ironic that the daughter of one of the Nation's best known Chickenhawks, a woman who wouldn't know Sun Tzu from Doctor Who, can barf up a screed condemning all those opposed to BushCo.'s nation-building fiasco in Iraq.

After starting a rant seemingly targeting only Hillary Clinton Lizzie expands her enraged range: "Sen. Joseph Lieberman is the only national Democrat showing any courage on this issue. We Republicans -- with help from senators such as Chuck Hagel -- seem ready to race the Democrats to the bottom."

She never quite explains "the bottom" of what? And, as we all know, war heroes like Hagel can be sooo whiny.

Oh, fiddle-dee-dee! Let's see her shift into full-tilt harridan mode.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/5045

Posted by: Anonymous | January 25, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I find it fascinating that African American's somehow need to justify their endorsement of Obama and women need to justify their endorsement of Hillary. C'mon folks--this is an absurd conversation! I am a white male & I find it completely baffling that anytime someone challenges the proverbial "glass" ceiling, straight white Christian men panic and try to divert the conversation to make people who have been traditionally "other" justify our desire for access--rather than take responsibility for creating and participating in a system that has excluded people on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. This presidential election is about who has the capacity to lead our nation. Let's debate the substantive issues and not go down the rathole of subterfuge & obfuscation. We can do better!

Posted by: Michael | January 25, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that you make no mention of the timing of Kerry's announcement and the Terry McAuliffe book that just came out. Kerry was a terrible candidate who ran an incompetent campaign. I don't doubt for a minute that there were behind the scenes pleadings with him to get out...and the book sealed the deal. Darn, he was so much fun to watch screw up. see the article below:
By MARGARET CARLSON
Bloomberg News
January 24, 2007

WASHINGTON -- In Terry McAuliffe's new memoir, "What a Party: My Life Among Democrats: Presidents, Candidates, Donors, Activists, Alligators and Other Wild Animals" ...The former Democratic National Committee chairman take off the gloves and wax furious with Senator Kerry for blowing the 2004 campaign.

What ticked off Mr. McAuliffe the most is that Mr. Kerry was hoarding money -- $15 million -- while Ohio was lost.

He comes close to calling the campaign managers, if not their standard-bearer, liars for not confessing that they had the cash when it could have won some close Senate races if not the presidency. What were they saving it for? It was "gross incompetence," he wrote.

Equally infuriating was Mr. Kerry's unwillingness to respond to the relentless sucker punches thrown by the opposition. For a scrapper like Mr. McAuliffe, you return every blow. Mr. McAuliffe pounds Mr. Kerry for dodging the Swift Boat Veterans attacks; Mr. McAuliffe, for his part, punched back every chance he got.

Mr. McAuliffe sums up Mr. Kerry's decision to back off criticism of Mr. Bush as one of the "biggest acts of political malpractice in the history of American politics."

Posted by: Leni Morgan | January 25, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Blarg,

That's not always the case. Hillary Clinton is counting on the widest field possible for as long as possible in order to win. Hillary automatically has the single largest chunk of support nationally. Yet it is still only a plurality. Thing is that everybody else hates her. The sooner that this turns into a 2 way race, the sooner she sinks.

So actually she wants more serious candidates in the race rather than fewer. She would have loved for Kerry to fight with Edwards and Obama over the 'anyone but Hillary' votes.

Hillary is the one who loses something with Kerry out.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | January 25, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I have a hard time agreeing with any of the winners. Kerry was good at raising money online - for causes other than himself. Look at how low Kerry always came in on netroots straw polls in the last year. Usually with 2% or less. Kerry was *never* the darling of the liberal left or the netroots. His exit does nothing for Obama.

With regard to Chris Dodd, I would love to see one single actual voter was saying, 'gosh, I sure do hope that we have a Senator from New England get the nomination again!' Nobody is jumping from Kerry to Dodd.

Biden might pick possibly pick up a little extra money from around Boston with Kerry out. Not enough to be strategically significant to a guy whom we all know is really running for Vice President (opening line of his last address at the Richmond JJ dinner: 'My name is Joe Biden and I'm running for Vice President.' I swear that I am not making this up.)

Altogether, you are talking about a guy who was only polling around 5% at the most while being as well-known a candidate as one could hope for. His exit really means absolutely nothing to these other candidates, except maybe John Edwards who could see some serious fundraising help from Kerry out of loyalty to his former running mate.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | January 25, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

'Existing Home Sales Plummet in 2006'

The great republicaan housing bust, creating by keeping mortgage rates artificially low for an extended period and relaxing loan standards, has now begun.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 25, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Edwards wins because he doesn't have to challenge his running mate; and what Sen. Kerry supporters there are, probably look at him first.

But, Sen. Obama and all of the others win also; because there's now one less in the pack.

There's no reason Gov. Patrick shouldn't support Obama for the same reason that WASP, Italian, Polish, Irish, etc., politicians historically supported other politicians with whom they had an ethnic affinity. He just can't say that publicly. If he wants to support Sen. Obama, he has the "Chicago connection" for public purposes.

Sen. Kennedy appears to lose because he loses the safe "cover endorsement." Except that he doesn't have to endorse anybody anyway. It's not like he has to hitch his star to the winner, or risk being on the outside. He's the elephant in any Democratic room (figuratively and...). It's a wash for Sen. Kennedy.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 25, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

'The republicans spent 12 years roooting around in clinton's trousers. Shows where their minds in, in their pants.'

Posted by: Anonymous | January 25, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

'Two election officials in Ohio have been convicted of election rigging during the 2004 elections: Jacqueline Maiden, the elections' coordinator who was the board's third-highest ranking employee when she was indicted last March, and ballot manager Kathleen Dreamer each were convicted of a felony count.'

Posted by: stolen election | January 25, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Good grief, some bozo had to come in here and call himself Bush's Lewinsky; trying to cause a scandal about being kissed by a female Republican congresswoman from Minnesota. May I ask why it is ok for Pelosi to be kissing male Democrats without causing a scandal?
The Democrats seem to have loyalty and admiration for our President mixed up with sexual thrills. Shows where their minds in, in their pants.

Back to the topic of Kerry, the polls over the past year have NEVER favored him to run for a second-term. He has been below 10% in every national and state poll, no traction means no support, as in, face the facts, you LOST and should give up 2008.

Now on the other hand, the liberals of his home state might keep him in the Senate. But it would be foolish to run for the Senate in 2008 while you also are running for president. (Ok, Lieberman got away with it, but his state allows it)

Kerry is saving his $12 million to help the Democrats in 2008, like Hillary did in 2006. Afterall, he owes the Democrats for putting him on their ticket after SCREAMING HOWARD fell from grace.

The coming year will be interesting to watch. Bring on the popcorn.

Posted by: Joe | January 25, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I'd imagine that part of what Chris was meaning when he placing Ted Kennedy in the losers column was that before he was able to make a judgement call (Kerry) without offending anyone. At the end of the day everyone would understand that loyalty.

Now he has to make a call as to who to support. As some note, this may really pay off well for him (though his majority is so strong it is hard to imagine why he would need it) but if he gets the wrong person and someone else goes on to win he risks leaving himself out in the cold.

I'd agree though that John Edwards is probably a winner.

I suspect probably the biggest winner though is John Kerry. He's got out at an early stage and with credibility and good will in tact. If he'd run I think there'd be a lot of moaning that he'd already had his chance and blown it.

Posted by: SKTortoise | January 25, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

' Living in a "red" state appears to be more hazardous to the health of millions of American children, according to startling data contained in a major new book,"Homeland Insecurity ... American Children at Risk" available free on the
Web at http://www.everychildmatters.org/homelandinsecurity/index.html to parents, policymakers and other concerned Americans. The factors weighed in the "Homeland Insecurity" ranking includes such diverse indicators as inadequate pre-natal care, lack of health care insurance coverage, early
death, child abuse, hunger and teen incarceration.

Based on a diverse range of 11 child-related statistical measures, nine of the 10 top states with the best outcomes for children today are "blue" states (Wisconsin, Iowa, New Jersey, Washington, Minnesota, Nebraska, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and #1-ranked New Hampshire, with Iowa being the sole "red" state in the group) and all 10 of the bottom states
with the worst outcomes for children are "red" states (Wyoming, Georgia, Arkansas, Alabama, South Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana and, in last place, Mississippi).'

Posted by: the real famly values | January 25, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

"Kerry was a serious figure in the netroots as evidenced by the vast sums he was able to wring out of his huge campaign e-mail list." Puh-leeze. Come on. Kerry wrung money out of his list because he was the nominee against Bush. He has never been a favorite of the "netroots". Obama and Edwards are the winners here. Edwards is staking out strong positions on the "liberal left", while maintaining some centrist cred, and actively courting online opinion makers. The lack of his running mate in the race can only help. How he didn't make your list of winners is beyond me.

Posted by: Asa | January 25, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Chris, your analysis is completly off the mark. First off, the candidate that wins the most is Edwards. He has the same access that Kerry had to this 3 million person email list that you seem to think is all powerful. Also Edwards won't have to stand next to the guy he ran with 2 years ago and argue with him in a debate.

Also Kerry wasn't going to win any money from the liberal left to begin with, so why does that now help Obama? Obama has been our candidate (with a growing number of folks for Richardson) for a while. WHO do you think started all this hype to begin with.

Chris Dodd, sorry is he still in this.

I will give you the Biden connection due to the access he now has to the financial ties in Beantown.

Also I agree with Blarg that Ted Kennedy is a HUGE winner in this. He can now use his endorsement to legitimize and financially boost any of the other candidates. If he backed Obama, Richardson, or Edwards then you would see them jump to the top of the anti-Hillary list. OR he could endorse Senator Clinton and further solidify her as the front-runner. (I seriously doubt that will happen).

Lastly, Howard Dean, the DNC, and the DSCC win. They can use Kerry to raise money and spit out talking points next year. And they now have one more safe Senate Seat. Kerry also is a winner in this. Think if he backs one of these guys? He is setting himself up perfectly as a power broker in the party.

Also Colbert and John Stewart will have plenty to talk about with Romney and Hillary in the race.

Posted by: Andy R | January 25, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: dcat | January 25, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

' From asking for swiss cheese on his cheese steak to his love of windsurfing to this, Kerry provided scads of fodder for the late-night comics. Sorry guys, you won't have John Kerry to kick around anymore.'

Because cheese and windsurfing are just so damn hilarious. And Chris, don't forget, you in the MM treated him exactly the same. The way you all cover politics is so lowest common denominator it insults the intelligence of about 80% of the country.

You know this is the Washington Post, not the New York Post. Please try to be a little more sophisticated this time. And could you please stop posting simpleminded drivel and propaganda like liz cheney?

Posted by: drindl | January 25, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse


The Runup to the War on Iran Offically Begins -- On FOX, CNN, and MSNBC:

'Today, the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) begins a week-long advertising campaign aimed at educating the American public about the growing threat posed by a nuclear Iran. The ad campaign consists of two 30-second spots that began running Tuesday on CNN, MSNBC, Headline News and the Fox News Channel in Washington, DC, Maryland and northern Virginia.

ADVERTISEMENT 1:

The nuclear clock is ticking... and time is running out.

Iran is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism- supporting attacks that have killed hundreds of Americans.

An Iranian group boasts 25,000 members who are ready to become suicide bombers in the US and Europe.

Now, in violation of the UN, Iran is developing a dangerous nuclear capability and has threatened to share it with others.

Stand up for peace. Call the White House and tell them to enforce sanctions against Iran today.'

DVERTISEMENT 2:

Iran's President denies the Holocaust[1], says he wants to wipe Israel off the map[2] and has supported attacks that killed hundreds of Americans.

Iran sent thousands of children marching to their deaths to clear minefields, armed only with plastic keys to unlock the gates of heaven.

Now, in violation of the United Nations, Iran is trying to go nuclear[5] and has threatened to share the technology with others.

Stand up for peace. Call the White House and tell them to enforce sanctions against Iran today.'

First, put more troops in Iraq. Then get americans terrified of Iran. Then go to the United Nations and demand sanctions, then UN troops for an invasion. That won't happen, so Bush/Cheney will say they have no choice but to invade. And they will.

Deja vu, anyone? BTW, Iran is more than 4 times the size of Iraq, and has a population of 70 million.

Also, this is possiblly the most blatant lie I have ever heard:

'Iran sent thousands of children marching to their deaths to clear minefields, armed only with plastic keys to unlock the gates of heaven.'

Nothing will stop them from going after that oil. Nothing. The Stand Up for Peace line is orwellianly hilarious.


Posted by: drindl | January 25, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Yup, you missed something EAG. About two years of god-awful right-leaning propaganda from The Fix, a lot of really excellent (usually right on the money) analysis and reaction from posters on the left, and about a dozen recurring neo-con spam artists.

Posted by: F&B | January 25, 2007 11:09 AM | Report abuse

typo. themese - themes

Posted by: Robert* | January 25, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is overtly seeking money and endorsements - Emily's List - and staff in part on the explicit appeal of being the first serious woman candidate for president. So is everyone who cites that as one of several reasons for supporting her sexist? Where is the similar outrage over feminists supporting Hillary in large part b/c she's female.

Obama campaigned heavily for Patrick in the governor's race. They have similar policies, personas, campaign styles, themese, and strengths. They are close friends.

Posted by: Robert* | January 25, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

'As you may know, the press and the bloggers are all abuzz today about Rep. Michele Bachmann's schoolgirl-crush moment with President Bush at the State of the Union address. In an encounter with Bush at the address, Bachmann leaned in for her ceremonial kiss on the cheek -- and then proceeded to passionately kiss him and then kept holding on to his shoulder, with all the glee of a teenybopper

Incidentally, Bachmann today referenced a third, shall we say, charged encounter with the President. Commenting on yesterday's embrace, Bachmann told the Minneapolis Star Tribune: "He kissed me in Minnesota, too."

Posted by: Bush's Lewinsky | January 25, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Kerry was unelectable, and at least he had the good sense - this time - to recognize that and hopefully make room for a democrat who can win.
in re: Deval Patrick, i do NOT think it's racist, as another of you seemed to imply, to think that he might endorse Obama. "Racist" would be if the reason were "because we're both black." There are, however, many reasons to think seriously about supporting the senator from Illinois which have nothing to do with race, chief among those being that he is intelligent, articulate, and willing - and able - to do the thinking and consultation necessary to reach an informed decision on issues. what a refreshing idea! what's more, Obama at least so far seems to have a real ability to connect with voters to discuss - and take seriously - issues which concern them. it's still early, but more than any others at this point, he seems like the real deal.

Posted by: meuphys | January 25, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

I completely agree with what EAG said regarding Gov. Patrick and Obama. If anything he owes his career to the Clintons and will back Hillary, if anyone. However remember in 2004 there wasn't much in the way of early endorsements and in a 9-way clusterf--- of a primary most smart Democrats will sit it out until after Iowa.

Posted by: Deval | January 25, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

A HUGE explosion rocked the Green Zone in central Baghdad just before sunset today, killing two people according to initial police reports.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 25, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

- President Bush`s health proposal, which relies on helping Americans purchase private insurance, has garnered criticism on the grounds that it will do little to solve the problem of the uninsured -- and will help the poorest Americans least of all.

The tax cut would be financed by taxing employer contributions to the most generous employee health plans and redistributing other funds that now go to community health centers and safety-net hospitals.
To help the rest of the nation`s nearly 47 million uninsured individuals, the Bush plan relies on health savings accounts for individuals, and association health plans to help workers in small businesses.

Critics said the amount of the tax deduction, slightly more than $2,000 for a family with an income of $60,000, pales in comparison to the roughly $12,000 cost of insurance on the individual market.

Most of the uninsured will still not be able to afford insurance, and those who do will still also have to find money for deductibles and co-payments, said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a healthcare consumer advocacy group.

'It`s like throwing a ten-foot rope to someone in a 40-foot hole,' he told United Press International. 'It simply won`t help.'

Posted by: Anonymous | January 25, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

I forgot to mention, 'he was found to have committed no crimes' because Congress and the justice deparmtnet declined to investigate.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 25, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Duncun Hunter has announed his run:

'In October 2006, the San Diego Union Tribune reported that Hunter's Alpine home was listed on tax rolls as a two-bedroom, 2½-bath house with 2,946 square feet of living space. In fact, the house had six bedrooms and was about 6,200 square feet. The property also featured a 2,000-square-foot guest house, a swimming pool and tennis court. The discrepancy resulted in Hunter paying conseriably less in taxes than others in similar-sized properties.'

Is there a GOP alive who isn't a deadbeat?

' Department of Defense inspector general found that the department awarded ADCS, a company owned by Brent Wilkes, a $9.8 million contract in mid-1999 after "inquiries from two members of Congress." Hunter has repeatedly acknowledged that he joined with Representative Randy Cunningham that year to contact Pentagon officials, who then reversed a decision and gave ADCS the contract, one of its first big ones.[14]
Between 1994 and 2004, Wilkes and ADCS gave $40,700 in campaign contributions to Hunter. In 2003, Wilkes's foundation hosted a "Salute to Heroes" gala to give Hunter an award, just as it did for Cunningham a year earlier. The Wilkes Foundation also gave $1,000 in 2003 to a charity run by two of Hunter's staffers.[14] However, Hunter has not been found to have committed any crimes or ethical violations. Wilkes is currently an unindicted co-conspirator.'

And a crook?

Posted by: lark | January 25, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

gawd --'m glad I missed being on last night. A regular KKK fest, what with Sandy the Bufoon, zouk the Moron, William the Naked Racist, and GOPtool.

Wow. Still smells like sulfur in here. What a stench these creatures leave. Hey kids, here's your favorite --Grand Dragon dickcheney:

'Cheney was terse, too, about leading Democrats. Asked whether he thinks Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) would make a good president, Cheney said simply, "No, I don't."
"Why?""Because she's a Democrat.'

So now, if anyone asks me why I don't think any candidate from the dark side should be prez, I'll simply say, 'because he's a republican.'

And btw, it WILL be a he.

Let's have a vote. Is Cheney the most delusional man on earth, or simply the world's biggest liar?

Posted by: drindl | January 25, 2007 10:26 AM | Report abuse

There was talk in 2004 about how much Teddy Kennedy liked Edwards and would have gone with him had Kerry not been there.

Posted by: Ruffin | January 25, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Chris,
Does race equal endorsement? Obama gets the endorsement of Patrick because they are both black? Come on! I hope I missed something.

Posted by: EAG | January 25, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

I agree with this analysis of the "winners." Kerry had a role because unlike Hillary, Edwards, and Obama he was qualified to be commander-in-chief (and 60 million americans already thought he could clear that hurdle). In fact if you were to look at a list of "experienced" candidates and cross-reference it with a list of candidates with the ability to raise $, Kerry would be the only name on both lists.
The quality of the Dem field takes a huge hit in my opinion with his choice to sit this one out.

Posted by: DB | January 25, 2007 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Apparently when one candidate leaves the race, it's good for all the other candidates who are still in it! Incredible analysis!

Also, how is this bad for Ted Kennedy? It's bad because now his endorsement is more important? That doesn't make any sense. By your explanation, this is good for Kennedy, because it gives him a bigger role in the primary process.

Posted by: Blarg | January 25, 2007 9:40 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company