Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama's Haul Doesn't Make Him the Frontrunner ... Yet

The Fix is officially on vacation, but we couldn't resist offering our observations on the second-quarter fundraising figures released Sunday by the top Democratic campaigns.

The $31 million collected by Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) over the last three months is an eye-popping figure. It's also $10 million more in primary funds than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) collected over that same time. Former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) raised $9 million for the quarter, roughly $2 million more than Gov. Bill Richardson (N.M.).

When this race started it was widely assumed that Clinton would dominate the money chase. But that conventional wisdom has been upended as Obama has outraised Clinton in primary cash for the second straight quarter. Obama's success on the fundraising trail came even as Clinton rode high in national polls and was widely recognized as performing best of the top candidates in the three debates held during the past three months.

Is Obama's fundraising performance a game changer? And should Clinton still be considered the frontrunner?

The answer to both questions, we think, is yes.

Obama is now moving into a position to dictate the terms of the rate and depth of spending in the caucuses and primaries. All of the other candidates -- including Clinton -- will have to watch and see what Obama's spending strategy is over the coming months. Obama will have the resources to run Rolls Royce campaigns in each of the first four states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- and build the sort of organizations in places like Florida, Michigan and California to capitalize on any early momentum he gathers.

The only other candidate who will be able to come close to matching Obama in that process is Clinton. Will she be able to do everything Obama does organizationally and on television? Amazingly, maybe not. But she is the only candidate who can even come close.

She's also the lone woman in the race and has already been through the wringer of national politics, two facts that help her keep the frontrunner label in this race. That's not to say Clinton is a sure-fire winner -- she isn't. But an analysis of all the factors that go into winning (of which money is a big one), Clinton still looks like the strongest of the field today.

The Fix is taking this week off, so posts will be few and far between. We'll be back next week. Happy Fourth of July!

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 2, 2007; 8:15 AM ET
Categories:  '08 Endorsement Elite , Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Line: GOP Hopes to 'ROMP' Its Way Back to House Majority
Next: On McCain's Money (or Lack Thereof)

Comments

When he wrote: "... She's also the lone woman in the race ..." I I think he had in his mind this sentence too: "Obama is the lone non-white!"

Is he trying to get the support for Hillary from the "white supremacist" mentality which he thinks still embeded in the white American?

Duh!

Obama won double winning this time over Hilary: the number of money and voters. Especially the second one: the number of voters! You can win anything, but if you can't get the voters, so what will you get? Be realistic and own to earth!

Obama is not the front runner, but he is the winner in Democrat race. Since he is going to have supporters from Relublic also, so he is surely the next president of the US.

Posted by: Ikra | July 21, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone tell me one policy or stance hillary has taken? I am a huge Obama supporter and get asked all the time how he is different than Hillary. I have researched all I can and have not found one solid or substantial piece of information that details what she would actually do as president.

Posted by: dave | July 9, 2007 3:47 AM | Report abuse

JimD, who like me thinks that Biden, Richardson, and Dodd are the experienced hands on the D side, wrote a note to point out that Obama could surprise because of his personal appeal, and added that he did not favor HRC (7-2, 9:10a). On 7-6, "Spence", claiming to support Obama, wrote 8 angry posts saying JimD's comment made him "want to vomit".

How to win friends and influence people...

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 6, 2007 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Don't be fooled by the polls. I am actively volunteering for Obama. I have gone door to door canvassing, in the heat of Las Vegas!!! There are some who say they are for Hillary and there are some who say they are for Obama. But most voters are undecided. At this point they are trying to decide between Obama and Clinton. Many of these undecided voters want to see a true change, not a recylcing of a past administration.

There's still six months to our Caucus and in that time, Obama's grassroot supporters will continue to work on getting the votes of the Undecided voters. Obama will win in Nevada.

Posted by: Andrea | July 6, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

SAY WHAT ?!! JimD's uneducated comment, expressing concern/s about Mr. Obama's lack of experience make me want to vomit.
Folks that write in, do the blog thing, acting smart while ignorant of facts. To whit: Mr. O has approx. 12 years of germane experience, approx. half again more
than Ms. C's. As a constitutioanl lawyer, having "been there (i.e. in the real life trenches), done that," Mr. O is the most
"experienced" of all candidates. Duh.

Posted by: Spence | July 6, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

SAY WHAT ?!! JimD's uneducated comment, expressing concern/s about Mr. Obama's lack of experience make me want to vomit.
Folks that write in, do the blog thing, acting smart while ignorant of facts. To whit: Mr. O has approx. 12 years of germane experience, approx. half again more
than Ms. C's. As a constitutioanl lawyer, having "been there (i.e. in the real life trenches), done that," Mr. O is the most
"experienced" of all candidates. Duh.

Posted by: Spence | July 6, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

SAY WHAT ?!! JimD's uneducated comment, expressing concern/s about Mr. Obama's lack of experience make me want to vomit.
Folks that write in, do the blog thing, acting smart while ignorant of facts. To whit: Mr. O has approx. 12 years of germane experience, approx. half again more
than Ms. C's. As a constitutioanl lawyer, having "been there (i.e. in the real life trenches), done that," Mr. O is the most
"experienced" of all candidates. Duh.

Posted by: Spence | July 6, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

SAY WHAT ?!! JimD's uneducated comment, expressing concern/s about Mr. Obama's lack of experience make me want to vomit.
Folks that write in, do the blog thing, acting smart while ignorant of facts. To whit: Mr. O has approx. 12 years of germane experience, approx. half again more
than Ms. C's. As a constitutioanl lawyer, having "been there (i.e. in the real life trenches), done that," Mr. O is the most
"experienced" of all candidates. Duh.

Posted by: Spence | July 6, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

SAY WHAT ?!! JimD's uneducated comment, expressing concern/s about Mr. Obama's lack of experience make me want to vomit.
Folks that write in, do the blog thing, acting smart while ignorant of facts. To whit: Mr. O has approx. 12 years of germane experience, approx. half again more
than Ms. C's. As a constitutioanl lawyer, having "been there (i.e. in the real life trenches), done that," Mr. O is the most
"experienced" of all candidates. Duh.

Posted by: Spence | July 6, 2007 10:11 AM | Report abuse

SAY WHAT ?!! JimD's uneducated comment, expressing concern/s about Mr. Obama's lack of experience make me want to vomit.
Folks that write in, do the blog thing, acting smart while ignorant of facts. To whit: Mr. O has approx. 12 years of germane experience, approx. half again more
than Ms. C's. As a constitutioanl lawyer, having "been there (i.e. in the real life trenches), done that," Mr. O is the most
"experienced" of all candidates. Duh.

Posted by: Spence | July 6, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

SAY WHAT ?!! JimD's uneducated comment, expressing concern/s about Mr. Obama's lack of experience make me want to vomit.
Folks that write in, do the blog thing, acting smart while ignorant of facts. To whit: Mr. O has approx. 12 years of germane experience, approx. half again more
than Ms. C's. As a constitutioanl lawyer, having "been there (i.e. in the real life trenches), done that," Mr. O is the most
"experienced" of all candidates. Duh.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

SAY WHAT ?!! JimD's uneducated comment, expressing concern/s about Mr. Obama's lack of experience make me want to vomit.
Folks that write in, do the blog thing, acting smart while ignorant of facts. To whit: Mr. O has approx. 12 years of germane experience, approx. half again more
than Ms. C's. As a constitutioanl lawyer, having "been there (i.e. in the real life trenches), done that," Mr. O is the most
"experienced" of all candidates. Duh.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 6, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Well said Rich. ALL power BACK to the PEOPLE

Posted by: JKRish | July 5, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

When you analyze Clinton vs. Obama, you are seeing the clear distinction between the top down campaign of Clinton vs. a grass-roots populist campaign of Obama. Polls do not well gauge the depth of support for the candidate. The paradox for Clinton is that she needs money to perpetuate her goals to citizens who only need to be convinced to vote for her on primary day and then go back to their non-political lives. With Obama, he will have the strength of an army of volunteers knocking on their neighbors doors out of the passion of their commitment to the campaign. On top of that, he will be able to at least match Hillary's ad budget, thus neutralizing her main strategy, to have a war chest that scares away serious competition.

I don't see how polling can measure Obama's grassroots strength at this early point in the race. The money picture gives us a clue how strong his support will be when the electorate is ready to pay attention. Until then, I think you could judge Obama's strength as "Run silent, run deep."

Posted by: Rich Evans | July 5, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

the anit-hillary republican push is generated by rush/hannity/fox news. it is generated to be anti-them. they really are going to vote for her. It's a lie. She's a republican. Wthout bill Clinton's issues would would tony snow and the repubs point to. Why should bush not charged for his crimes? " clinton did this or that." Now what if the clintons are republicans? then what do you have? As of now they are not dems. They are moderate republicnas, now.

""All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates, namely George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton (who attended the University's Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), and George W. Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney, (although he did not graduate). Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: Bush, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.

Other Yale-educated presidents were William Howard Taft (B.A.) and Gerald Ford (LL.B). Alumni also include several Supreme Court justices, including current Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito."

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 5, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Money that would otherwise have gone toward the ideal Republican (the candidate that they haven't got yet) is going to Obama in small, effectively anonymous internet donations in an attempt to create as much havoc for HRC as possible."

so your telling these people that Obama's claim that he is for change is a lie? What is he changing? The republican culture of lawlessness. The corruption culture. So he's agaisnt everythign the repubs have been for the last TEN plus years.ANd the republicans are giving him money for this?

I doubt it. He is getting money form me, and people like me. Grass roots liberals. Good try. But it is either a lie, or you are misinformed IB

Posted by: rufus | July 5, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Consider this conspiracy theory:

The Republicans desperately want to knock HRC off the block in the primarys, believing that any other Democrat would be easier to beat in the General Election (particularly Obama).

Money that would otherwise have gone toward the ideal Republican (the candidate that they haven't got yet) is going to Obama in small, effectively anonymous internet donations in an attempt to create as much havoc for HRC as possible.

In this way they buy time to get Fred Thompson (or whomever) up and running as a candidate while preventing HRC from building the kind of momentum that would carry her and the other Democrats running for Senate/Congress from January right through another overwhelming national victory in November.

Why not?

Posted by: IB | July 5, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Bush 41 and clinton also toured the wrold for a year or so togher. Wrong people at the wrong time, for me anyway. I'm telling everyone Hillary is a fraud. HEr as the dem candidate is reb vs reb. That is their only chance.

I hope an ondependant comes and blows them all out of the water. Or better yet. Obama as an independant

Posted by: rufs | July 5, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

WOW brad. Read up

"Murdoch is the symbol of media conglomeration and the owner of Republican mouthpieces like Fox News, Weekly Standard and the New York Post. He and Hillary have lately conducted a public courtship. Last month, Hillary attended the 10th anniversary party for Fox News in Washington, where the presidential contender schmoozed Murdoch and Fox chair Roger Ailes. According to the Financial Times, Bill Clinton will address the summer conference of Murdoch's media colossus, News Corp. "

"It's actually quite fitting that President Clinton address News Corp, since he helped build that conglomerate -- through his Telecommunications "Reform" Act of 1996, a corrupt measure largely drafted by lobbyists for the media industry as they lavished campaign cash on politicians of both parties. The law loosened regulations constraining News Corp's growth and raised caps on how many TV stations Murdoch and others could own. Murdoch immediately bought up new stations. Clear Channel expanded from 40 radio stations to 1,200; rightwing Sinclair Broadcasting expanded from 11 TV stations to 60. "

"Former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton Help Dedicate New Billy Graham Library in Charlotte
May 31: Private Dedication Ceremony Planned (Open to Media)

June 5: Scheduled to Open to the Public

Contact: Jeremy Blume, 404-538-8589 cell

CHARLOTTE, N.C., May 3 /Standard Newswire/ -- Family, friends, and former presidents will be among the guests joining Billy Graham in Charlotte to help dedicate the new Billy Graham Library May 31 at 2 p.m.

The 40,000-square-foot Library depicts the life of evangelist Billy Graham and rather than simply serving as a memorial, is designed to inspire visitors as part of the ongoing outreach of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA). Located on the grounds of the organization's international headquarters, the Library is designed to resemble a barn, recalling Graham's childhood on the family dairy farm in Charlotte. It will house six exhibits, four galleries, and two theaters, covering the span of Graham's lifetime work on six continents speaking to more than 210 million people. The Library will also be the repository for Graham's personal papers, including his correspondence and sermon manuscripts."

As opposed to Obama who removed himself from the fox debate because "they'r enot news"

Please stop propogating lies brad. You can't win. Lies can never beat truth. Ever. It's impossible

Posted by: rufus | July 5, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

I believe everyone is over looking the obvious..Obama is the reciepient of alot of Republican cash.. The republicans want Obama on the ticket. This would enhance their chance of winning the election. Hillary is probably the one with mostly Democratic contributions.

Posted by: Brad | July 5, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

This month Obama will contrast himself. Fox "News" is raising money for Hildog this month. As opposed to Obama (edawrds) Removing himself from the CB FOx debate becuase they're not real news. They are US weekly and should be treated accordingly. Hillary is getting closer to Bush and her yale ties. Obama is distancing himself from them.

"All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates, namely George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton (who attended the University's Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), and George W. Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney, (although he did not graduate). Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: Bush, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.

Other Yale-educated presidents were William Howard Taft (B.A.) and Gerald Ford (LL.B). Alumni also include several Supreme Court justices, including current Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito."

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 5, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

This is just a note that Obama had some interesting comments in the press today. Broadly he argues that he is the candidate most capable of bridging divisions and bringing about the changes that people want. He also addresses the issue of his experience, suggesting it is a virtue that much of his experience has been outside of Washington. Most interesting, perhaps, is that he basically took on the Bill Factor, praising the former President but arguing that people want to move forward and not return to the partisanship of that era.

So, I think we are beginning to see a bit more clearly how he intends to contrast himself with Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: DTM | July 4, 2007 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Read both of Obama's books and can't understand why he is not doing better in the debates. Maybe he needs to memorize passages and use them.
Obama does not seem to be going for the brass ring during the debates, it's more like he is trying out for runner-up, or for the vice-president's spot.
But can't imagine that the Democrats are going to pair two "firsts" as a ticket.

Posted by: Ohio | July 4, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Read both of Obama's books and can't understand why he is not doing better in the debates. Maybe he needs to memorize passages and use them.
Obama does not seem to be going for the brass ring during the debates, it's more like he is trying out for runner-up, or for the vice-president's spot.
But can't imagine that the Democrats are going to pair two "firsts" as a ticket.

Posted by: Ohio | July 4, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

I thought there was no way Obama could outraise Clinton in 2 straight cycles, and I was wrong. Wow! He outraised her handily this go around. It's impressive. He now has the key to set the stage in spending in the early states in this primary and can use that to his advantage. He's in good shape.

Clinton is the proposed front runner and any early loss for her, including these fundraising battles, shakes her foundation of frontrunner. Edwards is putting everything he has into winning Iowa, which he's doing. An Edward's win in Iowa truly would make this primary very competitive. Of the top 4 states, Obama has a great shot of winning in South Carolina, with the black population there. Clinton has New Hampshire won, I think. But, with a 3 way split plus a competitive Nevada...it could be a long and drawn out Democratic primary. Especially with the democratic rules of giving some votes based on %'s.

Posted by: reason | July 4, 2007 9:30 AM | Report abuse

"You know, when I used to live in Bonn, there was AFN (American Forces Network) on the airwaves. They broadcast the Rush Limbaugh Show. I couldn't believe someone would be allowed to spew the vilest rhetoric on a public-financed radio station! I was even more shocked to later learn that such talk-show hosts have considerable political influence. We just don't have that sort of thing here in Germany. Thank heavens.

People such as Limbaugh have poisoned US political discourse. I'd say that much of US mass media is decent enough (though weak on international affairs and overly driven by the hectic 24/7 news cycle). It's the whacky fringe (which includes Fox News, IMO), which has spoilt the political debate culture."

Thanks for that charles. I don't understand it at all either. Their time is almost up. We have senators standing up now. Nothing will happen while bush is president (of course). But their time is almost up. Rush/Sean hannity/Bill O'Reilly ARE the conservative movement. It feeds off them, it needes them. Without the conservatives avatars their fascist movement is done. We got a few months left of this garbage. Then they are gone.

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 4, 2007 12:55 AM | Report abuse

SO THE ALLEGED NEWS SAYS THAT MR. OBAMA HAS RAISED A RECORD AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR HIS CAMPAIGN. SHOULDN'T HIS VIEWS AND HIS PLATFORM BE THE PRIMARY ISSUE?

Posted by: GUY FOX | July 3, 2007 10:53 PM | Report abuse

SO THE ALLEGED NEWS SAYS THAT MR. OBAMA HAS RAISED A RECORD AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR HIS CAMPAIGN. SHOULDN'T HIS VIEWS AND HIS PLATFORM BE THE PRIMARY ISSUE?

Posted by: GUY FOX | July 3, 2007 10:53 PM | Report abuse

This is kind of interesting. I have been looking through Hillary's financials and find that Bill Clinton is a paid consultant (to the tune of millions) for the company that does CNN's polling.

Seriously. Bill Clinton is a paid consultant for "Info USA" (page 6, line 6) which is a mass mailing company owned by Clinton Friend Vinod Gupta. "Info USA" in turn owns "Opinion Research Corporation" (bought in Aug '06) which is CNN's polling company.

I guess that is one way to get ahead in the polls!

Posted by: George | July 3, 2007 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Let me respond to a number of comments made above:

----

ProudtobeGOP disagreeing with my view that McCain being himself often his worst enemy:

>>>I couldn't disagree more. John McCain is THE most consistent candidate, nay politician, in America today.

He's a politicians with principles. As I said I respect him and would welcome him winning his party's nomination. (Though I was equally impressed by a thoughtful interview Brownback once gave to the BBC World Service I listened to (not about presidential politics, iirc). But I don't know enough about Brownback to - hehe - endorse him.)

>>> The quote you referenced was taken waaay out of context by the MSM

Proud, care to explain? I believe I just saw that youtube video and read the odd news story about it. I cannot recall any mitigating circumstances.

>>> and like the Senator said, who are we worrying about offending? Iran? The terrorist-sponsoring state with a madman dictator intent on accelerating the apocalypse?

WOW. He said that? I'm disappointed. Doesn't he understand that such gratuitous anti-Iranian rhetoric serves Ahmenidijad (sp?) as a rallying point at a time his government is getting ever more unpopular? The Iranian president must surely be grateful for the Arizona senator providing him with free propaganda ammo!

Iran is not a monolithic country! The West needs to win the hearts and minds of Iranians and encourage the reform movement present in Iran. Bellicose anti-Iranian ditties undermine that cause.

In the past, I would have thought McCain would understand that. Apparently, he needs to take another look at Diplomacy 101.

His "Bomb Iran" joke was most unhelpful, boneheaded and shows a lack of discipline worrysome in someone who seeks the most important office on earth after the papacy.

Just not smart, to say the least... I wish more US politicians would live abroad for some time... That'd be invaluable experience.

His failure to apologize for it strikes me as even worse. I REALLY regret having to say this, Proud. I like him, but I'm getting ever more doubtful about him being true presidential material.

>>> The R social cons are his worst enemy, because of his proncipled stand on legislative reform and his courage in doing what he believes is right for the country.

Kudos to McCain for that.

------------

Rufus:

>>> Thank you for your opinion Charles. It's always good to get outside opinions. Thank you for you interest and posts. Good luck to you.

Thanks, Rufus.

>>>If the election goes south I may be forced to flee the country. I may end up out there with my kinfolk :) Thanks again

Come to Berlin. A great city. We have plenty US ex-patriates here. Hey, we now even have a local NPR FM station! :)

>>> Don't worry about the attacks. It's a part of life here. Daily Propoganda lies and misdirection.

You know, when I used to live in Bonn, there was AFN (American Forces Network) on the airwaves. They broadcast the Rush Limbaugh Show. I couldn't believe someone would be allowed to spew the vilest rhetoric on a public-financed radio station! I was even more shocked to later learn that such talk-show hosts have considerable political influence. We just don't have that sort of thing here in Germany. Thank heavens.

People such as Limbaugh have poisoned US political discourse. I'd say that much of US mass media is decent enough (though weak on international affairs and overly driven by the hectic 24/7 news cycle). It's the whacky fringe (which includes Fox News, IMO), which has spoilt the political debate culture.

---------

Drindl:

>>> Charles in Berlin, I do agree with your take on a lot of stuff. As for 'conservatism' in the US -- it no longer exists.

It's at least having a hard time getting heard within the GOP. I wonder whether the GOP will go down the drains for the next decade or so, much like the British Tories (widely perceived as "nasty" and "sleazy") did.

By comparison, continental Christian-Democratic parties have flourished. I think there's a great difference between the pro-establishment Burkean/Thatcherite Anglo-Saxon brand of conservatism and continental christian-democracy, which - drawing considerably from the historical Catholic social movement - very much fits the "compassionate conservatism" bill, IMO.

Okay, I hope I'm not getting too tiresome touting the continental/German model in regards to political culture. I just am happier how things are over here. That said, there are plenty of things I believe you do a whole lot better over in the States. But that's a whole different debate thread...

-------

Sarah:

>>> You see, Charles in Berlin? You see the 'conservatives' in this country? They applaud when a lawyer lies to a court. They want a convicted felon set free.

Sarah, I certainly think it's yet another low-point of this US administration. I guess they thought they could afford it since the Bush administration can hardly go any lower in its approval ratings.

What shocked me a lot more was that Republicans outside the Bush administration have equally championed Libby's cause. For instance, Fred Thompson - Mr. Law & Order?!? Perhaps he should have been cast for the "Sopranos" instead. :p (Although I admit to sheer ignorance here. I've never seen either show. Not much a fan of US TV shows.)

Posted by: Charles from Berlin | July 3, 2007 8:15 PM | Report abuse

KOZ & Proud -- actually, the CIA has confirmed that Plame was covert when her identity was revealed.

"On March 16, 2007, at these hearings about the disclosure, Chairman Henry Waxman read a statement about Plame's CIA career that had been cleared by CIA director Gen. Michael V. Hayden and the CIA:
During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.

Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.

This was classified information..."

See ^ "Statement of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Chairman"PDF (156 KiB), "Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Hearing on Disclosure of CIA Agent Valerie Plame Wilson's ldentity and White House Procedures for Safeguarding Classified Information", online posting, U.S. House Committee on Government Reform, oversight.house.gov, March 16, 2007: 2, accessed March 19, 2007

Posted by: Colin | July 3, 2007 7:00 PM | Report abuse

"Many of the lower educated minority and Hispanic women who form the base of Hillary's support have not even heard of Barack Obama now."

This is an interesting point, given that last December, Clinton was ahead with Hispanics of both genders (and indeed of blacks of both genders, which is no longer the case). Could it be that male Hispanics talk about politics more than female Hispanics, and so the males are now more familiar with both candidates than they were in December or than the females are now? If so, we can expect female Hispanics to change their preferences later, as Robert Morrow predicts.

Posted by: Golgi | July 3, 2007 6:56 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY SITS IN A PRECARIOUS POSITION

Many of the lower educated minority and Hispanic women who form the base of Hillary's support have not even heard of Barack Obama now. They sure will in about 4-5 months will all the money he has, especially if he wins an early primary or two; Obama will be able to give these lowere educated ladies an attractive choice to Nurse Ratched.
There are 2 Democratic primaries: the primary of the elites and fund raisers which is going on now and 2) the real primary which occurs next Jan. and February. Obama is kicking Hillary's tail in the primary of the elites (31M to 21M in primary money; tons more small contributors). Those small contributors vote, by the way, and they also volunteer for campaigns. Also, Hillary is hated on the internet by both the right AND left wing. Hillary purely the "establishment" candidate; the Clintons have lost touch with grassroots which can be fatal if you don't have an overwhelming financial advantage. Double fatal if your attractive, personal candidate raises more than you.
Hillary's support is broad, but it is not deep and not passionate. It is not a tidal wave; think of it as a mile of 3 inch deep water. She is raising money out of fear. Obama is raising money out of love.
The key number to watch at www.intrade.com is 40% - if Hillary drops below it OR Obama goes above it, that will be big news.

Posted by: Robert Morrow | July 3, 2007 6:48 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP--"All this liberal whining is so predictable as to be absurd. Libby IS being punished. He will have a felony record going forward, probably lose his law license, can't vote, can't own a firearm, he's on 2 years of probation and has to pay a quarter of a million dollars."

Except his legal defence fund already has millions of dollars. And he will be--guaranteed--in a cushy GOP job as soon as the dust settles, within four months. All these people cheering him on, they would probably have no qualms employing him, or do you disagree?


"I'd say that's a reasonable punishment for someone who was the victim of prosecutorial misconduct after Fizgerald found out that Armitage was, in fact, the leaker, and yet continued to prosecute Scooter."

Fitzgerald acted perfectly correctly. Lying and obstruction is punishable.

Do you know how many people are currently jailed for perjury, lying to the FBI (or another federal agency) or obstruction of justice? Should they all be set free, too?

Posted by: roo | July 3, 2007 6:39 PM | Report abuse

"Please do not use the words of Maritn Luther King,gopie, a man your party wanted to assasinate. You are filth; you soil his memory."

they may have succeded. We don't know. The gop has it's secrets. Many murders that we don't know. They have used false falg terrorism many times since the 50's. Who knows about King/X/Kenneddy.

Posted by: rufus | July 3, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

"Please do not use the words of Maritn Luther King,gopie, a man your party wanted to assasinate. You are filth; you soil his memory."

Word is born. Spying on him illegally. What else is new. John Lennon.

Fascists. This used to be a country of laws. Let's ship these traitors to austrailia

Posted by: rufus | July 3, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

a democratic socialist, excuse me.

I don't believe in corporate slavery. I don't believe in ALL americans paying taxs and rather than that going to the people it goes over seas or in the pockets of the top %5.

Our taxes should directly beneifit AMERICANS. Not iraq's or mexicans.

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 3, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

"rufus -You scoff at patriotism; since you are an admitted communist, I am not surprised. Consider this...everybody must determine what they are willing to die for. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "A man who won't die for something is not fit to live."

I said patriotism is the cruth of the weak. I never said I wasn't a patriot. I never said we done need patriot's. I said if that's all you rely on , AS OPPOSED TO FACTS/morales/values/individuality/your own eyes, then you are weak minded.

Anybody can CLAIM to BE a patriot. The prove is in the puddin. A patriot would never allow their country to be gutted from the top down. I patriot would nver trade the blood of other patriot's dying for their country for one dollar. That is what I'm saying. Don't mix up my words. Do your thing I'll do mine.

And I'm a socialist you fascist :)

Posted by: rufus | July 3, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

That is a dream.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

I have a dream - of a day when a Lib will make sense.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Please do not use the words of Maritn Luther King,gopie, a man your party wanted to assasinate. You are filth; you soil his memory.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Here's a beautiful piece by an esteemed and objective journalist from a most respectable British paper on the portrayal of the Obama campaign in the American media. More confirmation why I came down hard on the media in my earlier post. We were right Obamites. Read this and spread the word. This is coming from an insider journalist who knows how the American media has joined forces with the political establishment to impact our political process. We're lucky we contributed money towards the Obama campaign so he was able to beat Hillary again for the second quarter. If Hillary had raised more money than Obama this second quarter, it'd have been the final nail on his coffin. The media would have effectively closed the door on his campaign. Thank God we have the internet, we can beat them at their own game. DO NOT RELENT, WE HAVE TO KEEP FIGHTING TO GET WHAT WE WANT! SUPPORT however you can. It's not insignificant!!

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_tomasky/2007/07/obamas_amazing_haul.html

Posted by: Joe S. | July 3, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Here's a beautiful piece by an esteemed and objective journalist from a most respectable British paper on the portrayal of the Obama campaign in the American media. More confirmation why I came down hard on the media in my earlier post. We were right Obamites. Read this and spread the word. This is coming from an insider journalist who knows how the American media has joined forces with the political establishment to impact our political process. We're lucky we contributed money towards the Obama campaign so he was able to beat Hillary again for the second quarter. If Hillary had raised more money than Obama this second quarter, it'd have been the final nail on his coffin. The media would have effectively closed the door on his campaign. Thank God we have the internet, we can beat them at their own game. DO NOT RELENT, WE HAVE TO KEEP FIGHTING TO GET WHAT WE WANT! SUPPORT however you can. It's not insignificant!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/politics/

Posted by: Joe S. | July 3, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Hey, I think somebody should kill Ann Coulter. Just joking.

Posted by: Dan Coulter | July 3, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

rufus -You scoff at patriotism; since you are an admitted communist, I am not surprised. Consider this...everybody must determine what they are willing to die for. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "A man who won't die for something is not fit to live."

Our country was established because our founding fathers were willing to die to establish this great country of ours. What cause is noble and honorable enough to die for? Perhaps, protecting these patriotic virtues. Or, defending your family and friends from harm. This is something that is very personal and not to be taken lightly.

One man with courage is a majority.
- Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 3, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Colin, do you have experience with criminal appeals? If you do, can you rate the probability of success of the Libby argument that the special prosecutor, under the current authorization, exceeded his jurisdiction?

If I were on the Federal bench I would usually give non-violent offenders facing less than five year sentences bail pending appeal, if it were in my power to do so. Obviously, I would do this so that if their appeal was successful they would not have served "non-refundable" time. This Judge has a record as a hard-nose, however, so while I disagree with his one-size fits-all-sentencing-and-that-size-is- - - mucho grande, he has to get points for treating Libby as shabbily as he treats everyone else.

I am going to guess that the motive for the commutation goes no deeper than GWB's valuing personal loyalty above everything, even above political good sense. There is nothing in this story that makes for high drama, but the Rs who wanted him pardoned look hypocritical at best, while the Ds lamenting clemency have cranked the volume so high that they will regret this, tit-for-tat, in some as yet unknown future confrontation.

Back to my first question. If Bush's legal team has told GWB that Libby is likely to prevail on appeal, I give Bush a pass on the commutation. I do not think that happened, but I speak without any Federal criminal experience since we abandoned court appointments in Austin for a Fed PD system, @1990.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 3, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

AAAHGHGHGGHHGH

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Colin, Sarah: If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you've said -- unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist.

In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It's like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder.

Posted by: Anne Coulter | July 3, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the on point posts, by the way sarah

Posted by: rufus | July 3, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

What's the saying Sarah? "Patriotism is the crutch of the weak minded."

Something like that.

Posted by: rufus | July 3, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

'On second thought, don't tell me. I can't bear to read another of your sad, delusional left-over-hippie posts.'

Talk about sad and delusional, proud to be a moron and a dittohead and a trained seal and a sheep. Proud to ignore the laws, ignore the crime, ignore the lies, proud to support Great Leader, no matter what. Just like the nazis.

Proud to put jpartisanship above patriotism, above country, above friends and family and the future. Proud to be a fascist. If I wre you I would kill myself.

Posted by: Sarah. | July 3, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

republcians have no *f*cking* clue what the word 'truth' even means.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"Colin - be honest - why does a prosecuter continue to pursue a line of questions he already knows the answer to. It is called setting a trap. the motivation will always remain clouded. but this was clearly a political persecution. and the remedy for that is a presidential pardon. the system works magnificently."

Libby had to lie. He tells the truth and All the honchos go down. Bush/cheany/rove. Set a trap? What asking him questions and expecting him to TELL the TRUTH. That's setting a trap? Only in your world zouk. If he tld the truth he wouldn't be charged. But the above would ALL be going down. That's not a trap. That's libby and the executive branch covering up a felony. Wake-up. You righties can't really be that dumb. Can you?

I have been under the assumption that all you were just being mislead by rush/hannity/fox news. You mean you people really are that dumb to fall for bush's tricks. I thought it was all a ,(dumb) Paris hilton like, act )

Posted by: rufus | July 3, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"Libby's conviction, for which he is being duly punished, is for non-remembrance of details of the non-coverup of a non-crime, the non-crime being the non-outing of a non-covert desk jockey. "

wHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAT? I'm not sure how you can agrue facts with people who have no idea what the FACTS ARE. Fox is still trying to push Plame was not covert. That is a lie. It is a proven lie, IN COURT. If she wasn't covert libby OR armitige wouldn't have done anything wrong.

I think a newsman who reports these kinds of falshoods should be stripped of their journist creditials. I don't blame you proudgop. You just ignorant of the facsts. Try watch news other than fox once and a while

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 3, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Colin, your rebuttal suffers from several poor assumptions and matters of fact.
1. It has never been established that she was covert, in fact her husband revealed her occupation several months before. this aspect of the case is not established. why claim it when you must know it is not true? Is your argument that weak?
2. who appoints the players is irrelevant. Once assigned, the motivation for a prosecuter is to obtain convictions, high profile ones if possible. would you want to return a few years and many dollars later and report back - never mind, I have wasted your time here?

Regardless of all these details, the President has absolute authority to grant pardons and this Presidnet has used this authority judiciously, especially compared to the previous one.

Why do you Libs continue to pursue all these actions which have no underlying problems - such as pardons, firing attorneys, going to war after consulting Congress etc. don't you have anything better to waste your time doing. Like maybe trying to get a vote on cutting off military funding, or fixing SS. your time would be much better served concocting more crooked land deals wouldn't it?

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 3, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- your theory has several problems. First, where the crime being investigated involves the leaking of a covert agents identity it is quite logical to assume that multiple individuals were involved. Given that the back story here involved a leak aimed to hurt a political opponent, that is doubly true. Second, any time you put together a criminal case you want to verify any and all information that you've compiled. Accordingly, you test that information by interviewing additional people -- like Libby. Third, explain to me again how this case was "political" given that EVERY primary player, from the prosecutor to the Judge, was appointed not just by a REPUBLICAN but by GEORGE W. BUSH himself. Heck, the Judge was appointed first by Reagan, then by Bush I, and then by 'W.' With that case of characters, you really want to argue this was a "political" prosecution? Tough sell my friend.

Posted by: Colin | July 3, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Colin - be honest - why does a prosecuter continue to pursue a line of questions he already knows the answer to. It is called setting a trap. the motivation will always remain clouded. but this was clearly a political persecution. and the remedy for that is a presidential pardon. the system works magnificently.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 3, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

The truth is anathema to a clinton.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Proud -- Sorry if I didn't keep all of your "non-s" straight. It's hard when several of them are simply incorrect. Plame was a covert agent. That's been proven over and over again. Her name was leaked, as a form of political hackery that was likely orchestrated by Rove and Cheney -- although we'll never know for sure, in part b/c Libby fell on his sword.

Also, Libby wasn't convicted for not remembering things -- if the Jury believed that story, which the defense argued, then he wouldn't have been convicted.

Finally, any comment on the fact that -- as I pointed out before -- the prosecutor and Judge that pursued this case were conservative republicans, yet apparently thought this was a serious issue? I suspect not, but would be curious to hear you disparage them as well.

Posted by: Colin | July 3, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

More examples of how the media is pushing Clinton on us.

The heavily media promoted rally with Bill and Hillary in Des Moines Iowa only drew a crowd (mainly for Bill) of 3,000 yet the Clinton campaign is saying 7,000 and some of the media is reporting this inflated number.

Local TV station states this in a video and explains why the Clinton camp is inflating because Obama brought out a crowd of 6,500 in Ames Iowa.

Why can't we have honest politicians?

Well we can, caucus and vote in the primaries for Obama!

http://www.whotv.com/global/story.asp?s=6740789

Posted by: Mary | July 3, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Colin - You deliberately misquote me just to twist the debate. Clever. yet predictable.

Libby's conviction, for which he is being duly punished, is for non-remembrance of details of the non-coverup of a non-crime, the non-crime being the non-outing of a non-covert desk jockey.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 3, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Mark -- I can understand why you saw the situation leading up to the war the way you did. LOTS of responsible, intelligent, and completely reasonable people felt the same way. Heck, if Bush I had made the same arguments 'W' made, I might have given the administration the benefit of the doubt. I CERTAINLY would have felt differently if a republican like Ford or Eisenhower had been POTUS.

What's still frustrating to me about the issue today, and why I think the Democratic candidates views on the war authorization matter, is that no one with any power or access to information provided a needed skeptical voice to challenge the administration leading up to the war. To do that, at that moment in time, would have taken a great deal of political courage -- and I honestly wish that someone capable of making headlines like Senator Clinton had decided to take the risk and shine a flashlight on the administration's claims. If she had, things might have turned out differently. At the least, the public -- including you and I -- would have gotten a more well rounded view of the issue.

Posted by: Colin | July 3, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

"Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq...So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Clinton (D-NY), Yea

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237


Posted by: Hillary Clinton | July 3, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Proud -- Funny, most people who have worked in the justice system don't consider lying to federal prosecutors a "non-crime." I'm sure they're all just "liberals" though, which means you don't have to even consider their viewpoint. But wait, wasn't the prosecutor who went after Libby a republican apointed by Bush? And the Judge was appointed by Reagan...? It's almost as if this isn't a partisan issue at all...


Posted by: Colin | July 3, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I am moving to the new discussion, but will return here from time to time.

Posted by: lylepink | July 3, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP: For some reason you are unable to read what I have typed and posted. The things you list and ask why they are not punishment. Lets go over some of them. Pays a fine, nope, his supporters will pay. Lose his right to own a firearm and vote by being a convicted felon, means little to nothing to a person like him. Probable disbarment, nothing there either. The one thing that was punishment to him was going to prison, and I was correct in my prediction that he would not spend one day in prison. The other, "HILLARY DID NOT VOTE TO GO TO WAR IN IRAQ.". No matter how many times the opponents of Hillary, and I consider you among them, repeat this FLAT OUT LIE, I will call you on it each and every time I see it.

Posted by: lylepink | July 3, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

3:05P was my doing.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 3, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

For what it's worth, many Israelis think Joe Lieberman is not sufficiently pro-Israel, and AIPAC favors economic sanctions on Iraq, not military intervention - I just looked at several web sites. That in no way excuses his overtly aggressive posturing toward Iran, which is Cheney-esque, if not burlesque.

I used to like the guy.
------------------------
Colin, I took Scowcroft's warning against invading Iraq in August 2002 as somehow indicative of Administration thinking, and while I preferred the resolution that I think Levin or Byrd authored telling the Admin to come back to Congress for actual invasion authority, I was sure there would not be a pretext invasion. I told many people I was afraid Iraq could become our "West Bank." A War College Prof told me there was no pressing need to invade Iraq, just a need to get them to allow full inspections again. I saw enough of what I wanted to see - Scowcroft and Baker op-eds for no invasion without a grand alliance and UN support, Powell saying we needed to pressure Saddam; to discount Cheney, Bush, and Rummy as sabre-rattling for effect.

When Canada asked for one more week at the UN and we said "no" and Canada, which had authorized $2B for the Iraq war, said that in that case they wanted no part of it, I began to feel "had". Then Tony Blair's brilliant speech to Commons made me feel better. Turns out both Blair and Rummy actually intended to turn Iraq over to the UN in 3 months.

I am recounting those days as honestly as I can, because looking back, I do believe that Graham and Levin and many others [read, Obama] saw this coming, and that I should have. So I am not a candidate for President and no one cares much what I thought - and I am probably more tolerant of the majorities in both parties who screwed up than I would be if I had studied the signs as carefully as I did and had got them right.


Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic presidential candidates have erased and reversed Republicans' historic edge in raising money for campaigns, reflecting growing enthusiasm among Democrats and adding to the GOP's already considerable burdens going into 2008.

Two Democratic candidates -- Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton -- shattered previous quarterly fundraising records in the three-month period that ended Saturday. Obama raised $31 million for his primary campaign, while Clinton raised $21 million; both figures broke the previous record for a Democrat's best fundraising quarter this early in an election cycle.

Posted by: we're fed up with gop stalinism | July 3, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

'A secret U.S. law enforcement report, prepared for the Department of Homeland Security, warns that al Qaeda is planning a terror "spectacular" this summer, according to a senior official with access to the document.'

Time for bush to take a monthlong vacation, right?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

'A secret U.S. law enforcement report, prepared for the Department of Homeland Security, warns that al Qaeda is planning a terror "spectacular" this summer, according to a senior official with access to the document.'

I guess it's time for our president to take a month-long vacation again, don't you?

Posted by: Sam | July 3, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Any allegation against Bush? 'Clinton did something bad 10 years ago.' That's the extent of their thinking. Weasels.

Will Bush just walk? Will he be able to leave the White House and never account for all of his law breaking and imperial acts? The man thinks he is above the law. Is he?

Do we hold our presidents accountable in this country? Are we truly a democracy? Or have we become like any third rate society that bows down to their leaders no matter what they do?

You know the answer. You can see it here.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

n the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:

[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...

Madison went on to [say] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

On June 9, 2003, just one day after his national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, got beaten up on the Sunday shows for claiming no one in the administration knew that the Niger intelligence was bunk, George Bush expressed concern about the allegations. Scooter Libby passed on that concern to vice president Cheney. Bush's concern set off a chain of events that ended up in the outing of a CIA spy, Valerie Plame, and the indictment and conviction of Scooter Libby.

Yesterday, George Bush attempted to prevent that chain of events from continuing any further. He commuted Scooter Libby's 30-month sentence. Rather than serving time in jail, Libby will remain free, with a fine and probation as the only remaining punishments for lying and obstructing a criminal investigation. But the real effect of Bush's actions is to prevent Libby from revealing the truth about Bush's - and vice president Cheney's - own actions in the leak. By commuting Libby's sentence, Bush protected himself and his vice president from potential criminal exposure for their actions in the CIA Leak. As such, Libby's commutation is nothing short of another obstruction of justice.

Cheney's involvement in the CIA leak case is central. He personally undertook research on Joe Wilson and his trip; while doing that research, Cheney learned that Wilson's wife worked in the counter-proliferation division of the CIA, the part of the clandestine services that fights the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Cheney then passed on the news of Plame's CIA identity to Libby....

Posted by: shameless traitors | July 3, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton issued 140 pardons as well as several commutations on his last day of office (January 20, 2001).[11] When a sentence is commuted, the conviction remains intact, but the sentence can be altered in a number of ways. Some controversial actions include the following:

Carlos A. Vignali had his sentence for cocaine trafficking commuted, after serving 6 of 15 years in federal prison.
Almon Glenn Braswell was pardoned of his mail fraud and perjury convictions, even while a federal investigation was underway regarding additional money laundering and tax evasion charges.[12] Braswell and Carlos Vignali each paid approximately $200,000 to Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, to represent their respective cases for clemency. Hugh Rodham returned the payments after they were disclosed to the public. Braswell would later invoke the Fifth Amendment at a Senate Committee hearing in 2001, when questioned about allegations of his having systematically defrauded senior citizens of millions of dollars.[13]"


Posted by: FH | July 3, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Overlooked in the commentary I've seen is that Judge Reggie B. Walton, whose sentence of Scooter Libby was just obliterated by George W. Bush, was appointed to the bench three times by Republican presidents. According to his website, Judge Walton was nominated to the Federal District Court by...George W. Bush. His previous judicial experience, in D. C. courts, came as a result of nominations by...Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. During the interim two years between the latter appointments, he served in White House advisory positions, including that of Bush I's Senior White House Advisor for Crime.

Overruling Judge Walton's sentence is not (as some of this morning's articles have suggested) an exceptional act of hypocrisy, a peculiar moment when the president finds it useful to shovel red meat into the maw of the base. It's a representative act of what, in the old Communist bloc, they called "politics takes command," or choosing "redness over expertise."

Posted by: choosing politics over patriotism | July 3, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

FU, JD. You're just like every other R on here - shameless hypocrite.

'Cassandra, "Move on"

Your statement is ridiculous, since you have no evidence to make it.'

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

There are just too many ways to pick apart the hollowness, the transparency of President Bush's fear-based commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence. Thirty months was apparently 'excessive', despite the fact that this is what the federal sentencing guidelines recommend and numerous people are thus today sitting in prison under a similarly excessive term.

But, okay, let's say it's excessive. What would be appropriate? One year? Six months? A month? Can anyone really say that the prosecution was legitimate (which the president does) and that the verdict was legitimate (which the president does) and that probation with no jail time is the appropriate penalty?

Paris Hilton did more time than Scooter Libby.

Posted by: ** | July 3, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

The decline of undercover reporting -- and of investigative reporting in general -- also reflects, in part, the increasing conservatism and cautiousness of the media, especially the smug, high-end Washington press corps. As reporters have grown more socially prominent during the last several decades, they've become part of the very power structure that they're supposed to be tracking and scrutinizing.

Posted by: the decline of journalism | July 3, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Cassandra, "Move on"

Your statement is ridiculous, since you have no evidence to make it.

Posted by: JD | July 3, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

On the eve of Independece Day, the Family Values Party wasted no time in condemning Bush's decision to save his long-time friend.

"How can parents instill values and morality in their children?" asked a befuddled Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE). "How can educators teach our children? How can the rule of law for every American be applied equally if we have two standards of justice in America - one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us?"

Senate Minority Leader Bill Frist joined Hagel in slamming Bush's actions, saying the commutation amounted to unfair treatment. "He is not above the law," said the clearly enraged Republican from Tennessee. "If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail."

You would think, of all places, President Bush would find some love in his home state of Texas -- but no so. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison said the Libby communion jeopardizes the nation's entire legal system.

"I very much worry that with the evidence that we have seen that grand juries across America are going to start asking questions about what is obstruction of justice, what is perjury," the senator said. "And I don't want there to be any lessening of the standard. Because our system of criminal justice depends on people telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is the lynch pin of our criminal justice system and I don't want it to be faded in any way."

Fellow Republican Texan Tom Delay, himself indicted, nonetheless issued a scathing attack on the commutation.

"No man is above the law, and no man is below the law," Delay said, choking back tears. "That's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country."

Of course, these people weren't talking about Libby at all. They are real quotes, all made during the Clinton impeachment.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Foolish? Without a doubt. Vain? To the nth degree. A supercilious idiot so intent on imposing his ideology on the world that he won't admit mistakes even if hundreds of thousands die, an American city drowns, and the climate itself is at risk? Well, obviously.

And according to the New York Times, he's also liberated.

President Bush's decision to commute the sentence of I. Lewis Libby Jr. was the act of a liberated man -- a leader who knows that, with 18 months left in the Oval Office and only a dwindling band of conservatives still behind him, he might as well do what he wants.

If you've ever doubted the ability of the press to do a double inverted backflipping-butt kiss when explaining away Bush's actions, you'll find no better example than that delivered in this piece by New York Times White House stenographer Sheryl Gay Stolberg.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

The entire record of this story has been under a systematic, unfettered and, sadly, largely unresisted attack from the right for four years. Key facts have been buried under an avalanche of misinformation. The then-chairman of the senate intelligence committee made his committee an appendage of the White House and himself the president's bawd and issued a report built on intentional falsehood and misdirection.

From day one this story has been about official lies -- corrupt power buttressed by fraud. Along the way it became a story about the president's hireling commentators who lost their honor by becoming part of the fraud. What Wilson said was true. His attackers are all parties to the same lie. Don't forget that.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

'Like cash for......pretty much anything.'

yup. that's the repug party all right.

'Zouk is correct; liberals want vengence, not justice.'

sick, sick, sick.

yes -- the 'non-crime' of a lawyer lying a jury. glad to know perjury's not a crime anymore.

you sickening, shameless hypocrites. I would kill myself if I was as morally sick as you.

Posted by: proudtobemorons | July 3, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Colin -Just to be clear then, I'm always skeptical when you begin your interrogations in that manner. Fitzgerald knew for some time that Armitage was the leaker, and yet he continued to prosecute Libby.

Of course Fitzgerald did manage to "prove" Libby guilty of the non-remembrance of details of the non-coverup of a non-crime.
For which Libby is being punished. Zouk is correct; liberals want vengence, not justice.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 3, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Proud -- just to be clear then, you agree that jail time is inappropriate where a key White House staffer lies to federal prosecutors about an investigation, right? Moreover, you don't find anything inconsistent with the President stating repeatedly that anyone involved with leaking PLames identity would be held responsible and his current decision to eliminate the possibility of any incarceration?

If so, that's great -- I had no idea that conservatives were in favor of reducing penalties for criminals. You must be one of those "compasionate" conservative I've heard so much about but never actually met in person.

Posted by: Colin | July 3, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

lylepink -You are not making sense, again. Your statement about Libby, "in effect he was not punished for the crimes he committed", makes about as much sense as your ridiculous and specious claim that Hillary did not vote for the war.

Please tell me, how is having a felony record, loss of voting priviledges, loss of the right to own a firearm, probable disbarrment, and a fine of $250,000 not punishment????

On second thought, don't tell me. I can't bear to read another of your sad, delusional left-over-hippie posts.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 3, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- good to hear everything is now rosy in Iraq. Is this similar to when we heard that the insurgency was in its last throes even while attacks per day were escalating to their highest levels yet?

Here's another piece of news. Money quote, from my perspective, is this:

"With Congress intensifying its calls for an exit strategy for Iraq, a report released last week by a subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee said the United States has spent $19 billion training and equipping 346,500 members of the Iraqi security forces. That $19 billion has "yielded mixed results," according to the report."

- Yep, 19 BILLION dollars just on training Iraqi soldiers. But lets hear more about those "mixed" results:

"The report found that the U.S. Defense Department doesn't know how many of those forces are operational today or even if they are fighting on the U.S. side. "Of those forces trained by the coalition, there is strong evidence that some are independently committing sectarian violence and other illegal activity," the 205-page report said.

Ha, so we're spending all that money and yet the trainees are actually joining the insurgency. ALMOST makes you think that it might not be a good idea to try and step into the middle of another country's CIVIL WAR.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/01/pleitgen.surge/index.html

Posted by: Colin | July 3, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Hey Zouk!

"putting forth the best values of America for the entire world to see again"

-Like shamelessly exploiting the fears of the American public following 09.11 in order to advance authoritarian corporate kleptocracy.

-Like taking the focus off Afghanistan in order to begin an unjustified war of choice in Iraq.

-For that matter, like spending American money and lives in an unrelenting pursuit of Saddam Hussein while all but ignoring bin Laden. Hussein was incommnicado, hiding in a hole in the ground. Bin Laden is reconstituting al Qaeda with the tacit protection of our "ally," Pakistan. You remember Pakistan, the unstable state that has nukes?

-Like Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Guantanamo, et al.

-Like permitting torture.

-Like leaving the ABM Treaty in order to test a Star Wars missile defense that doesn't work

-Like shooting your friend in the face. (OK, that was Cheney. Dick shoots, Bush does not...)

-Like staffing the government with uninterested and incapable corporate cronies.

-Like fiddling (playing guitar) while Rome (New Orleans) burned (drowned / blew away.)

-Like running up staggering national debt in order to fund tax cuts for those not in need.

-LIKE COMMUTING THE SENTENCE OF SCOOTER LIBBY.

-Like blithely ignoring the world - and U.S. - scientific community on climate change

-Like making the U.S. more hated/scorned, and at the same time less respected, AROUND THE WORLD

-Like giving authority over social programs to ChristoNazis

-Like leaving thousands and thousands of children behind

-Like subjecting the American political system to the tender mercies of Karl Rove

-Like stacking the Supreme Court with "justices" (and I use the term loosely) determined to undermine the legal system as we know it; specifically, those parts of it protecting consumers, minorities, dissent, environmental protection, the freedom of (AND from) religion, privacy, accountability, DEMOCRACY...

I could go on. I'm sure most of us could. No, Bill Clinton and his crew were not perfect at all. But when you compare his time in office, complete with its soap opera peccadillos and petty intra-party sniping, with the disastrous seven years which have followed, it's no wonder that he is remembered fondly.

Posted by: Bokonon | July 3, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

"Struggling in state, senator relies heavily on former president's star power." - Caption from the home page of ther Post's news website of Sen. and Pres. Clinton campaigning in Iowa.

Was surprised to see Bubba campaigning in Iowa on C-Span last night.

Could all of these glowing "she's far ahead" "check the polls" posts be inaccurate?

Otherwise, What's the need for Bubba to be out on the hustings?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Obama, talking to reporters in Chicago, took a jab at the former first lady's experience level, saying: "The only person who would probably be prepared to be president on Day One would be Bill Clinton, not Hillary Clinton."

Hillary, desperate to show her own leadership, declared she "will have some good help along the way" from Mr. Clinton, and although she can't put her husband in the Cabinet, she would love to make him "ambassador to the world."

And now that the five-year suspension of his law license is over, Bill can get back to work.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 3, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

greenwald: May I correct you in that Libby was NOT sent to prison, his prison sentence was commuted and in effect he was not punished for the crimes he committed, namely Perjury and OJ, sounds familiar in a twisted sort of way.

Posted by: lylepink | July 3, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, now that you're using so many differnt names to post, I have another one for you to use.

When you post ones on how well the War is going, you should use "While Nero Fiddles"

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

I Think the King of Zouk is mean and smelly. And he is not smarter than a Fifth grader, I know because I am one and I am smarter than him. My dad showed me, all the places where he wrote stuff but he did nt put his name cause he wants it to look like he didnt write it. And Then he said, Bobby read the rest of it and see if you can guess what Zook wrote, I looked at it and guessed all the dum ones, Dad said I was right. Then he showed me some other ones, he is smarter than a fifth grader but guess what? I am a fifth grader (remember?) and I am smarter than Zook.

Posted by: Bobby | July 3, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, but I'd rather ignore you providing little more than RNC Talking Points.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Cabinet approved a draft oil law sought by the U.S. to boost reconciliation between Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites and the Iraqi parliament planned to debate the measure Wednesday.


don't look now, more good news to ignore.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 3, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Civilian Deaths In Iraq Down 36 Percent

Iraqi civilian deaths dropped to their lowest level since the start of the Baghdad security operation, government figures showed Sunday, suggesting signs of progress in tamping down violence in the capital

how will you "lose at any cost" Libs absorb this good news?

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 3, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

"putting forth the best values of America for the entire world to see again"

Like BJs under the desk. Mmmmmmmm

Like cash for......pretty much anything.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 3, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Colin and Lyle, if Hillary voted the way she did not realizing - as many did at the time - that she was giving Bush the cover he had asked for to go into Iraq, she is TOO NAIVE or even TOO DUMB TO BE PRESIDENT.
I believe she is neither - I believe that she knew exactly what the result of her vote would be, which says to me that her vote was cast for political reasons, rather than for the good of the country. She claimed at the time that "the intelligence shows" a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and that Saddam was reconstituting his weapons programs. If she had read the NIE before voting - as Bob Graham and a few other senators did - she would have known that the intelligence showed no such thing. Yes, she's an intelligent woman, and a capable legislator, and yes she would probably be an acceptable president, if not the best choice available. But I don't trust her.

Posted by: Bokonon | July 3, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

'PHOENIX -- A dangerous heat wave enveloping the desert Southwest targets Phoenix with two back-to-back days of 118-degree temperatures beginning on July 4, meteorologists warned.

The hottest it has been on any July 4 in Phoenix was 114 degrees set in 1989, according to meteorologists.'

Get ready for the hottest summer on record, folks. And next year it willl be hotter still. Will anyone notice, besides the folks who die from it?

Posted by: GORE! | July 3, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse


"The president, by commuting Mr. Libby's sentence, has guaranteed that he will be under no incentive whatsoever to tell the truth," Wilson said on CNN's "American Morning." "I think there is a very real suspicion now that the president himself is an accessory to obstruction of justice in this matter."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

You see, Charles in Berlin? You see the 'conservatives' in this country? They applaud when a lawyer lies to a court. They want a convicted felon set free. The don't mind at all when their own security is endangered. They laugh at our laws, they thumb their noses at the Constitution.

They are lawless, mindless, hopeless sheep -- fascists.

Posted by: Sarah | July 3, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

In Federalist No. 70, Alexander Hamilton described the defining power of the King which made the British monarchy intolerably corrupt: "In England, the king is a perpetual magistrate; and it is a maxim which has obtained for the sake of the public peace, that he is unaccountable for his administration, and his person sacred." Thomas Paine proclaimed in Common Sense "that so far as we approve of monarch, that in America THE LAW IS KING." But little effort is required to see how far removed we now are from those basic principles.

Posted by: greenwald | July 3, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Jim Nicholson, Republican National Committee chairman, added that "Judge Wright's decision is a long-overdue victory for the rule of law."

Several legal experts agreed.

"The judge had no choice but to send a message that future witnesses who are less than truthful won't be tolerated," said Steven Saltzburg, George Washington University law professor and a former high-ranking Justice Department official under Presidents Reagan and Bush.

"I wouldn't have been surprised if the sanctions were a hundred times higher," he said.

Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, added:

"Any lawyer who testifies falsely before a federal judge has to expect a severe sanction, including possible loss of his license to practice law. If anything, a judge should take more severe action when that lawyer is the president of the United States."

Posted by: ** | July 3, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

You see what we're dealing with out here Charles? You see these people. You talk about TODAY. They rationalize from decades ago. I think this is all a test.

To see who the real patriots are and who the fasist whop ahte this country are. The republicans have destroyed all aspects of this great country. They are opposed to everything it represents. They have replaced what this country REALLy is with Capitalism. With the love of money. Is that what this country was founded on GOP?

Was it money? Or ideals?

Was it freedom? Or slavery?

Why do you people hate your country so much. You cannot force conservative SLAVERY on a free soceity. No matter how just you THINK you are.

You reap what you sow. you are sowing fascist princples. Don't be surprised when the american people reject you

Posted by: rufus | July 3, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton's Longstanding Love of the "Rule of Law"

Hillary, yesterday:

"And what we saw today was further evidence that this administration has no regard whatsoever for what needs to be held sacred. And when I'm president we're going to get back to cherishing the Constitution, upholding the rule of law and putting forth the best values of America for the entire world to see again."

Yes. Because the Clinton Presidency was just one long celebration of the rule of law, with no perjury, no suborning perjury, no pardons for sketchy millionaires, no Chinese money finding its way into DNC coffers, no disappearing and reappearing law firm records, no Chinese businessmen comparing the White House to a subway that you have to pay to enter, no fundraisers at Buddhist temples... no, none of that.

That's right. The Clinton administration respected the "rule of law" by ensuring a high wall stood between the FBI and CIA on combatting terrorism, and determined that authorizing the Northern Alliance to hit Osama bin Laden's caravan would be unlawful because women and children were present. Yes, we all know how beneficial that dedication to the rule of law was...

Posted by: NRO | July 3, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Almost thirty years ago, the American people reacted with fury and horror over revelations by the Church Committee that every administration in prior decades had been spying on Americans for completely improper purposes. In response, they enacted a law, through their Congress, making it a felony for any government official to eavesdrop on Americans without judicial approval, punishable by 5 years in prison for each offense. Since 1977, it has been a felony in the United States for political officials to eavesdrop on Americans without judicial warrants.

Posted by: greenwald | July 3, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Best Part of a Hillary Clinton Presidency? You Mean Besides January 20, 2013?

Gallup didn't phrase it this way, but I will. When asked the open-ended question, "suppose Hillary Clinton is elected president in 2008. In your view, what would be the best or most positive thing about a Hillary Clinton presidency?" The single most popular answer was, "nothing," with 28 percent.

Next up was "Clinton would be the first woman president," with 22 percent; "healthcare issue/would reform healthcare" 10 percent; "would get the U.S. out of Iraq/end war" with 9 percent; "Clinton's experience" with 7 percent, "capable/competent" with 7 percent, and "Bill Clinton would be back in the White House/would help and advise her" with 6 percent.

When asked, "what would be the worst or most negative thing about a Hillary Clinton presidency?", only 12 percent said "nothing." The answers "Too liberal/socialist" and "Bill Clinton would be back in the White House" tied at 10 percent each, with "Not qualified/would not succeed" at 9 percent. The next four reasons were all bunched together - "just don't like her" and "Clinton scandals/baggage" at 7 percent each, and "Country not ready for a woman president" and "Clinton's views on Iraq" at 6 percent each.

http://hillaryspot.nationalreview.com/

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 3, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

But the most significant disease highlighted by the Libby travesty is also the most obvious one. We have decided to be a country in which our highest Republican political officials can break the law freely, without any real consequence. In the United States, the law does not apply to the President and his closest aides. And there is one fact after the next which proves that.

Posted by: greenwald | July 3, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

What good are judges? What good are laws? What's the Constitution worth? It's just a piece of paper after all. Burn it and get it over with.

And the flag too. It doesn't stand for anything anymore either. Trample it, folks, burn it, ridicule it. You hate America, go ahead destroy everything it stands for.

Excuse me, used to stand for. YOU HATE AMERICA, republicans. That's why you are destroying it.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

But our political discourse and media institutions are so broken and corrupt that Bush followers (and their media enablers) feel free to make the completely-backwards and fact-free claim that the Libby prosecution was driven by "partisan" and "political" motives -- as though it was a mirror image of the Clinton persecution driven by Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and a purely partisan Republican prosecutor -- because they know that there is no such thing as a claim too false to be passed on without real objection by our vapid, drooling press corps.

For the right-wing political movement that has spawned the Bush disasters of the last six years, the exoneration of Lewis Libby was not merely something they supported. It was much more than that. It was a matter of the greatest importance. That is because Libby is a True Believer, a loyal member of their cult. Seeing him in prison would be humiliating, would make them feel weak and defeated at the hands of the Enemy (defined as "anyone who opposes them"), which is the worst outcome there is.


http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/03/libby/

Posted by: greenwald | July 3, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

'Congress: As Democrats insist on a constitutional showdown they know the White House will win, real work -- such as confirming national security appointments and securing our porous border -- remains undone.'

Any WHY does it remain undone? Because the scumbag repug congress didn't do ANYTHING but steal taxpayer money for the last 12 years.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

The Time-Wasting Congress
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 02, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Congress: As Democrats insist on a constitutional showdown they know the White House will win, real work -- such as confirming national security appointments and securing our porous border -- remains undone.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

The Plame investigation was urged by the Bush CIA and commenced by the Bush DOJ, Libby's conviction pursued by a Bush-appointed federal prosecutor, his jail sentence imposed by a Bush-appointed "tough-on-crime" federal judge, all pursuant to harsh and merciless criminal laws urged on by the "tough-on-crime/no-mercy" GOP. Lewis Libby was sent to prison by the system constructed and desired by the very Republican movement protesting his plight.

Posted by: greenwald | July 3, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

'Of course, the liberals wanted this all along to further their agenda. Bush did the right thing.'

I have never seen such pathetic hypocrites, such utter useless human garbage, as the current crop of republicans like 'proud' and 'zouk'.

I do understand now how Hitler came to power. Germany was full of the same mindless scum, the same kind of hypocrites who could rationalize and excuse any crime Hitler committed. If Bush wants to torture and execute innocent humans in Guantanamo -- why that's just fine. Doesn't matter if there's no evidence against them, or even if they don't know why they're there.

Bush can even endanger your own national security and you don't care. I really cannot understand your stupidy, your gullibility.

You people are dangerous fascists, who can willfully stand by and allow your country and your children's futures to be destroyed by madmen. I pity you. But most of all, you make me sick to my stomach. How do you live with yourself? If I was as morally sick as you, I would kill myself.

Posted by: Sarah | July 3, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Word is born la-mute . We get teh issues taken care of. Barack gets some much needed seasonong on a gloabal scale. After 4 or eight years (depending on how Gore does) he steps in as an un-beatable candidate (again depending on Gore)

I agree that is a un-beatable ticket. Obama Gore is starting to sound good also. I would prefer your idea as my first option.

Posted by: rufus | July 3, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Ignore the lying GOP trolls. IGNORE THEM.

Posted by: F&B | July 3, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

"The disasters and rampant lawlessness and fundamental erosion of our country's political values and institutions are exactly what Fred Hiatt and David Broder and Time Magazine and Tim Russert and Tom Friedman and the New Republic geniuses have spent the last six years protecting, enabling and defending. We have the country we have -- one in which our most powerful political leaders are literally beyond the reach of the law in every sense, where we casually invade and bomb and occupy countries that have not attacked us, where our moral standing in the world has collapsed with good reason, where we are viewed on every continent in the world as a rogue, dangerous and lawless nation -- because we are ruled by a Beltway elite and political press that is sickly and cowardly and slavish at its core. "


Buy my boys book. He is on eof the few REAL voices out there today.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/03/libby/

Posted by: glen greenwald | July 3, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Maybe it's too early in 08 for Obama . If you hope as I do that he is President one day there is only one unbeatable ticket :
GORE / OBAMA .He will be ready for the top job 4 or 8 years later...

Posted by: la-mute | July 3, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Maybe it's too early in 08 for Obama . If you hope as I do that he is President one day there is only one unbeatable ticket :
GORE / OBAMA .He will be ready for the top job 4 or 8 years later...

Posted by: la-mute | July 3, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Just because the clintons are corrupt doesn't mean bush shouldn't held responsible for anything he has done. No accountability. NONE. for years. I agree the clinton's did some things wrong.

It is a elementary school agrument to say, "I know you are but what am I."

Why should Bush face ANY pelanlties for his treason? Because he is president? Did that stop your people from going after Clinton? No. Not even for personal matters.


WHY SHOULD BUSH NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, Zouk GOP?

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 3, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Robert Bork, reviewing Ann Coulter's High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Wall Street Journal (3 September 1998):

The president's defenders, experts at changing the subject, prefer to debate whether Mr. Clinton committed a felony. Though it is clear that the president repeatedly lied under oath in Paula Jones's lawsuit, they offer arcane disputes about whether that was technically perjury. I think it was perjury, but that is not the point. As Ms. Coulter reminds us, the Rodino Committee staff, gearing up for Richard Nixon, concluded, correctly, that "high crimes and misdemeanors" are not limited to actions that are crimes under federal law. (It is a minor irony of history that Bernard Nussbaum, later Clinton's White House counsel, and Hillary Rodham collaborated on a report that makes these points.) When the man charged by the Constitution to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" lies under oath in a federal case and knowingly watches Monica Lewinsky lie in the same case, he has clearly subverted a central constitutional duty.

That alone is amply sufficient for impeachment. While impeachment is not to be undertaken lightly, it is also not to be avoided at the cost of sanctioning such behavior. Ms. Coulter tellingly relies on James Madison: "The `first aim' of the Constitution," she writes, quoting him, "was to ensure that men with the `most virtue' would become the nation's rulers. The Constitution's impeachment power was for `keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.'"

Paul Simon, "Is It Only About Sex?" New York Times (21 August 1998):

A prosecutor does not create the setting underlying a perjury and obstruction of justice investigation. Others do. Here, whether there was a sexual relationship has never itself been worthy of investigation. But neither the criminal investigators nor Congress can draw conclusions as to whether the President lied under oath, obstructed justice or abused the power of the Presidency, without also considering the events that are the subject of the possible perjury and the motivation for possible obstruction of justice and abuse of power.

We are on a sad and fateful course that cannot be trivialized by the false belief it is all about sex. The fact and nature of the sexual relationship are for the individuals and families involved, the voters and perhaps Congress to consider.

Mr. Starr's investigation, as well as the core of any Congressional proceedings, properly focus on important questions of perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power.

Richard Serrano, "Starr's Report Charges That Clinton Abused Powers, Obstructed Justice," Los Angeles Times (12 September 1998):

"Perjury and acts that obstruct justice by any citizen . . . are profoundly serious matters," he said in the report. "When such acts are committed by the president of the United States, we believe those acts may constitute grounds for an impeachment."

Posted by: hypocrites | July 3, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"In fact, Hillary can be accurately described as one of the most dishonest politicians in modern times and there is much objective evidence to support this."

We agreed on something zouk. WOW

Posted by: rufus | July 3, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Gary McDowell, "Rule of Law," Wall Street Journal (30 August 1999):

Perjury to cover embarrassing personal behavior is still perjury; and such perjury is sufficiently serious a federal crime for Sen. Herbert Kohl to have argued that the president could still be "criminally prosecuted, especially once he leaves office." In Sen. Kohl's view, "his acts may not be 'removable' wrongs, but they could be `convictable' crimes."

[Clinton] is a public official and the sentencing guidelines are less charitable in those cases: "If the defendant abused a position of public or private trust . . . in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense, increase [the punishment] by 2 levels." It would not be surprising to find a judge inclined to throw the book at the president, as Judge Wright put it, "not only to redress the President's misconduct, but to deter others who might themselves consider emulating the President of the United States by engaging in misconduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial system."

Richard Serrano & Robert Jackson, "Judge Finds Clinton in Contempt in Jones Case," Los Angeles Times (13 April 1999):

Jim Nicholson, Republican National Committee chairman, added that "Judge Wright's decision is a long-overdue victory for the rule of law."

Several legal experts agreed.

"The judge had no choice but to send a message that future witnesses who are less than truthful won't be tolerated," said Steven Saltzburg, George Washington University law professor and a former high-ranking Justice Department official under Presidents Reagan and Bush.

"I wouldn't have been surprised if the sanctions were a hundred times higher," he said.

Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, added:

"Any lawyer who testifies falsely before a federal judge has to expect a severe sanction, including possible loss of his license to practice law. If anything, a judge should take more severe action when that lawyer is the president of the United States."

Roger Kimball, "Leftists Sacrifice Truth on the Altar of Friendship," Wall Street Journal (22 February 1999):

It is said that truth is one of the first casualties of war. In the culture wars that have been transforming American society since the 1960s, truth has been a conspicuous casualty: not only particular truths but also allegiance to the very ideal of truth as an indispensable component of any just and moral life. The competing, countercultural ideal holds that loyalty to the personal trumps loyalty to the truth -- a view that made it difficult for many people to appreciate the gravity of the charges against Mr. Clinton. So what if he lied under oath? It was only about a personal matter.

The novelist E.M. Forster gave classic expression to this pernicious attitude. In an essay called "What I Believe," Forster famously wrote that "I hate the idea of causes, and if I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country." Forster wrote this in 1939, when for an Englishman there was no more thorough way of betraying one's friends than by betraying one's country. Predictably, his selfish and self-absorbed ideas about loyalty made a great hit with the left-wing, Bloomsburyish intelligentsia of his time. They have exerted equal fascination for the heirs of Bloomsbury in our own day.

Posted by: hypocrits | July 3, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Robert Blecker, "How Does Congress Define 'Perjury'?" Wall Street Journal (9 December 1998):

"Because we believe that the crime of perjury depends not only upon the clarity of the questioning itself, but also upon the knowledge and reasonable understanding of the testifier as to what is meant by the questioning," the Sixth Circuit declared, "we hold that a defendant may be found guilty of perjury if a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence presented that the defendant knew what the question meant and gave knowingly untruthful and materially misleading answers in response."

Whatever else it does, Congress should sweep away this mess by enacting a law clarifying the meaning of perjury: "A person commits perjury who intentionally makes a materially false statement under oath. A person who gives an answer not literally false but consciously calculated to create a materially false impression when considered in the context in which it was given, also commits perjury."

William Glaberson, "Testing of a President: Legal Issues," New York Times (18 November 1998):

Defenders of President Clinton have argued that his accusers are overzealous in saying he should be impeached or subject to criminal charges on the grounds that he committed perjury when he denied in a civil deposition that he had a sexual relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky.

But a review of more than 100 perjury cases in state and Federal courts and statistics on the perjury prosecutions brought around the country show that people are prosecuted for what might be called small lies more regularly than the Clinton defenders have suggested.

Eric Schmitt, "Consequences of Perjury Debated in the House," New York Times (2 December 1998):

In a highly partisan hearing that featured a parade of witnesses, from convicted perjurers to Federal judges to a decorated Army general who has retired, Republicans tried to underscore perjury's harmful effects on the nation's justice system.

''If citizens are allowed to lie with impunity -- or encourage others to tell false stories or hide evidence -- judges and juries cannot reach just results,'' said Representative Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, the committee chairman.

''At that point, the courtroom becomes an arena for artful liars and the jury a mere focus group choosing between alternative fictions,'' Mr. Hyde said.

William Bennett, "What We Know," Wall Street Journal (10 November 1998):

And we know that when a person testifies under oath that he doesn't remember something when in fact he does, he has committed perjury.

Defenders of the president insist this as an impeachment about illicit sex even though none of the articles of impeachment are about sexual behavior. And so the question the House Judiciary Committee must decide during the next month is the same one that faced the committee a quarter-century ago, when it considered whether to impeach Richard Nixon: Will it reaffirm the time-honored American ideal that no man is above the law? If committee members answer yes, there is only one principled way for them to conclude this inquiry: the impeachment of the president.

Posted by: ** | July 3, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

compare what happened to Sandy Burgler, who actually did destroy classified documents, intended to hide some sort of shady terror slacking on clinton1. that is actually a real crime worthy of jail. but he is a Dem so no punishment really. what happened to slick willie when he was guilty of the same offense - not much.

It would seem you Dems have a thirst for vengence, not justice.

considering the whole pardon apparatus historically, would you prefer Jeb got paid for this?

Lyle - your protest about the vote for war are disingenuos. there was an amendment offered which would have specifically covered what Hillary now says she was interested in, but she voted against it. It took her years, and a shift in public opinion, to come up with a plausible explanation - not the sign of a truth-teller.

In fact, Hillary can be accurately described as one of the most dishonest politicians in modern times and there is much objective evidence to support this.

TO support her, you must be willing to accept all the crime and corruptiion to arrive at the policies you prefer. Can't you find a different path to that outcome?

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 3, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

JD: Libby was not given a pardon. His prison time was done away with, and in effect Libby was not punished for his crimes.

Posted by: lylepink | July 3, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Shame at the White House," New York Times (12 September 1998):

The essence of Mr. Starr's case is that lying under oath is an impeachable offense even if the false testimony begins in a civil suit that was later dismissed or took place in a grand jury as an attempt to hide an embarrassing indiscretion. Mr. Starr's view holds that in a society founded on the rule of law, false swearing or witness tampering, abuse of office or obstruction of justice by the person vested with the highest legal powers is impermissible no matter how petty the subject.

Robert Bork & James Rosen, "The Clinton Meltdown," National Review (12 October 1998):

In that contention he has considerable support, not only from the aforementioned Miss Dowd but from many others, including, surprisingly, William Safire, who says, "If forthrightly confessed, perjury about workplace dalliance should not be enough to force out a President." In the light of the Starr Report's footnotes, calling what took place in the Oval Office "dalliance" falls just short of calling World War II a "dustup." The idea seems to be that perjury about sex is not as serious as perjury about other matters. That won't wash.

Lying under oath strikes at the heart of our system of justice and the rule of law. It does not matter in the least what the perjury is about. The proceedings of a court or a grand jury take place because we have enacted laws that we want to see enforced, and we want them enforced on the basis of truth, not fiction. We do not say that we care about truth when the subject is murder or drug pushing but care very little when the subject is the sexual harassment of a subordinate or tampering with witnesses to hide adultery. That the amount of lying at trials is reaching epidemic proportions is a matter not for acceptance but for condemnation.

Cal Thomas, "Burton Soars Over Clinton in Integrity," Los Angeles Times, (9 September 1998):

Had Bill Clinton "merely" had a sexual encounter with Monica Lewinsky in the White House, it would still have been outrageous. But he would not have committed a potentially impeachable offense. His fate would have been left to the opinion polls and historians. But he lied about his affair under oath. And the forthcoming report by the Office of the Independent Counsel is likely to present evidence that he caused others to lie and tried to keep authorities from learning the truth.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Fox news is holding court everyday. As soon as a stroy comes out their "lawyers" are already defending the conservative angle.

Don't they know we have a legal system in this country, that MAY know a little more about the law and the crime than O'REilly. They are holding court without any creditials. Why you ask?

To scew the jury pool in ALL conservative cases. What are their creditials? They are lawyers, but do they have the facts in the case. Not just the libby case. All cases when a republican is involved. THEY ARE THE LAW. They think.

The american people reject their omnipitance. Your time is almost up gop. Don't be scared. There is a big world out there. Don't fear change, embrace it :)

Posted by: rufus | July 3, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

drindl writes "McCain contradicts himself constantly now, changing positions on everything "

Examples please? Because if you're just repeating the same tired mantra about 'he used to be a maverick', then that doesn't work anymore. How is not a maverick anyway, when he almost single-handedly championed one of the toughest issues of the day -illegal immigration- risking the wrath of many conservatives to do what is right as a Senator and a leader.

That's a heckuva lot more than can be said for the Dem Senaotrs running for president...all they do is wait until nightfall to creep onto the Senate floor and cast their meek votes, or propose legislation to honor lacrosse teams from NY.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 3, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Once again, Lieberman is out neo-conning the neo-cons.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, yesterday called for the U.S. to confront Iran -- with militarily force -- after a U.S. military official said that Iran was training Iraqi Shi'ite fighters, reports S.A. Miller of The Washington Times.

"These revelations should be a wake-up call to the United States about the threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as a reminder why Iran is, in fact, the central front of the global war on terror," said Mr. Lieberman....

"Although no one desires a conflict with Iran, the fact is that the Iranian government by its actions has declared war on us," said Mr. Lieberman,

And with that, Lieberman slips just a little bit further from reality.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

You conservatives GOP. What makes you people think, in every case, your ideology over the law. Why is it that O'REilly is constantly attcking judges and lawyers. This is a new concept. The politics somehow trumps a JUDGES decission.

It's like ALL sentances have to be ok'ed with conservatives. If only a conservative that is. What makes Bill O'REilly think he can constantly call judges out and their rulings. Is O'REilly a judge? If so what are his creditails?

Your people have destroyed the media. You have destroyed the legal system. You have destoyed our high ground abroad.

Time will judge if you are a buch of lawless hypocrites. The histroy books will judge. The voters will judge.

Posted by: rufus | July 3, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Oh, and guess who's head of the 'Scooter Libby Birbery Fund'? -- Why Fred Thompson, of course.

What a sick, craven, decadent and pathetic joke the GOP is.

Posted by: Cassandra | July 3, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

All this liberal whining is so predictable as to be absurd. Libby IS being punished. He will have a felony record going forward, probably lose his law license, can't vote, can't own a firearm, he's on 2 years of probation and has to pay a quarter of a million dollars. I'd say that's a reasonable punishment for someone who was the victim of prosecutorial misconduct after Fizgerald found out that Armitage was, in fact, the leaker, and yet continued to prosecute Scooter.

Of course, the liberals wanted this all along to further their agenda. Bush did the right thing.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 3, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

'It's SOP. Get over it.'

JD - you are the biggest hypocrite on this board. If this was a democratic administration you'd be screeching like a harpy.

Posted by: Cassandra | July 3, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Colin: We must be reading a different bill when you state the authorization gave GW "the unfettered power to invade Iraq." They were conditions attached, and I am only pointing out the conditions were not met, and Hillary is accurate in her statement that this is "Bush's War". I have opposed the war from the beginning and still believe the main reason was for Oil/Money.

Posted by: lylepink | July 3, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

"He has to pay a fine"

A fine that his "scooter libby defense fund" will take care of

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

"In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing." -- Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald."

Great point.

HAve you ever hear the conservatives talking about "moderate muslims?" What do they say? "Why are moderate muslims not standing up against the terrorsits?"

That is my question. Why are republicans or ALL independants not standing up agaisnt bush. Why defend the un-defendable. What does zouk or GOP have to gain by parroting propoganda and being the lawyer of george bush?

I don't get it at all. PArty over country?

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 3, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

None dare call it "amnesty": Bush shows contempt for rule of law; exempts ally from criminal justice - In conservative circles, there's a standard approach to law and order: we need tougher sentences, inflexible mandatory-minimums, and harsh punishment for those found to have broken U.S. law. But if you help expose the identity of a covert CIA agent during a war, lie about it, and are convicted by a jury on multiple felony counts, those standards no longer apply. Perhaps we should call this what it is: "amnesty." I suspect a standard conservative defense will be, "But it's not amnesty; Libby is being punished. He has to pay a fine." When it came to immigration policy, asking lawbreakers to pay a fine was still called "amnesty" -- and it was considered unacceptable.

Posted by: Sonja | July 3, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

"In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing." -- Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

Posted by: fitzgerald is a republican | July 3, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse

'craft every sentence because what comes out of his mouth is the straight-forward truth' -- oh please. Maybe a couple years ago, certainly not today. McCain contradicts himself constantly now, changing positions on everything -- except the war, of course.

Charles in Berlin, I do agree with your take on a lot of stuff. As for 'conservatism' in the US -- it no longer exists. What we have instead is really fascism lite. Take a look back to your country's history, say the thirties, and you'll get a taste of the powerlust, greed, authoritarianism and contempt for law that those who call themselves 'consrvatives' in the US exhibit today.

Posted by: drindl | July 3, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

JD, is it SOP to pardon someone who was convicted of multiple felonies within the White House? Please provide links or sources. Thanks.

Posted by: F&B | July 3, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

bush 41:

"Bush 41: "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."

THAT'S TRAITORS ZOUK/GOP. TRAITORS. LikeI've been saying.

bush 43
On September 30, 2003, just after this investigation began, the President said:

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is . . . If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."

We now know exactly what he meant.

The Frameshop: "Get out of jail free card."

Posted by: rufus | July 3, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse

About the Scooter Libby thing, come on, give me a BREAK!!

Every President pardons people, for their own reasons. I didn't hear Charles Schumer saying one word when Clinton was issuing the dozens of pardons at the end of his term.

It's SOP. Get over it.

Posted by: JD | July 3, 2007 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Thank you for your opinion Charles. It's always good to get outside opinions. Thank you for you interest and posts. Good luck to you.

If the election goes south I may be forced to flee the country. I may end up out there with my kinfolk :) Thanks again

Don't worry about the attacks. It's a part of life here. Daily Propoganda lies and misdirection. You have to read deep, then research.

The right in this countyr is full of bush lawyers and appologizers. They defend the un-defendable. The use smear tactics to dicredit your opinion and always ask "what is teh source." The venom the right spews daily is un-Godly.

I blame Fox News/Rush/Hannity/O"reilly for taking good american conversation and turning it into verbal comabt against americans. I am sick of it. Can this go on forever? Should it? We start by getting the above off the air. they are no newsmaen they are not journalists. They don't get the same rigths as such. I would hope they get the same rights as a us weekly or national enquier. AND THEY DEFINATLY should be anywhere near the white house. Without these FACSITS destoyin g the media and the debate I think we cna have real conversation andre-build this great country. I'm probably on the terror list for speaking out.

I know I'm sick of it. Everyday all day. I don't know how much longer I can take it. Like I said, I hildog or the repubs win I'm outta here. NO accountability. NONE. For years.

Do you see any similarities?

1.Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2.Create a gulag
3.Develop a thug caste
4.Set up an internal surveillance system
5.Harass citizens' groups
6.Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7.Target key individuals
8.Control the press
9.Dissent equals treason
10.Suspend the rule of law

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/24/708/

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | July 3, 2007 11:09 AM | Report abuse

'In a statement issued Monday night, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani applauded President Bush's decision to commute the prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.'

Mr. Law and Order as corrupt and soft on crime as everyone else in the republican party.

Gee, where are the 'values'? What will we tell the children?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Charles in Berlin says of McCain "His demise is quite tragic, although he himself has often been his worst enemy."

I couldn't disagree more. John McCain is THE most consistent candidate, nay politician, in America today. He doesn't have to mince words or craft every sentence because what comes out of his mouth is the straight-forward truth and if he makes a mistake he darn well owns up to it. The quote you referenced was taken waaay out of context by the MSM and like the Senator said, who are we worrying about offending? Iran? The terrorist-sponsoring state with a madman dictator intent on accelerating the apocalypse?

Joh McCain remains one of only a very few candidates who cannot be labeled a flip-flopper or liar. He is the most believable according to polls. The R social cons are his worst enemy, because of his proncipled stand on legislative reform and his courage in doing what he believes is right for the country.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 3, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Golgi: I think you are correct about the Obama support being false. My 12:58AM Post explains in some detail where some of it is coming from. The only state Hillary is not leading in the polls, from the information I have, is Iowa in the 30 some states that will be decided by early February.If this holds, we will have our nominee then.

Posted by: lylepink | July 3, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Cmon Golgi, don't tune out. What could be better for America than two worthy Dem candidates in a battle to the finish? It doesn't get any better. Compare that to '04: "Unelectable" progressive Dean, Wishy-washy liberal Kerry, War-time "I'm the decider" Bush. Cmon man, it's just starting to get interesting!

Posted by: F&B | July 3, 2007 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Lylepink -- I have read the war authorization bill. I've also read Senator Clinton's statements immediately before and after her vote, in which she urged the administration to continue exploring all diplomatic solutions before going to war. So, to the extent that you think that makes calling her vote one to "go to war" a lie, I understand your point. But lets not pretend that she didn't give the Bush administration - which had already proven itself uninterested in diplomacy - the unfettered power to invade iraq...which they then did.

Mark in Austin -- for what it's worth, the war isn't a "litmus" test for me and I don't consider myself a dove on military issues. However, I have consistently opposed THIS particular war and don't think it's irrational to take into account the judgment shown by each candidate when the debate leading up to the war occurred. Reasonable minds could and did differ on how to handle Iraq, and I don't think it ought to disqualify someone that they felt differently than I did at that time. Looking back, however, I would suggest that at the very least it showed poor judgment to trust this particular administration with the authority to invade Iraq.

Posted by: Colin | July 3, 2007 10:56 AM | Report abuse

And by commuting Scooter Libby's sentence, so that he doesn't have to go to jail like any other American convicted by a jury of their peers would have had to do, you sent a message loud and clear: "We Republicans think we are better than the rest of you. We don't have to be punished, and there is nothing you little people can do about it. Now peel me a grape, peasant."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Well, today's blog looks like we can look forward to 7 months of Clinton vs. Obama supporters now. Dunno how useful that will be. It sounds pretty boring. Well it's been interesting up until now, at least.

Bye-bye interesting presidential campaign blog. The interesting-to-laypeople political blog for the next several months is going to be the one covering the White House. Washington Post, do you have something like that?

Posted by: Golgi | July 3, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Oh and Lyle thanks for your Clinton impeachment vote stats! Meant to thank you before :) Thanks!

A re-post for those who didn't see:

Fred Thompson was one of five Rs that split their votes, others were:

Gordon,WA
Stevens,Alaska
Warner,Va.
Shelby,Alabama

Vote totals:

Perjury
not guilty 55
guilty 45

Obstruction
split 50/50

That was 12 Feb 99. Hope this helps y'all.

Posted by: lylepink | July 2, 2007 10:24 PM

Posted by: F&B | July 3, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

There are way too many nuanced talking points flying around with Hillary vs. Obama re: experience, Iraq, electability, fundraising, poll numbers.

I think the biggest thing missing from this debate is the issues. Hillary has a grasp of the issues and a way of targeting her statements and legislation that shows that she is not just talk, but an effective contributor.

I love Obama, I love his oratory skills, but I still think that the core of what makes an effective leader is that ability to cut to the chase and then exhibit a clear plan to address the issue.

I don't think that the Obama supporters on here have really listened to enough of her speeches -- NOT on the campaign trail -- but when it matters most, on the floor of Congress.

You can call her a Centrist and a Hawk on certain issues, but high on her agenda are red meat progressive issues like fair trade, women's issues, civil rights and minority issues, health care, climate change, the environment, renewable energy. She is Al Gore on steroids.

Posted by: F&B | July 3, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

The comment that Obama supporters are mostly young white highly-educated men does not ring true.

I believe that this statement is false. I don't have the data to hand but it should be fairly easy to determine via polls whether or not the statement is accurate.

Posted by: Golgi | July 3, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

>>>Poor McCain. The single republican in the race who isn't a sinister, soulless, money-grubbing creep and he's the one who can't raise funds.

Yes, I feel much the same. I once thought he'd make a great president and still respect him a great deal. He's taken courageous positions on campaign finance reform, immigration and - yes - the war (though that is tarnished by his over-the-top spin).

But I do find his over-optimistic spin on Iraq on his visist there questionable and find the "Bomb Iran" ditty of his shows a lack of discipline worrying in a potential president. I know he didn't mean to be taken seriously, but then presidents and serious presidential candidates always are. Such jokes can have serious diplomatic repercussions and provide fuel for Iran's hardliners' propaganda.

I expect a future presidential candidate to know that and act accordingly.

His demise is quite tragic, although he himself has often been his worst enemy. But the other one is the Republican party, which - to my mind - simply has failed to understand what (compassionate) conservatism in the 21st century ought to mean.

Posted by: Charles from Berlin | July 3, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

"[Hillary] woul likely be the Dem Cheney - a very powerful VP."

ONLY if the P granted her that power. Remember, the VP has only the power granted him or her by the P.

I seriously doubt that Obama would accord Cheney-like powers to Hillary.

Posted by: Golgi | July 3, 2007 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Novak: Libby camp angry at Bush.
Robert Novak writes: "Bush is blamed by friends of Libby for losing control of the Plame investigation by putting it in the hands of a special prosecutor -- the U.S. attorney in Chicago, Patrick Fitzgerald. In his decision sparing Libby jail time, Bush did not say a word of criticism about Fitzgerald."

Libby's pretty uppity, huh? These folks got some brass b*lls. How dare anyone try to prosecute them? Libby's annoyed that the fix wasn't in sooner.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Colin: Yes people do lie when they state, "Hillary voted to go to war in Iraq." Call it a flat out falsehood if you prefer, or whatever word you can think of to describe what is plainly NOT TRUE. The false information put out by this Administration with the help of the "Liberal Media" is in its self mind boggling, to use a term not often heard. I have asked you folks to read the bill, and apparently you have not.

Posted by: lylepink | July 3, 2007 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) responded by beating the war drum. "The fact is that the Iranian government has by its actions declared war on us," he said. While stopping short of advocating an immediate military strike, he claimed "our diplomatic efforts are only likely to succeed if backed by a credible threat of force."

Senator Lieberman, at the request of AIPAC has been visiting Israel frequently and frantically promising them he will fan the flames for an attack on Iran this summer. And our always helpful fact-free stenographer media will obediently parrot whatever he says, with childlike credulity and gullibility, as always.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 10:25 AM | Report abuse

I did not intend my response to seen as a personal slight. Let me explain what I meant by writing:

"Come on. Congress gave Bush a Carte Blanche. Everyone knew what that meant. You'd have to be extremely naive so as not to. Personally, both Kerry's and Clinton's claim they were duped by the administration strikes me as pitiful."

"You" refered to the Senators Clinton/Kerry/Edwards etc. rather than you, lyle.

Lets not descend into name-calling. Much as Colin said, nobody here lied. I hope we are all here for a little friendly, enjoyable and spirited debate.

>>>ANY of the democrats running are capable of winning the general election and any one of them will make a much better president than GWB.

Not so sure about Gravel and Kucinich. :p Though at least the latter's got a charming wife.

Too bad the Republican field lacks say a straight-talking McCain we saw in 2000 instead of the mediocre bunch now running. I'm pretty conservative myself (a Christian-Democrat, CDU sympathizer) on a number of issues.

But then I don't get Conservatism in the USA. Apparently it's considered conservative to pardon a convicted perjuror (sp?), oppose campaign finance reform (kudos to McCain), be bad stewards of God's creation (climate change) and allow medical bills to be the No1. bankruptcy cause in America.

Posted by: Charles from Berlin | July 3, 2007 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Bush's commutation of Scooter's sentence is essentially obstruction of justice.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Inevitably, the subject of Marc Rich comes up every time presidential pardons come up. Without going into all of the issues, can we just remind the world that... Marc Rich's lawyer was Scooter Libby.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Bush, on the other hand, just used his plenary power to commute Bush, on the other hand, just used his plenary power to commute a sentence to cover his own bad deeds and keep one of his own aides from having to pay the price for his crimes. He has used his power for this one man when he has been the stingiest president in history for pardons and commutations. When he was governor, a woman who had completely reformed in prison was mocked when she begged for her life. He laughed at her as she died. He had no compassion for her or any of the 152 people whose death warrants he signed without even giving more than two minutes consideration. He said those people were all guilty --- no mitigating factors even entered his mind.

But poor little Scooter can't even spend a month in jail. He can't even spend a day in jail.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

lyle, I do not have my first appointment for another hour, so I am sneaking one more post here.

As a citizen in 2002, I had no problem with

H.J.Res. 114, A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Thus I had no problem with Sen. Biden's vote, or Dodd's, or Edwards' or Clinton's.
I have no problem with her response now, either. Perhaps if I had been in the Senate and two Senators I respected, Graham and Levin, were against it, I would have been swayed, but probably not.

So I do not share that particular criticism of HRC. That criticism is the litmus test for many on the liberal left. They think your insistence that HJR 114 was not a "war" resolution is defensive semantics. You are not going to score points calling them liars because it was merely an authorization to use military force.

In fact, invading Iraq was a bad idea without an occupation plan, and maybe a bad idea period. For the antiwar left, it is gratifying for them to hear us say "we were
w-w-rong." It may not be enough for many of them - as JimD says, there is a level of self-righteousness that goes with the territory - but it will be enough for some.
Calling them liars because they shorthand the authorization as a war resolution loses focus and will not convince them or build allies.

I think you know that I would favor several
candidates over yours, but not because of
HJR 114, and not because I buy into any notion that ambition is somehow unbecoming to a female. So I hope you can take my suggestion as friendly, but not motivated by any desire other than to raise the level of discourse.

Posted by: Nark in Austin | July 3, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse


From their perches atop the commentariat, the pundits smugly dismiss the concerns of average Americans who are enraged that these people keep cheating and getting away with things that ordinary citizens and even powerful Democrats could never dream of getting away with --- they relentlessly smear their opponents with the filthiest lies, they stage partisan impeachments, they steal elections, they illegally start wars and make up novel authoritarian theories of governance --- and then they use their powers to excuse their minions from the consequences of these actions if they happen to get sloppy and get caught. None of them ever pay. Ever.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse


The Libby matter was a national security investigation in the wake of the worst terrorist attack in history. Libby lied repeatedly and blatantly to the FBI and Federal prosecutors when the stakes were very high and the entire Department of Justice was on high alert. Telling the truth about spilling the names of CIA agents could have real consequences.

And this proves that everything this administration says about national security is a lie and a joke to them. It's all about taking your money, folks, nothing more. When these people leave office this nation will be financially crippled and utterly defenseless. Happy now, patriots? Or should I say, parrots?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse

It's beem said that the sentence was too harsh and Walton was irritated by all those death threats and smarmy character tributes and whatnot. Let's say that's correct. Is there any reason that Bush could not have let Libby serve, say 15 months --- half of what he got --- before commuting his sentence? How about six months? Two months? If it really was a matter of a "too harsh" sentence, is it really reasonable to say that he should not get any jail time at all?

No, it's complete and transparent BS. It's just flaunting the fact that only little people get punished for their crimes.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 10:06 AM | Report abuse


" While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I respect the president's decision. This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life."

FRED THOMPSON, former U.S. senator, R-Tenn., commenting on President Bush's decision to commute Scooter Libby's prison sentence.

Thompson a bag man for Libby. Rotten to the core.

Poor McCain. The single republican in the race who isn't a sinister, soulless, money-grubbing creep and he's the one who can't raise funds.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Barack Obama has taken some lumps in recent days, with sagging poll numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire. But, in the one primary that really counts at this point in this twenty-four month election cycle, Obama is the candidate to beat.

In beating Sen. Hillary Clinton at was what was once considered her own game, Obama has established himself an awesome political force.

Of course, money does not always guarantee votes. And whether Obama translate this success into a general election victories in Ohio, or Florida, or Missouri remains to be seen. But, it does force the Democratic party's leadership, and leading contributors, to confront the idea that Obama is a very, very serious contender. Obama is no longer an outsider. He is no longer a challenger. Obama represents an established candidate, one whose brand is burnished by $32.5 million freshly-minted silver dollars, the hard-earned bounty of a groundswell of supporters and not merely a select few max-out donors.


Peter S. Cohl
The Political Brandwagon
http://www.politicalbrandwagon.blogspot.com

Posted by: Peter S. Cohl | July 3, 2007 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Barack Obama has taken some lumps in recent days, with sagging poll numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire. But, in the one primary that really counts at this point in this twenty-four month election cycle, Obama is the candidate to beat.

In beating Sen. Hillary Clinton at was what was once considered her own game, Obama has established himself an awesome political force.

Of course, money does not always guarantee votes. And whether Obama translate this success into a general election victories in Ohio, or Florida, or Missouri remains to be seen. But, it does force the Democratic party's leadership, and leading contributors, to confront the idea that Obama is a very, very serious contender. Obama is no longer an outsider. He is no longer a challenger. Obama represents an established candidate, one whose brand is burnished by $32.5 million freshly-minted silver dollars, the hard-earned bounty of a groundswell of supporters and not merely a select few max-out donors.


Peter S. Cohl
The Political Brandwagon
http://www.politicalbrandwagon.blogspot.com

Posted by: Peter S. Cohl | July 3, 2007 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Lylepink -- no one lied. Some of us interpreted the war authorization as a blank check to Bush when it was passed. Clearly you saw it differently then and still do today. That's fine, I suppose, although given the way history has progressed my view and that of our friend in Berlin seems to have been proven correct. Regardless, however, no one is telling "lies" about Hillary or anyone else.

Honestly, you seem to take your devotion to Hillary a little too seriously. I respect the fact taht you think she'd make the best nominee/president. But lets stop acting as if the world will end if that doesn't happen. ANY of the democrats running are capable of winning the general election and any one of them will make a much better president than GWB.

Posted by: Colin | July 3, 2007 9:52 AM | Report abuse

'For their part, conservatives were mostly pleased, although some expressed disappointment that Bush didn't issue a full pardon. But, as several note, Bush could still do that at a later date.'

That's why the word 'conservative' has lost all meaning and should no longer be used to refer to republicans. They have turned the meaning on its head -- and it now refers to anarchists, defilers of the Constitution, radicals and rightwing extremists.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

'USA Today notes up high that Libby never filed a formal request and Bush didn't discuss the commutation with the Justice Department. In fact, many Justice officials were already on their way out of the office when they got the news on their Blackberries. "They were floored," says the New York Times.'

Even bush's handpicked Regents University semi-lawyers are amazed at how carelessly bush flouts the law.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

>>> So to make the case for Clinton being notably more experienced than Obama either professionally or politically, I think you have to be referring to her experiences playing a supporting role for Bill Clinton. And that is probably the heart of the issue: how much of Bill's experience and success as a politician can Hillary attribute to herself?

Very well put, DTM.

As a German, I don't get this dynastic thingie in US politics. Americans sometimes strike me as closet-monarchists. (One reason why - if you ask me - they should have never started that tax rebellion in the first place...). Having a dynasty in a largely ceremonial role as in Britain is IMO great, but in an elective powerful office?!?

Strikes me as rather unhealthy for a number of reasons.

But to return to DTM's original question, I don't see at all why her role as the first lady makes much of a political resumé. The attempt to make her more than a political spouse spectacularly failed with the healthcare reform initiative of hers.

No, it's not the political experience she may have gathered as the spouse of the US president. It's the celebrity-driven culture and secret obsession with dynastic politics Americans have, which makes her past life in the White House an asset of hers.

I don't get the whole "royal consort" - erm - "presidential consort" First Lady thingie. I used to think it was something for the tabloids and for home stories in women's magazines.

Which wife can provide the best cookie recipe stuff, you know. I remember as a twelve-year old - yeah I have to admit I was already infected by the US horserace bug at a tender age - seeing on CNN International a report on whether Mrs. Bush or Mrs. Clinton made the better chocolate cookies. I found that so bizarre!

What a huge difference there is between German/European political culture and that across the pond! Perhaps that's what keeps me tuned in to US presidential politics...

Posted by: Charles from Berlin | July 3, 2007 9:44 AM | Report abuse

DTM, you were almost there then you bailed out at the 1 yd line.

HRC's candidacy is all about giving Bill a 3rd term. She's not running, Bill is, at least in the eyes of the charmed Dems. So her 'experience' is actually best in the field, 2 previous terms.

Posted by: JD | July 3, 2007 9:36 AM | Report abuse


With Congress intensifying its calls for an exit strategy for Iraq, a report released last week by a subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee said the United States has spent $19 billion training and equipping 346,500 members of the Iraqi security forces.

The report found that the U.S. Defense Department doesn't know how many of those forces are operational today or even if they are fighting on the U.S. side. "Of those forces trained by the coalition, there is strong evidence that many are independently committing sectarian violence, attacking US forces, and other illegal activity," the 205-page report said.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 3, 2007 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin: Thanks for your concern. As you know I do like lies to be told on the pols. Remember I called someone on Fred Thompson. This Charles guy is FLAT OUT LYING and notice he did not address me directly in his reply, only a snide remark about being naive.

Posted by: lylepink | July 3, 2007 9:23 AM | Report abuse

> Obama is lucky that we were at an early stage when not many people were paying attention when he made his "10 000 people killed by the Kansas tornado" gaffe.

I understand he corrected that before ending his speech. Rather minor gaffe, IMO.

> So, never bank too much on youthful enthusiasm as the main component of a campaign.

Gotta agree with you on that as a fellow twen. Yet there is a difference about Kerry and Obama. Nobody was wild about Kerry as a person. Lingering doubts about him being the right candidate persisted throughout the campaign. Obama on the other hand is to this generation what the Kennedy brothers (not too fond of them myself, overrated) were to another.

> Yes, there was the Dean scream. And then all the youthful enthusiasm drained out of the Dean campaign in the blink of an eye.

Dean's campaign was always fringy and dorky. Only in the pretty mediocre field of 2003/2004 could he have been the factor he was for a time. Obama is of quite a different calibre.

BTW, I'm amused some think "the media" (again that anti-media conspiracy theory thingie) sunk the Dean campaign. No, it was the Vermont governor just by himself. He was just a grass-roots tribune and had no presidential aura. The scream just brought home that fundamental truth. That's why that gaffe killed his campaign. Another more presidential candidate might have survived it. Dean for the reasons mentioned above, couldn't.

> He is inexperienced, objectively so.

I'm very impressed by his resumé. At a much younger age than his main rival, he's already got more legislative experience than Clinton. He has lived abroad - in a Muslim country! -, has a stellar Harvard record, academic credentials and manifested down-to-the-ground social concern as a community organiser.

I don't see why he'd need more years sitting in the Senate. For the reasons I mentioned in my first post, I believe America needs him. He's the one who can transform the poisoned political discourse and turn a new page.

> Democratic primary voters are smart, I think. Such an avenue of attack will never be granted to the Republican party.

The odd comment about Obama's "lack of experience" pales to what the Republicans could do by using Hillary Clinton's "experience" against her. There's a ton of material - some good, some swiftboatish - the Republicans would bring out of the closet.

Unless Obama delivers gaffes which underpin the potential "lack of experience" attack, it wouldn't be particularly effective. Obama hasn't provided any such material to date and I don't see him becoming a gaffe machine like Kerry or Biden in the future.

He's just too smart and disciplined for that. Much like Clinton.

Bottom line: I think Clinton's "experience" would be a greater liability in the general election than Obama's supposed "lack of experience".

I think your calculation much resembles that of many Democrats who thought Kerry's Vietnam record would be a potent weapon against Republican attacks. I believe that Clinton's percieved key asset - her "experience" - would turn out to be a considerable liability.

As I see it, by nominating Clinton, the Democrats would make the Kerry mistake all over again.

Granted, considering the Democrats are so much stronger than the Republicans than in 2004, I think even Clinton would eek out a narrow victory.

I'm far more concerned about what a Clinton presidency would mean for the poisoned US political discourse. That's what matters. Not the opportunistic and IMO wrong-headed calculations of Clinton's vs. Obama's chances.

When will the Democrats learn their lesson?

Posted by: Charles from Berlin | July 3, 2007 9:19 AM | Report abuse

VisionOne,

I'm not quite sure I understand the experience contrast, if you are contrasting Obama with Clinton. Clinton's only elected office has been U.S. Senator, and Obama shares that office. But Obama was elected as a state senator as well (professionally he was also a lecturer in Constitutional Law at a top law school and a community organizer).

On the subject of electoral experience, Obama not only has won more elections than Clinton (I believe it is a total of four for him to her two), but he also lost one (his attempt to get the nomination for U.S. Representative in 2000). That may sound like an odd resume line, but he apparently learned a lot from that experience.

So to make the case for Clinton being notably more experienced than Obama either professionally or politically, I think you have to be referring to her experiences playing a supporting role for Bill Clinton. And that is probably the heart of the issue: how much of Bill's experience and success as a politician can Hillary attribute to herself?

Posted by: DTM | July 3, 2007 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Yes, Obama has generated a movement and become a phenomenon. Yes, he has collected more money. And yet....

1. As has been pointed out, Hillary leads in all the relevant polls. In addition, the overall difference in cash raised (27 million vs 31 million, even if 6 of Hillary's millions are for the general election) is not that significant.

2. Experience with national campaigns has to count for something and on that score Hillary is far better positioned than Obama. Obama is lucky that we were at an early stage when not many people were paying attention when he made his "10 000 people killed by the Kansas tornado" gaffe. A moment like that later in the campaign would sink him as surely as the "I voted for the funds before I voted against them" remark fatally wounded the Kerry 2004 campaign.

3. While at 28 I consider myself "young", I fundamentally mistrust campaigns that claim their strength comes from the young -- and that promise millions of newly energized youth will register to vote and be the decisive factor in a dramatic victory. Skeptic that I am, I think the youth's attention span is rather wavering. Kerry was going to be swept into the White House on a wave of young voters disgusted with greed and corruption. They were going to rise up, stirred by everyone from 50 cent (Vote or Die) to Eminem and teach the republican party a lesson to remember. Well, look how well THAT turned out. As my mind casts painfully back to the days of the November 2004 fiasco, I remember the moans of disbelief in the blogsphere as the voters' demographics were dissected post-mortem. "The young people abandoned us," "they did not show up"... etc. So, never bank too much on youthful enthusiasm as the main component of a campaign. Among other things, youth does not take defeats very well. They are not schooled yet in the stoic perseverense of the soldiers of winter. Yes, there was the Dean scream. And then all the youthful enthusiasm drained out of the Dean campaign in the blink of an eye.

4. Obama, likeable as he is, will make a terrible candidate. He is inexperienced, objectively so. Look at the 2004 attacks on Edwards for his inexperience. And he was the candidate for VICE president. With McCain down (and out?) what if Guiliani is the republican candidate. I do find the guy loathsome (being a New Yorker notwithstanding) but he will be running as America's mayor who was on the battlefield on Sept 11. For that matter, what if McCain is the candidate? I am not sure how Obama's career as a Senator in the Illinois State House will compare to that. And let's face it, Republicans will exploit fear again and will trumpet the need for "competence" and "experience". But Democratic primary voters are smart, I think. Such an avenue of attack will never be granted to the Republican party.

That said, I like Obama very much. I hope he will return to the field to fight another day and with all my heart wish him to be the 45th president of the United States.

Posted by: VisionOne | July 3, 2007 8:31 AM | Report abuse

F&B,

I think the contrast between those statements is indeed illustrative. Clinton's is purely an attack on the Administration. Obama begins with a similar critique, but then ends on the hopeful note that in the future we might be able to do better. I think that is a good demonstration of why despite their policy similarities, independents and Republicans are generally more supportive of Obama's candidacy.

Incidentally, this is a tough issue for Clinton, since it eventually leads back to the more fundamental issue of what decisions people made about the Iraq War. Clinton, of course, very much needs people to place all the blame for the Iraq War on the Administration and not on those who voted and indeed spoke in their favor. It also doesn't help Clinton that this was a perjury case followed by a pardon case, neither of which are good topics for the Clintons.

Posted by: DTM | July 3, 2007 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for the nice words, folks. I enjoy some of the very perceptive comments posted here. Too bad one needs to scroll past too much spam and kooky nonsense to read it... :(

Anyway, let me respond to a number of comments of yours:

-----------

> I have said many times opponents of Hillary will use any means to bring her down, that includes FLAT OUT LIES that you used about her voting to go to war in Iraq.

Come on. Congress gave Bush a Carte Blanche. Everyone knew what that meant. You'd have to be extremely naive so as not to. Personally, both Kerry's and Clinton's claim they were duped by the administration strikes me as pitiful. Such a convenient excuse doesn't look good from whatever perspective you look at it.

-----------------

F&B's response:

>The only point I disagree on is this:

>>>Mrs. Clinton sadly has put herself in >such a corner and has such a defensive >outlook on politics, that she cannot admit >that (or perhaps even any?) mistake.

>For one, her campaign has been on the >offense from the get go. For another, her >not admitting to mistake is a calculated >political endeavor and not an inability to >admit to the mistake (which it clearly >was).

Sure, it's a calculated political move, not a psychological flaw. I'm sorry I implied otherwise. My objection is that it's the wrong political calculation. It is weak, opportunistic and overly defensive, to my mind.

I think she's so fearful about appearing weak on security (understandable considering lingering stereotypes about female politicians), that opportunistic calculation trumps her own instincts and reasoning. I think that's why her critics view her as too calculational. She's letting political expediency dominate her political career (at least since her failed health care plan) instead of displaying true independence (and hence leadership).

It's way too simplistic to simply say the "calculational machine" criticism arises from people disliking ambitious and savvy female politicians. Maggie Thatcher (we Germans aren't exactly fond of her...) and Angela Merkel - both most capable! - did and do not have to contend with such criticism in the way Clinton has to.

>HOWEVER, you MUST make your final judgment >based on the entirety of the United >States, and doing so, you must take into >account the irrationality of a population >of people who think that George Bush is >doing a swell job even at this point in >our history.

Yes. I believe more in mass irrationality/ignorance than in "wisdom of the masses". Just look at the outlandish US poll numbers of those believing Saddam Hussein being behind OBL and 9/11 in 2002...

Sadly, same story over here. We managed to reelect Gerhard Schröder/red-green coalition after a thoroughly disappointing first term in office merely because he looked good in rubber boots at a time of a flood catastrophe and his populist playing of the anti-American card in the run-up to the Iraq War...

Nonetheless, I think a good majority of Americans is immune to jingoistic snides about Obama's middle-name or race bigotry. Those who feel otherwise would anyway not vote for him. They're the Tancredo/Limbaugh/Fox News constituency. I have enough confidence in the American electorate (for once) that such attacks won't fly.

------------------

Joe from NY:

>Looking at the very dumb conclusions the >author of "The Fix" and his ilk are making >about the "winner" of the Dem debates and >who they've already nominated as the >winner of the Democratic ticket, I'm >baffled and saddened at the state of the >American media.

Joe, I regret seeing so many Americans target "the media" or "the MSM" for any grievance. I find the all too often seen "the media wants to push Hillary Clinton (insert other name as you please) down our throats" talk most unreasonable and conspiratorial.

The Fix is well reasoned. Chris may have a soft spot for Clinton, but so do I for Obama. No big deal as long as his analysis is mostly spot on.

For instance, I fail to see why some object to him viewing Mrs. Clinton as being still the frontrunner. Because that's simply what she is. Yet that doesn't necessarily mean she's the strongest candidate. You know who I believe is.

>I think the people running Obama's
>campaign are very methodical in their
>approach. He hasn't panicked or acted >rushed or unsure of himself or make any >sudden and dramatic changes that can smack >of insecurity or immaturity throughout his >campaign. I wish I could say the same >about Hillary's camp.

Indeed. I particularly like that he's sticking to his thoughtful debating style rather than going exclusively for the red-meat applause lines. In Hillary Clinton I see a very savvy, polished and very well coached politician, who tailors her message too much to suit every audience for my tastes.

> Even lifelong Democrats will then vote >Republican, Independent, or stay home >altogether - me being one of them.

Joe, I see where you are coming from, but sincerely hope you won't act on that. I believe it's your civic duty to vote. Sometimes that means making unpalatable choices. I think we shouldn't run away from them. After all, your ancestors fought for your right to vote.

Okay, 'nuff preaching. :p


Posted by: Charles from Berlin | July 3, 2007 8:11 AM | Report abuse

lylepink, thanks for your 3:17A reminder.

Moderates are an endangered species. Chafee is no longer in the Senate and now Collins is under the gun. Not only do the R candidates pander to the right and the Ds to the left, the parties target each other's moderates because their seats are the easiest to regain.

This is because a district that leans hard left or hard right cannot be easily captured by the opposing party, but a district with centrist tendencies is always up for grabs.

So if a centrist D replaces a centrist R you may ask what is the loss to the cause of moderation? The answer is seniority. This is most apparent in the House of Representatives, where a swing election hardly ever seems to leave a centrist as a Committee chair.

Now lyle, get some sleep!

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 3, 2007 7:35 AM | Report abuse

Obama is not ready for prime time. I think his nomination in 2008 would be a problem for us Democrats.

Posted by: mmeyerdc | July 3, 2007 6:57 AM | Report abuse

I thought it might be of interest to some of you on the impeachment vote that 4 [four] Rs voted not guilty on both, they were Chafee,RI-Specter,Pa.- Collins and Snowe,Maine.

Posted by: lylepink | July 3, 2007 3:17 AM | Report abuse

lol, you people are hilarious! Obama won the debates??! That's just laughable. If htere was a winner in them all it was clinton. That's not to say that Obama did badly in all three but Clinton was certainly ahead of the pack. taht was what all hte pundits said and most importantly that was what all the americans that heard anything mentioned of the debates in the news or in the papers would have heard.

Obama is doing a good job raising money and yet even in Iowa where Clinton isn't doing as well, he certainly isn't ahead of her. Otherwise he is way behind in the national polls. An airhead candidate for a bunch of airheads who are yet again falling for the non-politician type of politician without knowing anything that he stands for. Have you guys seriously not seen this before in almost every race?!

Posted by: thomas | July 3, 2007 2:57 AM | Report abuse

F&B: Read my 12:58AM Post, it explains fairly well what is happening.

Posted by: lylepink | July 3, 2007 2:10 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is a closet repub. Bill touring the wolrd with bush 41. News Corp (fox news) raising money for her.

Look like the GOP does have a shot. Her against a repub would be a win-win. This is why fox is talking about her everydy. They are hoping to fool the elctrete.

Remember the good old days when reporters reported the news. They were non-bias. They never wanted to take a side because doing so would lose them ALL their credibility? Thos days are gone. Propoganda/misdirection/lies have replaced it.

At least we still ahve the internet. They can't take that away, can they? Patriot act?

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 3, 2007 2:04 AM | Report abuse

>>>I was stunned she stood in front of a black crowd and say the government is complicit in having black women suffer from the AIDS virus.

Um, WHA? She never said anything even remotely like that.

I appreciate your comments on Obama, Joe, but your analysis of Hillary is just completely off, imho. Almost bizarrely so...

Posted by: F&B | July 3, 2007 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Joe S.: From your comment it is easy to see you are NOT a supporter of Obama, but an opponent of Hillary as so many of you professing to support him. Sure, in your way of thinking, get rid of Hillary and nominate Obama, then the repubs keep the White House. I have pointed out how the repubs are giving to the Obama campaign and even changing their registration to vote for him in the primaries in the hope of beating Hillary. Most folks who read "The Fix" on a regular basis are well aware of these FACTS. Hillary is the strongest the dems have and, imho, will be the next POTUS. Sounds good to me and a pluarity of dems.

Posted by: lylepink | July 3, 2007 12:58 AM | Report abuse

What a most brilliant and enlightening analysis from Charles in Germany. I'm amazed at how much foreigners understand more about our system than most of us do. Looking at the very dumb conclusions the author of "The Fix" and his ilk are making about the "winner" of the Dem debates and who they've already nominated as the winner of the Democratic ticket, I'm baffled and saddened at the state of the American media.

I don't know what these people who want to call themselves journalists and pundits are watching but from what I'm seeing Hilary is the worst candidate to ever contest for the ticket.

As a black man, I was stunned she stood in front of a black crowd and say the government is complicit in having black women suffer from the AIDS virus. Simply shocking given that Hillary and Bill just handed over power to Bush when the outbreak of HIV in these communities was at it's peak.

Does anyone remember Hillary ever doing anything - ANYTHING whatsoever - throughout her time at the White House and as this powerful celebrated Senator from New York - with a huge black constituency I might add - do anything in any capacity to help minority women suffering from HIV/AIDS or any other feminine illness?? She was very busy strategizing on how to launch her bid for the White House.

I'm very excited they're many people out there contributing to the Obama campaign as they are. It's sounding very cliche already but I've never ever contributed or in any way get involved in the political process as I've been so far with the Obama campaign. I went to MSG in NY to see him speak for the first time about a week ago and I was very impressed.

I think the people running Obama's campaign are very methodical in their approach. He hasn't panicked or acted rushed or unsure of himself or make any sudden and dramatic changes that can smack of insecurity or immaturity throughout his campaign. I wish I could say the same about Hillary's camp. Hillary and Bill have been running helter-skelter so much it's truly pathetic.

I keep asking myself why Obama doesn't pounce on Hilary's many many shortcomings but, I'm sure his campaign knows exactly what they're doing. He now has the money to run ads and contest vigorously not only in the early caucus states but in ALL the states on super Tuesday (Feb 5) as well.

If Hillary wins the Dem ticket, it's all over!!! You'll see Republican campaign ads of Bill with his pants down with a young female staffer kneeling in front of him - oh! while he's on the phone with a foreign diplomat as well. Even lifelong Democrats will then vote Republican, Independent, or stay home altogether - me being one of them. Hillary has no idea how much the bottom will fall out of her campaign when Americans wake up and finally realize that - OMG, they're actually about to send Bill and Hillary - that Bill and Hillary - back to the White House??? Again?? No Way!! America doesn't have the stomach for it. Look around you! We've long moved past the era of Bill and Hillary. So, the media can go ahead and keep dreaming and feed us their inaccurate crap about who they think the winner is.

Posted by: Joe S. | July 3, 2007 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Btw, adding fuel to the Barak / Clinton fire.

Compare and contrast their responses to the Libby commutation:

Obama:

"This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law. This is exactly the kind of politics we must change so we can begin restoring the American people's faith in a government that puts the country's progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years."

Clinton:

"Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration's politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House's efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."

Imho, Hillary's is the much stronger statement.

Discuss...............

Posted by: F&B | July 2, 2007 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Extremely compelling post by Charles the German guy at 10:36pm.

The only point I disagree on is this:

>>>Mrs. Clinton sadly has put herself in such a corner and has such a defensive outlook on politics, that she cannot admit that (or perhaps even any?) mistake.

For one, her campaign has been on the offense from the get go. For another, her not admitting to mistake is a calculated political endeavor and not an inability to admit to the mistake (which it clearly was).

As for your comments on Obama, I believe they are spoken like a true, rational, intelligent individual. And that is why 30-40% of Democrats are supporting him and he is breaking records in fundraising.

HOWEVER, you MUST make your final judgment based on the entirety of the United States, and doing so, you must take into account the irrationality of a population of people who think that George Bush is doing a swell job even at this point in our history.

I think Barak Obama would easily rank as one of the best Presidents in US history were he to win. But to get there he must beat one of the best political minds AND political apparati in Hillary Clinton in the primary and THEN the GOP smear machine (that calls him a traitor b/c his middle name is Hussein, nevermind his African-American roots) in the general. Frankly, I think Hillary will win cleanly and Barak will be the best Secretary of State in our history (with the possibility of another Presidential candidacy down the line).

Of course, in my view, the ultimate ticket is Clinton/Obama.

Posted by: F&B | July 2, 2007 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Charles: I have said many times opponents of Hillary will use any means to bring her down, that includes FLAT OUT LIES that you used about her voting to go to war in Iraq. Now if you are what you say, come back and admit your lie. Hillary DID NOT VOTE TO GO TO WAR IN IRAQ.

Posted by: lylepink | July 2, 2007 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Charles, that was a welcome view from a different vantage point. Thanks.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 2, 2007 11:27 PM | Report abuse

it all happens: The appeal was denied today. His problem now is the suit by the Wilson family. Andrea: I always say support the candidate of your choice, as you should. I have never intended to say anything bad about Obama, and don't believe I have. I don't think I have commented about experience in the way you are thinking. I cannot see him winning any state by the early voting in February, and by that time the nominee, my favorite, Hillary, will be all but known. I think the only two states Hillary MAY lose is to Edwards, and I stress "MAY".

Posted by: lylepink | July 2, 2007 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Let me share with you some of my views as a non-US citizen (I'm German, but am something of a US pres. politics junkie. You guys stage the best horseraces in town! :p ).

I'm marveled some here actually consider a Obama/Clinton ticket at all possible. Obama would ruin his whole cross-partisan message by picking her. It's not going to happen.

Nor would Obama pick Edwards, who merely was a legislator for a fairly short period. What Obama would look out for is a resumé candidate. And no, I don't see Bill Richardson being Obama's VP pick either. It would be a respected figure outside the presidential contenders.

Not that I subscribe to the whole Obama being unexperienced thingie anyway. He has a superb resumé. Having Lived abroad in a Muslim country, community organizer, Harvard laurels, constitutional law professor, 10+ legislative experience. All done by one's mid-40s.

As for the legislative service, I don't see why service in Washington ought to be rated far higher than in a state. You need the same skills to be successful in both places. And he has done well in both arenas.

I don't see why Hillary Clinton has in the least anything going for her in the experience game. Being first lady is no political office and the attempt to give her an overt political role failed spectacularly with the health care reform effort of hers.

As for being in the US senate, she's been just long enough in it to - unlike Barack Obama - vote for the Iraq war. Now, though it might surprise you hearing this from a German, I was likeminded at the time. Back then I still thought the US administration was competent enough to handle the aftermath - which of course was already then clearly going to be the hard part. My mistake.

Mrs. Clinton sadly has put herself in such a corner and has such a defensive outlook on politics, that she cannot admit that (or perhaps even any?) mistake.

Without doing so, however, I don't see how she can ever become a leader in the debate on foreign policy. She'll always act from a weak and defensive position. As I think her tone is in general. Understandable after years of vitriolic attacks against her, but I don't think it cuts her out to be the one to turn a new page in US political discourse.

The US presidency is a quasi-monarchic office. It's about charismatic leadership - a major source of identification for Americans. Being an experienced technocrat or skilled power broker simply isn't what it's about.

It's about who you are. Not how much experience you have. That's why George Bush Jr. was electable in 2000 - when in a period of prosperity in which America was comfortable with itself - many sought an easy-going approachable figure at the top. Not a technocrat as Gore was perceived to be.

By now you will have noticed that I - a German - believe Obama would be a great leader for the US and - given America's still being the most powerful power - for the world.

He's the one who can turn the page in the US political discourse after at least a decade of deep divisions caused by the American "Kulturkampf" - which has been waged with more vitriol than Bismarck's struggles with Catholics and Socialists ever was.

Why? Because of his impressive biography, his identity as a non-agrieved Afro-American who transcends racial politics, his oratory, intellect and charisma.

Also, importantly him not have been one of those fighting in the trenches of the deeply divisive Kulturkampf of yours, which is incidentally drawing to a close. Just look at how evangelical Christians now embrace "softer issues" such as the environment and Democrats embrace religion as being more than a private matter.

Obama being the personification of a new post-Kulturkampf discourse (moreso than him being a symbol of Martin Luther King's dream advancing), is to my mind the real undderlying reason why Obama's popularity is so phenomenal.

He is the right man for America in this hour.

If 2008 should shape up as a Clinton vs. X GOP candidate (all not that impressive, just like the Democratic 2004 field), then it will mean that the Kulturkampf will linger on - despite being already past its expiration date.

Obama taps in to more than the somewhat naive and crude "bipartisanship rulez!" sentiment. It's about healing the divide of the Kulturkampf. Beyond that, partisan disagreement is inevitable and for the sake of the competition for the best ideas, to be welcomed. I think Obama has said as much in his speeches.

In my view, all this is far more important than specific issues, e.g. what specific universal healthcare plan each candidate forwards.

Indeed, I have myself reservations about Obama's positions on many an issue.

As a Catholic, I'm pro-life (abortion & death penalty). I think his environmental policies (pay Detroit's medical bills for greener car model plans...) leave much to be desired. And I have my reservations about a swift full withdrawal from Iraq - a place the US messed up and cannot simply abandon. Not that lots of US troops there necessarily help... But the "Get out now!" cries strike me as somewhat irresponsible.

Everyone has such issues-based reservations of some variety. I think they fade in significance in face of the transformational power an Obama presidency would have in both US and world politics. That's what counts. And I hope I've made my case that it's not simply hot air, cheap election talk or a naive desire for harmony. No, it's more than that.

The central question of the Democratic primary is thus whether the Democrats will arm themselves to refight the battles of the past decades (like Kerry vs. Bush), or open up a new page.

There's a wide consensus that nominating Kerry was a mistake. It lost the Democrats an election which was theirs to lose. They chose a Vietnam hero, who due to political caution and a defensive instinct (-> electability focus back in 2002), voted for the war and then failing to formulate a coherent and strong position on the matter.

Hillary Clinton works much the same as Kerry. She took much the same route as Kerry on Iraq from an equally defensive position. She never led. She always voted and shifted her position with an eye to her ultimate presidential bid.

What was to Kerry his Vietnam hero credentials of the past, is Hillary Clinton's part in the popular Clinton presidency which presided over the 90s prosperity.

Kerry's core political asset crumbled. So would Clinton's. She'd be swiftboated. There's too much material (far better than against Kerry!!!) to remind voters of. Mrs. Clinton is of course a smarter and more savvy politican than Kerry, but unlike the jokable attacks against Kerry, Clinton will have serious stuff coming her way.

Nothing new. True. She's thoroughly vetted. But material doesn't have to be new to be effective in a negative campaign. And we all know those tend to work well. That's why they're a common feature in US electoral politics...

That is not to say that Clinton cannot win. That's not the point. I dare she'd struggle, but in the end win eek out a victory.

The point is that the country would be locked in its old Kulturkampf. During and after 2008. Her being compelled to fight in the old trenches will see her using up her political capital. She couldn't gain the same moral leadership in domestic and international politics as a candidate unburdened by the past would be.

Hillary is competent and - I dare say - decent enough. But she simply isn't the right woman for the right time.

That's why I believe Obama - despite all the Clinton assets (name, fame, connections) - will ultimately win the primaries. He's already negated what was once percieved Mrs. Clinton's key advantage - fundraising.

Ultimately, the compelling historic forces which have propelled Obama into the race and made him into such a phenomenon, will IMO win out.

Thereafter, the general election against a enfeebled GOP and average candidate will be a cakewalk. Obama is the right man at this turning-point in US history.

Posted by: Charles | July 2, 2007 10:36 PM | Report abuse

I havent seen this noted but i think the reason for the commutation is that a pardon would mean that Libby was no longer exposed to criminal sanctions and thus had no Fifth Amendment privilege. As it stands he has a fine and probation at stake during the pendency of the appeal which insulates him ( and Bush and Cheney) from havaing to answer questions before Congress.

Posted by: it all happens for a reason | July 2, 2007 10:35 PM | Report abuse

'Scooter skates
President Bush commutes the prison term of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby was sentenced to 30 months after his March conviction on federal charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators.'

Posted by: rule of law--rock on! | July 2, 2007 10:25 PM | Report abuse

F&B: Thompson was one of five Rs that split their votes, others were-Gordon,WA-Stevens,Alaska-Warner,Va.-Shelby,Alabama. BTW, Perjury- not guilty 55--guilty 45. Obstruction was split 50/50. That was 12 Feb 99. Hope this helps y'all.

Posted by: lylepink | July 2, 2007 10:24 PM | Report abuse

It takes more than just saying hope all of the time to run a country. If you want an experienced leader and someone that is of African-American descent, why not petition Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin to run? She is bright, seasoned, and talented. Barack Obama has zero ideas and zero experience. God help us all if he becomes president.

Posted by: What the heck? | July 2, 2007 10:21 PM | Report abuse

ah, what a horse race this shall be!

Posted by: jojo | July 2, 2007 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Mark -- thoughtful and enlightening comments as always. For what it's worth, I like Joe Biden too. I don't want him to be president, in part b/c he's a bit too "pro-business" at the expense of consumers and workers sometimes, but he's a good man who cares about doing the right thing. In my view, he'll make one heck of a Secretary of State in the Obama administration. Ironically, I also USED to like Romney when he was still a moderate to liberal Republican who was focused on solving problems. Too bad he decided to stop being that guy.

KOZ -- I hold Democrats responsible for not accomplishing enough yet. I also am aware that it's June of 2007, they have 51 votes in the Senate, and the President is from the opposing party. Republicans, in contrast, had almost 6 full years of controlling EVERY branch of government. That's a meaningful and factual difference my friend.

If Democrats haven't passed their major agenda items after the new Congress is sworn in in 2009, along with a new progressive president, then I'll be depressed. Till then, I'll enjoy watching the GOP vote against popular measures right up to the moment when they're booted from office. Up first are Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, Jon Sununu, and Gordan Smith.

Posted by: Colin | July 2, 2007 10:07 PM | Report abuse

To Lylepink,

Obviously you are not a fan of history.

I believe that we study history so that we can learn not to repeat past mistakes and to learn from past mistakes.

I looked at the skills and abilities of some of our greatest presidents. Obama has the intellect of Lincoln, the ability of FDR to bring people from both sides of an issue to the table, the charisma of JFK, and the grassroots support of T. Roosevelt. I looked at what experiences these great presidents had that qualified or prepared them to be president. No one can ever have all the experiences needed for this important position, so in the end how do we know who is best to carry out the duties of president? That's why I turned to Henry Adams.

I heard on a recent talk show that Bush I, came to office with the best experience of any presidential candidate. If he was so experienced for the job, why then didn't he do a better job as president? So if learned anything from the history of Bush I, having the best experience does not make for a great or good president.

I use the Henry Adams test and my test which I developed because I'm tired of electing somone based on promises they cannot fulfill because they can't work with Congress to get any substantive legislation passed. I'm looking beyond experience. I'm looking at the candidate's innate understanding of what's happening around the country and the world. I look at their decision making process. Is their first action to react from the gut or from the mind? I want somone who reacts from having a good intellectual understanding of the issues and all the implications of contemplated actions. I look at the way they do business, are they open and honest or are they secretive and manipulative. That is why I fully support Senator Obama. He meets all my tests.

American voters need to wake up and understand that being president requires more than having the right experiences, it's about having the ability to lead people into action to fulfill his/her vision for a better America. Senator Obama has the ability to move people into taking the right actions to better our nation.

Posted by: Andrea | July 2, 2007 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Uh Chris, when you're on vacation, meditate on this question, "Why am I such a shill for Hillary Clinton?" Ohm.... It isn't widely accepted that she won all three debates. Her constant angry shreeking annoys most people and most don't care that she memorized and practiced her three bullet points more than anyone else. Also HER NEGATIVES ARE TOO HIGH!!! Over 50% have said they would not vote for her under any circumstances. The Dems would be fools to nominate a person that is so divisive. Can you imagine Mr. Law and Order FT all calm and collected contrasted with this wicked witch of the northeast?

Posted by: Brad Burklow | July 2, 2007 9:37 PM | Report abuse

I just cannot get over how many people soulwrenchingly desperately yearn for someone who will tell them what to do in soothing, commanding tones.

"Land of the free," *chuckle.*

Posted by: roo | July 2, 2007 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Fred Thompson was expected to announce on the 4th, and now has commented on the Libby case. I will make another prediction, since I am batting a thousand so far, Fred Thompson will become the darling of the far right wing of his party, and McCain will continue to lose support.

Posted by: lylepink | July 2, 2007 9:01 PM | Report abuse

"I am very happy for Scooter Libby." - Fred Thompson

John McCain campaign spokesman Danny Diaz, when asked if the Senator has any comment on the Libby commutation: "Nope."

Posted by: F&B | July 2, 2007 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Interesting point brought up on Countdown.

Name one Republican Senator who voted to convict Bill Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice?

Here's one: Fred Thompson.

The first out of the gate to support the commutation... Hypocrisy? Methinks.

What other R Senators voted to convict? Anyone?

Posted by: F&B | July 2, 2007 8:19 PM | Report abuse

The Fourth Reich has risen. Scooter Libby is set free! Happy Fourth of July!

Posted by: Patriot | July 2, 2007 8:07 PM | Report abuse

F&B: I have been saying for a long time now, GW was the worst in my lifetime, I am very close to saying the worst in our history. The GOP, as a party, will have an awfully hard time trying to claim they are the party of law and order. The Judge and Prosecuter were both appointed by GW. I have said, and have now been proven correct, all along Libby would not go to prison. This is in effect, although not law, more obstruction of justice on the part of GW and this Administration. This is protection for himself and Cheney. This spin about nobody is above the law was just shot down in flames.

Posted by: lylepink | July 2, 2007 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Please don't forget that the Libby commutation goes DIRECTLY back to Bush's covering up for his fraudulent Iraq War. Never forget that...

Posted by: F&B | July 2, 2007 8:04 PM | Report abuse

'My daddy left me. I needed the money. Harry told me it would be OK. He does it all the time.'

another brilliant example of what koz considers 'discourse'. christ, i mean, how pathetic are these deadenders, these rightwingers, these pathetic examples of human garbage?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 7:55 PM | Report abuse

As always, I think it is clear that those who claim that Americans are too racist to support Obama have not bothered to understand Illinois and the nature of Obama's support in Illinois.

Posted by: DTM | July 2, 2007 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Bush seals his fate as Worst Prez Ever. And a Dem victory in 2008.

Here's to 8+ years of surplus!!!!!!

2009-?

Posted by: F&B | July 2, 2007 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Here's a teader of teh above site. I hope everybody checks it out.

"Jiddu Krishnamurti or J. Krishnamurti, (May 12, 1895-February 17, 1986) was a well-known writer and speaker on fundamental philosophical and spiritual subjects. After publically renouncing, at the age of 34, the fame and messiah status he had gained from being proclaimed the new incarnation of the Maitreya Buddha by the Theosophical Society, he spent the rest of his life traveling the world pointing out to people the need to transform themselves through self knowledge. He maintained that a fundamental change in society can emerge only through a radical change in the individual, since society is the product of the interactions of individuals. Though he was very alive to contemporary issues through the decades, his answers were rooted in his timeless vision of life and truth. As such, he attempted to transcend all man-made boundaries of religion, nationality, ideology, and sectarian thinking. Refusing to play the role of guru, he urged his listeners to look at the basic questions of human existence with honesty, persistence, and an open mind."

Posted by: JKrish | July 2, 2007 7:22 PM | Report abuse

My grandpa has been lied to. FOr years. I love that man. He is my idol. How many other grandpa's have been lead done the path of hate/lies/racism/greed due to Fox News/Rush/O'REilly/hannity?

Those are why I'm here. The world is passing them by. The elderly don't know america 2007. They are scared. The above use that fear and out of touchness to prey on AMERICANS. And why? So they can line their pockets.

That, to me is treason. I have waited long enough, I think, to have some form of accountability. It's been years. Zero accountability. Over 3500 of my brothers are dead. And for what? So Sean Hannity gets a 50 foot longer yacht? Treason

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 2, 2007 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Sorry pink. Sometimes when you look in the abyss it looks back.

No disrespect intended. Sorry to be so rash. Thanks fo the libby update. Sorry if I DID ruin this site. Not my intention. Trying to bring a little reality here. I have been watch O'REilly/Fox news for years. Angry. To scared to speak out because I didn't want to be put on the terrorist watch list for speaking truths. Once I first saw Olberman I said ,"Ok, now it's on."

Reality. YOu know what I'm saying? reality. As opposed to lies propoganda misdirection

Posted by: rufus | July 2, 2007 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Colin, you make a good case for Obama. I have said here that I am intrigued by the qualities in him that would make him a strong labor negotiator for either side - he listens, he understands, and he does not demean the opposing view when he makes his point.

You also know that I am one of about four or five regular posters here who are split ticket moderates. Our D favorite, Biden, is too conservative (or "corporate" - drindl's word, I think) for the D faithful, apparently. From among the "leaders", at least two of us are intrigued by Obama's potential.

When I was young, I thought Barbara Jordan, a centrist D from Houston with a voice and presence to match James Earl Jones, would be the first black AND first female President. But terminal illness confined Jordan to a wheelchair, and she left Congress and taught at the LBJ School at UT until shortly before her death.

Then I was sure it would be Gen. Powell who broke the color barrier. Now I think it could be Sen. Obama.

I am concerned that race will play some part in the election campaign of the first black candidate for President from a major party. Nevertheless, race, or gender, or ethnicity, or religion can no longer be
an "unofficial" measuring stick of qualifications, or we will not fulfill our promise as a nation, because we will become indentured to our fear that bigotry will control the election.

This is not an endorsement of Obama, or Clinton, or Richardson, or Romney; it is encouragement to the Party faithful to discard their fears of bigotry, to work as if there were none, and to work against it when they encounter it.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 2, 2007 6:37 PM | Report abuse

You know I'm just trying to get my boys name out there. Read up. He can save you. I obviously can't. But he can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti

1984. Have you read it? I ruined this site? I come on here to tell people what time it is. To help people. What do you do. Attack and assult. You arte my enemy not because I want it, but because it's all you know. I don't blame you.

I blame Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly. I blame them for taking political conversation to a place you are well aware. I'm trying to help you, you just don't knwo it. What do you do here? Who are you helping? Please leave. We don't need you here.

Go to a full-on right wing site. That must be real fun. I bet it sounds like a bunch of clones over there. Good luck Zouk. I pity you. The world is passing you by. I know the NRA is with you, along wiht the rednecks. Don't kill us liberals. We only want this country to acheive what it's destined to. Unlike the repubs whose game is divide and conquer. Sabotage. Greed.

Money is nothing but paper with little pictures of dead presidents on it. 100 million is not worth 1 soldier

Posted by: JKrish Rufus | July 2, 2007 6:29 PM | Report abuse

From CNN--For 19% Against 72% on the Libby matter. The next few days will be quite interesting for repubs running for House and Senate seats in 08. I will be looking for the ones that have been in lock step with GW all the way and their statements. My prediction is very few of them will even make a statement unless asked, and then it is the power granted to the POTUS in the Constitution.

Posted by: lylepink | July 2, 2007 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Monrings at Judicial Watch/Afternoons at the RNC - Do you mean me or rufus1133 JKrish?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Ignorant coward, I do not respond to nut jobs like you in case you haven't noticed. you are personally responsible for utterly ruining this blog and I will have nothing to do with you. So go pester someone else who can put up with your childish antics. I know you are obsessed with me and can think of nothing else most of the time, but move.on loser.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 2, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

"Colin, this site has been swamped by your fellow Libs exhibiting the behavior you dislike. Why doesn't anyone but blarg call them out on it like all you always do with cons? Until some balance and self policing of the extreeme moonbat brigade of"

The differanc eis, you use ann coulter tactics. "OOHH YEAH, you smell bad." Or such, that helps no one. What I do is make others aware of truths.

There is a differance. You cannot attack all day and expect not to be attacked. Try posting somehting REAL for a change. Try postin g FROM YOUR HEAD, as opposed from right-wing attack sites.

Try to think for yourselve. I'm trying to help you here buddy. You have to join humanity. Leave teh robots.

Think for yourself. Read. Look at the news once and a while.

Defending the un-defendable makes you lose all credibility. Saying "Well teh dems did this in 1857" makes you look like a middle school kid.

Let's recap.

Post off you head, while sometimes pull from other source.

Don't blindly attack without facts. don't puppet others.


:)

Posted by: rufus | July 2, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

He should have waited until after the election and solicited a payoff. Isn't that how it is done? At least in Dem circles?

In R circles a pardon is appropriate for a sham conviction for a non crime leveled by a prosecuter on a fishing trip.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Earth to Zouk - If it was a non-crime then why did the President have to commute it?

This is why it's always good to have friends in the highest of places.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I guess he's think "why not. It can't possibly get any worst for Bush OR the gop.

YEEEAHHH. I actually like this move. How mcuh money was wasted on this whole orderal again? It can all be saved if the administration stops "pleding the fifth" "I don't recall"

That's whats good for the country. If they really were patriots and not partisan cronies, as they claim, they would do what's best for the country. In EVERY case, every chance they get, they choose themselves over us. Everytime. They are done. I like this move. I helps me a lot

Posted by: rufus | July 2, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Colin, this site has been swamped by your fellow Libs exhibiting the behavior you dislike. Why doesn't anyone but blarg call them out on it like all you always do with cons? Until some balance and self policing of the extreeme moonbat brigade of ignorant coward, ranting rufas, et al, this blog will remain an insult fest only.

They may respect a request from a fellow traveler but ignore my protests. I am always happy to debate with intelligent fact-based individuals, but they are few and far between on this blog lately. too bad. the arrival of ignorant coward was the beginning of the end of civility here.

These two clowns alone can fill up an entire day all by themselves and not arrive at a single useful idea. Just watch the response to this post. they can't help themselves.

I always liked certain interactions, especially with colin, blarg, etc who fight fair and debate policy with a good sense of humor and taste. It is really these juvenile and hateful flamers that have lowered this blog to the sewer. Police your own. I directly challenged that racist right winger when he arrived and finding no support, he left.

Children move on when ignored.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 2, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

The circle is compleate. The right impeachs clinton, due personal affairs, then pardons libby for the same offense.

They are done. Their hypocricy knows no bounds.

I just wish teh laws that WE all have to follow applied to the repubs also. It will come back on them. don't fret.

Election time is near.

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 2, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Just in, Bush commutes Libby prison sentence.

Posted by: lylepink | July 2, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

IF WE ALL WE'RE INDEPENDANTS THIS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Bill from KY, may I guess? you voted Bush in 2000 election. You don't know Hillary at all, just hate her. I understand you don't respect woman who is smarter than men. By your comment you just want America is destroyed completely. You know Bush was inexperienced so our Country is controlled by VP, your idea is Obama is same with Bush so Obama needs experienced VP, it is correct but Hillary is totally different person with Dick, that's why your idea is wrong. Kentucky people need to open their eyes, and vote the most qualified candidate, that's is the real American Citizenship. America is not only your Country, it is our Country, your vote is very important, it will decide our Country's future where you are living.

Posted by: Kyu Reisch, Radcliff, Kentucky | July 2, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

"Left's Ronald Reagan. He's an unabashed progressive who appeals to everyone. "

That's the repubs god. That's sacralige. :)

ON POINT ASSESMETN

Posted by: RUFUS | July 2, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Colin, so even though you won the last election, it is still and always will be the repubs fault that you are impotent? I don't recall you making that claim when the tables were turned last fall. but as a dyed-in-the-wool Lib, you must find a victim for every action - no?

Grow a pair and suggest the rest of your party do likewise, esp Pelosi, Reid, Edwards but not hillary.

"the fact that Republicans in the Senate -- along with the Republican in the WH -- have prevented Democrats from passing all of the key aspects of the Democratic agenda that remain undone" - thank goodness for that at least. It seems we still rule, even in the minority. what excuse do you have left? boo hoo, poor ineffective Libs.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 2, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Call me strange, but a ton of experience in DC doesn't actually strike me as the best prep for being President. Nor does the work Obama did in Illinois cease to count in my view simply b/c it occurred at the state level.

Throughout his career, as a civil rights lawyer, community organizer, and politician, Obama has shown a unique ability to create consensus and produce progressive and pragmatic results. That matters to me, esp after our last two presidents who -- regardless of whether you liked one of them or neither -- were certainly polarizing forces. Really, I support Obama b/c I think a lot of scared republicans are precisely right when they call him the Left's Ronald Reagan. He's an unabashed progressive who appeals to everyone.

Posted by: Colin | July 2, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

My daddy left me. I needed the money. Harry told me it would be OK. He does it all the time.

Posted by: Obama | July 2, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

annoying nameless person, who sounds just like KOZ -- Thanks for posting all of your "facts." There's nothing like cut and past jobs that are completely off topic and little more than personal attacks to move a conversation along. Good job!

Honestly, it's sort of sad. You used to be sort of fun when you'd at least pretend to deal with reality and debate issues. Rational arguments can be made for the conservative position on most issues. Unfortunately, you don't seem to have any interest in making those arguments. Rather, you prefer to rattle of slogans and attacks. That's just boring.

If, by some chance, you would really like to discuss the "facts" why don't we talk about the fact that Republicans in the Senate -- along with the Republican in the WH -- have prevented Democrats from passing all of the key aspects of the Democratic agenda that remain undone. Then, perhaps, we can talk about how that obstruction will result in even more Republican losses in 2008.

Are you up for that conversation?

Posted by: Colin | July 2, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

So you people know. Zouk just comes here to silence MY truth. When I started coming here there were far less posts. I start telling peoploe what time it realy is, here comes zouk. Postin glike a lunitic all day.

So you people know. It's to silence me. He is scared of the truth I'm spreading. This is the republcians tactic. This is why they(many repubs not all) only watch Fox. Truth destroys teh propoganda they are puttin gout. Truth destroys lies. Love destroys hate. Understanding destroys intolorance.

This is why he posts non-stop. He wants most people to vacat this site so they don't get tainted.

This is newspeak and doublethink circa 1984. "This is black is white up is down. Truth is bad. Hate is good'. "Racism is a fact of life". These are lies. 'It's all for the greater good'. I am good therefore whatever I do Is good. This is a lie.

"you reap what you sow."

This is what happened to CC's right wing propoganda site. I came on talking truths. The trolls can't have that. Fight for what is right. Do the research. Again, if the right in this country was just, they wouldn't need a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. They would get elected based on their ACTIONS. They can't do theat. They have to propogate. Teh used misdirection. They use divide and conquer.

Just so you know why zouk does this all day. If not he loses. As is his movement is done for his lifetime. Don't hate him. Pity him :)

Posted by: rufus | July 2, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

The composition of the Obama support is mainly young, well-educated white men. Yes, they are extremely mobilized and very supportive of him. I bet you fit this description too Colin, right? Race is a real issue as is gender, but I think people are blabbering more about his lack of experience. 250,000/ 300,000,000 million is a very small percentage. Hillary's support is somewhat more across the board in terms of individual characteristics.

Why do you like him so much? Do think he is the best chance of getting marijuana legalized?

Maybe Dems should start thinking about Gore if Obama is the best they can do. The case for Obama thus far seems to be he is not Hillary. Although, Richardson's resume is quite impressive. Then, Dems can find a veep candidate with experience.

Why are you so compelled to put a state senator into power? Especially a state senator (Obama) willing to make land deals with questionable businessmen.

Posted by: Small - but supportive group | July 2, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

For Sale - votes on important issues. make check out to Clinton Library (the other one). Secrecy assured.

Also for sale at lower price - presidential pardons. contact my brother for full details and prices

Wanted - remaining pieces of Presidential silverware. I missed getting the full set and need a few single items.

Posted by: ebay sale | July 2, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

envy/jealous as a factor

Ummm no, it is the policies and the crime.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

dLeahy said he might be open to an offer in which White House officials were to agree to private briefings that were both sworn and committed to a transcript. But ultimately, the public have a right to hear what's been done, he said.

"I will be the one who decides what to leak" Leaky Leahy proclaimes, living up to his name from previous illegal transgressions.

Posted by: drip drip | July 2, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

F&B: Right you are. There are no suprises here from the "Clinton Haters". They just cannot get over the best 8 years of most of our lives when Bubba was POTUS. I sometimes mention envy/jealous as a factor in these discussions and most days it is clearly here from those that do not put a name on their comment and the usual opponents.

Posted by: lylepink | July 2, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Former US President Bill Clinton is due to make his first major appearances beside wife Hillary as she campaigns in the 2008 White House race. The pair will spend three days in Iowa, a crucial state because it is among the first to pick which candidate from each party will run for president. Later in July they are due to travel to New Hampshire, another key early state.

bill, I got you your own bedroom in another hotel. you understand.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse


One admin official convicted on an underlying non-crime of forgetting to agree with russert. this is peanut league compared to the record convictions of Clinton admin.

Regarding the Dem fundraising - an indication that the Libs would like to buy the office. they fear that their ideas will never gain acceptance and require plenty of dough to broadcast all their lies and empty promises. See Pelosi above.

If elected we promise to......insert anything you want here if you are a pandering Lib, you don't have to mean it.

Still waiting for facts from the DNC? It's going to be a while, they need to figure out what that means. Meanwhile, anything you don't like, continue to label as lies with no substantiation. Your MO should work on the ignorant class you represent. they do not demand any responsibility of their pols. See Pelosi above

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

afgail -- I know, Republicans must be excited at the prospect of facing Obama! I mean, what republican wouldn't relish facing the Democratic candidate who (1) can raise the most money; (2) attract the largest crowds; (3) produce the most grassroots energy on the left; AND (4) is liked by more indies and moderate republicans than any Democrat!! I mean, that kind of a candidate wouldn't have a chance because...well...you don't like his last name...?

Seriously, just keep blabbering on about his name and his race. That kind of a focus ought to continue to ensure a solid 20% of the population voters republican. In the meantime, reasonable people accross the political spectrum are going to elect Senator Obama president.

Posted by: Colin | July 2, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

ABC News' Jason Ryan and Theresa Cook Report: An appeal to delay the start of the prison sentence for Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff has been denied.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's attorneys had asked a federal appeals court to keep Libby out of prison until the appeal of his conviction is resolved, stating that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did not have the proper authority to bring the case against Libby, and that the judge in the case did not allow witnesses key to the defense to testify during the trial.

A federal jury found Libby guilty March 6 on charges that he lied to the FBI and a grand jury, and obstructed justice in the investigation into the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame, a former covert CIA operative.

U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton sentenced Libby to serve 30 months in prison and pay $250,000 in fines last month.

Last week, the U.S. Marshals Service assigned inmate number 28301-016 to the former aide, who also served as Cheney's national security advisor.

The Bureau of Prisons will continue the process, and determine where Libby will have to report to prison.

Posted by: YES! | July 2, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

zouk is a fascist. Ignore his Ann COulter agruments. They are scared. They had all the power in the world the last 7 years. They abused it for their parties gain.

Now they are on the verge of irrelevance. Look at them sqeeel. The internet age. It's good thing. They can't PROPOGATE AND LIE WITHOUT IT CATCHING UP TO THEM. uutth OOOO. What are their options. How can they continue to propogate with the internet watching their every move?

(2000
"There's gotta be a way to stop the internet."

The Patriot Act. Monitor all email traffic. Monitor all internet views. Silence or minimize all diseent IE drudge rush savage. Only works if you ONLY go that site as with fox news.

Now all we need is a reason to regulate the internet. I know. We'll contact our freinds in the middle east who are our oil business partners. 9/11.)


You have sold this country out for your party. You cannot build the country YOU want without lying and propogating. you cannot silence truth without DESTROYING American media.

The people ahve seen you GOP. You are not patriot's. You are not doing what your doing for the good of the country or your children. Your doing it for money. That is treason. Say what you want GOP. Your children will stand up. How will they report nixon? How will history record bush? Favorably?

You got destroyed in the last election. Regardless of what you say things have not improved, but got a whole lot worse. Regardless of any number of haircut pieces or "obama's a terrorist" pieces. YOUR CHILDREN NOW SEE truth. Making greedy selfish racist homophobic little pigs isn't as easy as it used to be, right zouk?

You time is up. We have the internet now. Your only hope is to shut it down. You have tried. NOW you cannot succed.

Now only republicans have free speech .That will change. Either we all get the rights as repubs. Or repubs have to follow the rules as the rest of us. They are unwilling to do that therefore your movement is done.

This is america. If you don't like move on

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 2, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Eat it raw, zouk/trotsky/trollobyte:

'Democrats Trouncing GOP in Money Race
Obama, Clinton Set Records, While McCain Sheds Staff

'The Democratic presidential candidates have erased and reversed Republicans' historic edge in raising money for campaigns, reflecting growing enthusiasm among Democrats and adding to the GOP's already considerable burdens going into 2008.

Two Democratic candidates -- Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton -- shattered previous quarterly fundraising records in the three-month period that ended Saturday. Obama raised $31 million for his primary campaign, while Clinton raised $21 million; both figures broke the previous record for a Democrat's best fundraising quarter this early in an election cycle.

Meanwhile, underscoring the financial woes the Republicans face, Arizona Sen. John McCain bowed to the financial pressures facing his campaign Monday by announcing staff layoffs and pay cuts for top campaign officials.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3338601&page=1

Posted by: today's big story | July 2, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

zoukie must be scared. pasting fast and furious today. 90% of the posts his. what a wasted life.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

'I can't see this meshing with her ego, especially in light of what the recent books have told us about HRC, her schemes and her temper (and these are books by Dems...)'

You must be joking -- they are sure not by Dems. And they are full of unsubstantiated claims and outright lies. The usual R stuff.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

hahahaha :)

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Let's nominate my mailman for President in 2008.

First, he is a federal employee for over 25 years - so he has more experience than Barack Obama.

Second, he is very likable.

VOTE for My Mailman/ Obama 2008!!!!!

Posted by: Mailman/ Obama 2008 | July 2, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

afgail - it doesn't matter who runs on the Dem side - Hillary, Obama, Edwards. the inevitability of the R win is assured for any of these three losers.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

>>>Guiliani also might be able to win in western states if he can reconnect Republicans with hispanics.

Bill in KY, that's a pretty far-fetched scenario.....

"""When 1,000 Hispanic elected officials and community leaders from across the country gather in Orlando later this week, they'll hear from seven major Democratic candidates for president, ***but none of the major Republican candidates***."""

"""The Republican-led defeat of immigration reform in the Senate Thursday is sounding political alarms as the Hispanic community gears up for the 2008 presidential election.

The Senate bill unleashed inflammatory rhetoric -- from no-name bloggers to high-profile presidential contenders -- that ***could rupture the Republican Party's relationship with the fastest-growing voting bloc***."""

......Wouldn't count much on the Republican Hispanic vote come Nov.

Posted by: F&B | July 2, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Andrea: To go back hundreds of years to find a quote that you agree with is a bit much. This is my own I've used a few times. "Accuse your opponent of what you are doing and in that way you will know what you are doing." Now I don't type it exactly the same every time, but anyone reading it knows what I am saying.

Posted by: lylepink | July 2, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans are helping finance Obama's campaign. They are just salivating at the thought of Barack Hussien Obama on the Democratic ticket as either presidential nominee or the vice presidential nominee. It will be like shooting fish in a barrel and quarentee the White House remains in Republican hands.

Posted by: afgail | July 2, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

I must assume that Judicial Watch is also "Fake but True" as most Dem facts are logged.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Please, polls at this point mean nothing, absolutely nothing. Once Obama starts a major media campaign, his numbers will go up - about the time when they'll actually have meaning.

Posted by: Polls-mean-nada | July 2, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

:) He must be scared poopless :).

you got a couple months GOP. You have no one to blame but yourselves. What will you do when you are irrelevant in american politics? What will you do when your avatars (rush/hannity/o'reilly) are gone. Your movement is over. Pass the reigns to the next generation. YOu have failed the last 50 years. With what you attepmted. The turth always comes to light in the end. It's not like the gop loves this country. They're not doing all this stuff because they're patriots. Thery're sell-outs. They sell the country out to their personal interests everytime.

When dealing with sell-outs you think they're going to keep their mouths shut? No. As soon as it fits their needs they will roll over. Once bush is out his birdies are going to sing. The gop is down for at least my lifetime. Great.

Posted by: RUFUS | July 2, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

It's all about the history books. The first female VP and the obvious nominee in 2016. She would still be younger than McCain is now then. Plus, that would be great for her image - a willingness to put her ego aside for the good of the country. She woul likely be the Dem Cheney - a very powerful VP.

Posted by: Bill in KY | July 2, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Dem retort so far:

We don't accept facts unless they come directly from the DNC or similar organization. That allows us to maintian this 'cone of ignorance" we so desperatly need to continue to support these pols.
We maintain that Hillary Clinton is the most shining example of integrity in any politician. Please ignore the actual convictions if you want to remain one of us.

Love - the ignorant but happy Dem voters

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

RCMP Superintendent Ken Hansen gave his boss a pack of batteries last summer as an example of Chinese counterfeit merchandise arriving at Canadian ports. They made quite an impression months later - when they exploded. The senior RCMP official thought a gun had gone off in the office. Luckily for Hansen, the batteries blew up in his superior's desk drawer

Bring on the cheap drugs.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Judicial Watch is an avowedly conservative organization with an explicit right wing agenda. They came into prominence in the 90's by filing a blizzard of lawsuits against the Clinton administration.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 2, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

but i'm really thinking ten times the cost and ten times the markets.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Bill, do you think HRC would actually accept the VP role? She'd have less power than she does now - a senator with a husband who the Dems swoon over.

I can't see this meshing with her ego, especially in light of what the recent books have told us about HRC, her schemes and her temper (and these are books by Dems...)

Posted by: JD | July 2, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

muD:

in a midwestern midsize market, say des moines, you should get 30 sec between 6pm and 11pm for $40 - $180. say it averages $110. in 5 hrs, there are 100 m of commercial time. say half of that is local. thats 11000 per day per network affiliate per midsize market.

this is very general, but suppose iowa was a target for your plan for 60 days and the markets are ames, des moines, and tricities. 3 markets x 60 days x 4 networks x 11000 = @$8m.

if you thought cal was a swing state it might be at least 2 whole orders of magnitude different; maybe 5 times the cost and 5 times the media markets.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"Judicial Watch" is another of those conservative "think-tanks", run by a former conservative talk show host. So, I feel particularly good about the truth of these claims.

From the looks of it, they like investigating Democrats, while cutting and pasting the claims against R's from news stories in order to appear non-partisan.

Posted by: JamesCH | July 2, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"In 2005, Judicial Watch received documents revealing that the Clinton administration had been warned about the severity of the bin Laden threat to American national security. Read the documents and news articles that prove Clinton knew about the threat posed by bin Laden but took no meaningful action to stop him."

I thought Sandy Burgler destroyed all these. Can't you Libs do anything right, I mean left.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Stop with the links and facts. we Libs can never compete on that measure. now if you want lies and insults, we can offer you plenty. Just watch.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

These newly released documents show that Clinton's bombing of Sudan helped no one but Saddam Hussein. The 'Wag the Dog' bombing gave Saddam Hussein time and breathing space, which he used to bolster his regime on the world stage and, as Judicial Watch and many other experts allege, to conspire with bin Laden to commit the worst attack on America in its history," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton

http://www.judicialwatch.org/1831.shtml

Dem foreign policy based on zipper up or zipper down???

Posted by: zipper up??? | July 2, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

In 2005, Judicial Watch received documents revealing that the Clinton administration had been warned about the severity of the bin Laden threat to American national security. Read the documents and news articles that prove Clinton knew about the threat posed by bin Laden but took no meaningful action to stop him.


http://www.judicialwatch.org/2005_binLaden.shtml

Posted by: want more??? | July 2, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and Harry - the leaders of the slimy party of corruption. Verified by independent Judicial watch. Obama makes only an dis-honorable mention.

I didn't see any of the R candidates on there?

No morals - vote Dem!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

James CH - I don't think that Barack would fare all that well in the south against Guiliani. I've lived in the south for a long time and can say with confidence that racism runs deep. Guiliani is also doing quite well in the south. Barack would need insanely high black turnout in those states that you just listed. Guiliani also might be able to win in western states if he can reconnect Republicans with hispanics.

As far as an Obama/ Clinton ticket - I think she would accept that, that Bill Clinton could probably strong arm the Obama camp into making it happen, and that it would be a formidable ticket. If Hillary wins, she should NOT pick Obama as he doesn't compensate for any of her weaknesses.

However, she could be Obama's Dick Cheney. I think people would feel more comfortable with his inexperience with her on the ticket. Plus, let's not kid ourselves Barack has been going decidedly negative in this campaign (if even under the radar). As the VP selection, she could say all of the negative things about their opponent while Barack rides above it. This is essentially Bush/ Cheney 2000.

Posted by: Bill in KY | July 2, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

According to the evidence compiled by Judicial Watch in the last ten years, Hillary Clinton is among the most corrupt politicians in our nation's history. She devised a scheme to sell taxpayer financed trade missions to Communist China in exchange for campaign contributions. She presided over the theft of the private FBI files of former Reagan and Bush staffers. She led the campaign to slander the women sexually and otherwise abused by President Clinton, and has lied time and time again to investigators, to her colleagues, to the press and to the American people.

Most recently, according to a Judicial Watch's Senate Ethics complaint filed on May 6, 2005, Senator Clinton and her campaign team conspired to defraud the U.S. Senate and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by failing to report the true cost of a $2 million Hollywood campaign fundraising event in August 2000. David Rosen, Hillary Clinton's National Finance Director, recently stood trial for his role in the campaign finance scheme, facing charges he caused false campaign finance reports to be filed with the Federal Election Commission. Federal prosecutors, in an effort to keep Hillary and Bill Clinton out of the trial, presented a watered down case and Rosen was eventually acquitted. Still, there is a mountain of evidence implicating Rosen and both Clintons, and this evidence can be found in the following complaint filed by Judicial Watch with the U.S. Senate's Select Committee on Ethics.

May 26, 2006 Senate Ethics Committee Letter
2006 Petition to Senate Select Committee on Ethics
2006 Petition to FEC
2005 Ethics Complaint Against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton - Complaint filed with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics
2001 Ethics Complaint Against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

http://www.judicialwatch.org/hrccomplaint.shtml

Posted by: none slimier | July 2, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

'Four years ago today, President Bush issued this challenge to the Iraqi insurgents:

There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on.'

thanks mr. bush. more than 3500 young US lives gone because of you, you foul, moronic, murdering madman.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Dishonorable Mentions include:

1. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) - According to complaints released by the House Ethics Committee recently, aides to Representative John Conyers (D-MI) alleged their former boss repeatedly violated House ethics rules, forcing them to serve as his personal servants, valets, and as campaign staff while on the government payroll.

2. Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) - In May 2006, Kennedy crashed his car into a Capitol Hill barricade at nearly 3 a.m. in the morning. Kennedy blamed the incident on a reaction to prescription pills, but officers at the scene said he smelled of alcohol. Nonetheless, they escorted him home rather than arresting him.

3. Former Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) - McKinney assaulted a Capitol Hill police officer in April after refusing to go through a metal detector. While McKinney was never forced to answer in a court of law for her behavior, she lost her bid for re-election in 2006.

4. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) - Iraq war critic John Murtha was incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's first choice for House Majority Leader despite the ethical skeletons in his closet. Murtha is an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1980 "Abscam" scandal, which included the arrest and convictions of a senator and six congressmen. Murtha, whose current ethics continue to be questioned, lost his bid for Majority Leader to Maryland Democrat Steny Hoyer.

5. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) - News reports surfaced in 2006 that Illinois Senator Barak Obama entered into an unusual land deal with a now-indicted political fundraiser, Tony Rezko. The complicated real estate transaction occurred when it was widely known that Rezko was under federal investigation in a political corruption scandal.

6. David Safavian, Former Bush Administration Official - Safavian, the former White House Chief of Procurement and former Chief of Staff for the General Services Administration, was indicted on September 19, 2006 on five counts of lying about his dealings with former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and obstructing a Senate investigation of his dealings. Safavian resigned from his White House position three days prior to his arrest.


"This list shows public corruption is endemic to our nation's capital and that the anti-corruption work of Judicial Watch is needed more than ever," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The list could be much longer, as there are far too many politicians who abuse the public trust and place themselves above the law."

###


Posted by: obama and Murtha | July 2, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

In a recent interview with "In The Know TV," a public affairs television show broadcast in the DC area, Joe Wilson -- the husband of former CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame -- spoke out about the potential pardoning of Scooter Libby.

Wilson argued, "Considering that this is an obstruction of justice case, and considering that the prosecutor has said repeatedly that there remains a cloud over the Vice President, it seems to me that those who are arguing for pardon are in fact accessories to an ongoing crime." He said that until the cloud over Cheney is lifted, the ultimate crime cannot be said to have been punished.

Wilson also argued that Bush should recuse himself from any involvement with the Libby scandal. "The idea that the President would not recuse himself given the superior-subordinate relationship he had with Mr. Libby -- and considering that it would be the first time that you would consider a pardon in a criminal investigation that involves perhaps the Office of the President, certainly the Office of the Vice President -- would be totally inappropriate," he said.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

So I have a money question partly inspired by the huge amount raised and the recent Supreme Court ruling on McCain-Feingold.

What would it cost to simply buy up all the air time in the swing states? By all the air time I mean evening news, prime time and late local news on the major networks (local slots, not national slots) and morning and evening radio drive time for the last n days of a campaign. And is there anything prohibiting the buyer of said slot from re-selling it to friendly campaigns or commercial ads to reduce the total cost? There are only so many commercial slots and many of the swing states have reasonably affordable airtime.

Obviously it depends on what states are in play, but what is the magic dollar amount (assuming you act before your opponent) that can deny your opponent any airtime time when someone who is likely to vote is actually watching or listening?

Posted by: muD | July 2, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

On July 2, 2003, just over 200 U.S. soldiers had died in Iraq. Today, the number stands at 3,583. In July 2003, Gallup reported that the number of Americans who believed things were going badly in Iraq had risen to 42 percent, up from 29 percent in June. Today, fully 77 percent of the American public believe the war is going badly.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2006 list of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians." The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

1. Jack Abramoff, Former Lobbyist - Abramoff is at the center of a massive public corruption investigation by the Department of Justice that, in the end, could involve as many as a dozen members of Congress. Abramoff pleaded guilty to conspiracy, fraud and a host of other charges on January 3, 2006, and was sent to prison in November to serve a five-year, 10-month sentence for defrauding banks of $23 million in Florida in 2000.

2. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) - In January 2006, Hillary Clinton's fundraising operation was fined $35,000 by the Federal Election Commission for failing to accurately report more than $700,000 in contributions to Clinton's Senate 2000 campaign. New information also surfaced in 2006 raising more questions about Hillary and her brother Anthony Rodham's connection to the Clinton Pardongate scandal, where presidential pardons were allegedly traded in exchange for cash and other favors.

3. Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) - In November 2005, Cunningham pleaded guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion. He was sentenced to 8 years, four months in prison and ordered to pay $1.8 million in restitution in March 2006.

4. Former Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX) - Tom DeLay, who was forced to step down from his position as House Majority Leader and then resign from Congress, decided in 2006 not to run for re-election. Congressman DeLay has been embroiled in a series of scandals from bribery to influence peddling, and was indicted twice by grand juries in Texas.

5. Former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) - Foley left the House in disgrace after news broke that he had been sending predatory homosexual emails to a House page. A recent House Ethics Committee report indicated that Republican leaders knew about Foley's dangerous behavior, but failed to take action. Democrats, meanwhile, shopped the story to the press to influence the elections. Outrageously, the Committee recommended no punishment for those involved.

6. Rep. Denny Hastert (R-IL) - In addition to mishandling the Foley scandal, outgoing House Speaker Dennis Hastert allowed House ethics process to grind to a halt on his watch. Gary Condit, Cynthia McKinney, William Jefferson, John Conyers, Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham, Jim McDermott, Patrick Kennedy are examples of alleged wrongdoers who faced little-to-no ethics enforcement in the House.

7. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) - Hastings is one of only six federal judges to be removed from office through impeachment and has accumulated staggering liabilities ranging from $2,130,006 to $7,350,000. Hastings was "next in line" for Chairmanship of the House Select Committee on Intelligence until a wave of protest forced Nancy Pelosi to select another candidate. Nonetheless, Hastings is expected to continue to serve on the Intelligence Committee.

8. Rep. William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson (D-LA) - Jefferson is alleged to have accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to help broker high-tech business deals in Nigeria. According to press reports, he was also caught on tape discussing the deals, while an FBI search of his home uncovered $90,000 in cash stuffed in his freezer.

9. Former Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) - Ohio Republican Congressman Bob Ney resigned in early November 2006, three weeks after pleading guilty for accepting bribes from an Indian casino in exchange for legislative favors. Ney was the first congressman to be convicted of a crime in the web of scandals involving former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and is expected to serve a jail sentence.

10. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) - Senator Reid came under fire in 2006 for failing to properly report to Congress a $700,000 land deal. Reid also accepted more than $30,000 of Abramoff-tainted money allegedly in return for his ''cooperation'' in matters related Nevada Indian gaming.

Posted by: knocked to second in 2006 | July 2, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

'Iraqi Citizens Pour Out To Fight al Qaeda The U.S. military is enlisting hundreds of fighters each day from tribal and insurgent groups in alliances'

LOL -- US taxpayers get r*ped again as sunni insurgents are given guns if they 'promise' to fight some mythical 'al-queda'... they'll then use them on shia and the civil war will rage on, both sides funded and supplied by you and i.

we must be the most gullible nation on earth.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse


Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., has been named the most corrupt person in America by the public-interest watchdog group Judicial Watch.


Sen. Hillary Clinton named 'most corrupt' of 2002

The former first lady edged out her husband, ex-President Bill Clinton, for top honors in the group's 'Dirty Dozen' list for 2002.

This year's ranking includes eight Democrats, three Republicans, one businessperson - former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay - and an honorable mention for Texas Congressman Tom DeLay, another Republican.

The entire listing is as follows, complete with reasons and comments provided by Judicial Watch:


Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.: Like a modern-day Gollum, Mrs. Clinton's quest for political brass rings frequently descends into evil, from Whitewater to FBI Filegate to Travelgate to taking over two million dollars in illegal contributions for her Senate campaign from Judicial Watch client Peter Paul. Judicial Watch's quest is to throw her ring into the judicial "Cracks of Doom."

Bill Clinton, D: The "King of Corruption" for eight tawdry years, Judicial Watch looks forward to taking Mr. Clinton's testimony under oath in the Dolly Kyle Browning-vs.-Clinton case, and many others.

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh, R: The most corrupt and inept FBI Director in the history of the agency, Freeh recently suffered a blow from the Supreme Court, refusing to acknowledge his claim of immunity in a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of former Energy Department Director of Intelligence, Notra Trulock.

Jesse Jackson, D: Judicial Watch sued the so-called "Reverend" Jesse Jackson, his son Jonathan and others for alleged civil-rights violations and assault and battery on behalf of conservative black activist Rev. Jesse Lee Petersen.

Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo.: Judicial Watch sued Gephardt and his campaign staff for alleged assault, civil-rights violations, abuse of process and other wrongdoings on behalf of Bill Federer, who ran for - and nearly won - Gephardt's seat in 2000.

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe: Parlayed $100,000 into $18 million in the bankrupt Global Crossing. Judicial Watch is suing McAuliffe over his alleged shady ties with Global Crossing.

Former IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti, R: Used the Internal Revenue Service as a political weapon that would have made even Richard Nixon proud.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss.: A supreme embarrassment to the nation even before his recent foot-in-mouth statement at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday, Lott was instrumental in making the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton a total joke.

Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J.: Like "The Godfather's" Sen. Geary, "The Torch" couldn't find an offer or a big-screen TV that he couldn't refuse. His corrupt career on Capitol Hill presently sleeps with fishes.

Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D.: Judicial Watch has filed Freedom of Information Act requests to uncover Sen. Daschle and his wife Linda's role in the selection of faulty bomb-detecting equipment for the airline industry.

Former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay: The disgraced "Kenny-boy," used investors money in Enron like his own personal cookie jar, playing the fiddle while this Houston-based company burned.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.: For his tireless efforts to obstruct justice whenever Democrat wrongdoing is involved.

Honorable Mention: Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas: "The Hammer" smashed his thumb when he tried to sell White House access to contributors a la Lincoln bedroom-style.

Posted by: she is in first place allright | July 2, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

'Edwards - too sissy to debate ann coulter'

how can you 'debate' a robot with no brain, zouk?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Bill,

The theory of Hillary losing the nomination, then becoming Bloomberg's running mate is interesting, but so unlikely as to be impossible.

Bill Clinton would not sell out the Democratic Party. He would not allow the party to become irrelavant, as it would by doing this. Plus, imagine just how hostile Congress would be toward a Bloomberg Presidency if this were to happen. If he's really her most trusted advisor, there's no way this would happen.

In addition, Hillary has a better than good chance of becoming Senate Majority Leader after the '08 election, something she would likely not want to blow by making that mistake.

As for the Obama/Kerry comparison, I can only say this:

How does Guliani guarantee himself the South against Obama. Even if Guliani named Jesus Christ his running mate, he'll still have to campaign harder in the South than any Republican in the last 30 years. Especially Obama. GA, TN, NC, those replace NY. As for NJ and PA, the right running mate (Clinton, perhaps?) neutralizes this advantage, which is actually irrelavant, because NYC won't vote for Rudy, they'll vote Democrat.

Posted by: JamesCH | July 2, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Giuliani's efforts to run on on his 9/11 performance have hit another snag as the president of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, New York's firefighter union, has vowed to sink his candidacy. As one would expect from an organization of firefighters, the UFA is not kidding around:

The UFA "will never be with Rudy Giuliani," [UFA head Steve Cassidy] proclaimed. "We will make it known that he is not qualified to lead."
...
"For someone running for the highest office in the country claiming to be a leader on terrorism, Giuliani's track record stinks," Cassidy declared.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza... It becomes clearer everyday that you are an unabashed Clinton supporter. Please do us all a facor and just endorse her now and get it over with.

Obama's numbers are impressive. Had the situation been reversed -- that is Obama leading in the polls and Hillary raking in the big bucks, you'd declare her the "frontrunner" in a heartbeat.

Clinton's campaign (and by that I mean Hillary's and not Bill's) is too busy preparing for the coronation. What she doesn't realize is that more she tries to manage the illusion that 8 years in the White House as First Lady is the same as 8 years as President, the weaker her claim to "ready to lead" becomes. I've watched Tiger Woods win twelve major golf tournaments, but that hardly makes me qualified to play the US Open.

Let her speak about shooting down Sudanese planes over Darfur, and I'll ask her about her silence and inaction (and her "co-president" husband's) during Rwanda. Want sound bite delivered with sappy, put-on black accent? Hill's your girl.

Obama's $32.5 million ($31 for primary use) speaks for itself. And to think he didn't need Bill to help him raise it.

Posted by: Jade7243 | July 2, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

I am in the last day of business meetings in Bangkok, and have been watching the media response with great interest. My hotel TV offers both CNN and BBC news coverage, and the difference between them is remarkable. When the Glasgow attack became known, CNN offered non-stop coverage which preempted all normal programming. The attackers were defined in no uncertain terms as Al-Quaeda members, despite any conclusive evidence of same. In stark contrast, BBC offered quite detailed coverage of the attack, but continued with normal programming covering weather, sports, international affairs, etc.

BBC was quite careful not to ascribe any specific Al-Quaeda membership, and described the attackers as "influenced by other Al-Quaeda types". CNN created the image of a major world crisis, while BBC presented an isolated but obviously troubling event.

I would respectfully posit that such coverage by most of our American Mainstream Media is why the Bush Administration has been able to so easily play with the fears and emotions of Americans.

Posted by: Franklin Graham | July 2, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

"The comparison of Barack to John Kerry is fitting. He is someone that could win the nomination, but lose the election."

I don't think so. Kerry is a slave to corporate america. Yale grad, bush buddy. He is really a republican. He conveinantly says the WRONG things at the RIGHT time for the GOP. With these sell-out rebulicans (some claiming to be dems, like clinton) sabotaging the dems/government we don't knwo who to trust. WE DO KNOW WHO WE CAN'T trust now.

I think the opposite. I think he may have a battle with hildog for the nomination but will do much better on the whole. The clinton's have their old system running. The are positioning themselves are REPUBLICANS with universal health care. Now what if that never happens, like last time. Then she will jsut be republican.

Barack will have a fight ove rthe nomination. Clinton has a lot of money. The test will be this. wHCIH IS MORE IMPORTANT TO AMERICA

BArack and his hope/vison/future

Clinton and her money/cronies/corporate freinds

Now we see what america is. The republicans have no hope. they are not even worth mentioning, unless you count clinton. It's a race between them two. It's like the NFL. Most times the real championship is the title game. As will be the case this time.

If the sell-outs/bush/gop/corporate win hillary will be the next president.

If the people win it will be Barack or Edwards. We will see. We can prognosticate all day long. Only time will tell. Are we going to continue down the same path (hildog or any gop) or are we going to stop the traitors build a better future for our kids (barack Edwards)

I will say the more I hear edwards( despite all the hateful lying trolls) the more I like what he has to say. I think he still makes a good vp. Kerry ,convienantly ,lost last ime. No fault of edwards

Posted by: rufus | July 2, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

'Coulter talking to O'Reilly: "I'm more of a man than any liberal."

She's more of a man than any man. Take a look at that adam's apple. The transvestite h**kers on 11th ave have smaller ones.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

'Investigators are focusing on at least three doctors believed to have played a role in the attempted terror attacks in London and Glasgow last week, sources said Monday. The two identified so far are both from the Middle East -- one Iraqi, the other Jordanian. The brother of the Jordanian doctor said he was in the top of his medical class and not a religious person. developing story'

guess being us being 'over there' didn't stop them from 'coming here' did it?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

zouk, in case you didn't notice it, you aren't fooling anyone. we see you have no life except this blog, no matter how many fake names you use.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

so much of what she has done in New York

Like what?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

On Clinton's electability:

Increasingly, it is looking like Rudi Guiliani will be the Republican nominee. He has the endorsement of Pat Robertson and polls very well with evangelicals. Once voters get to know more about Mormonism, Romney is toast. Specifically, the book of Mormon will not sit well with fundamentalist Christians.

Barak Obama cannot win Pennsylvania or New Jersey against Guiliani - period. Pennsylvania is essentially a blue state on the perimeter with Alabama smack down the middle. The only Democrat PA could get elected to the senate was Bob Casey, a pro-lifer. New Jersey is a New York city suburb that is way over-taxed. Guiliani speaks their language.

Clinton can win these states. She would win PA against Guiliani because so much of what she has done in New York trickles down to NEPA (plus her family is from Scranton). Her NYC popularity carries to NJ.

The comparison of Barack to John Kerry is fitting. He is someone that could win the nomination, but lose the election.

Posted by: Bill in KY | July 2, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

The biggest problem Obama is going to face now is the fact that he's the only alternative in the Democratic primaries. Clinton's lead is thin at the top, but has a solid, unyielding base. The only thing that weakens her is the litany of shady behavior of the Bill Clinton Administration and her less than glowing record in the Senate.

Don't kid yourself, folks. Hillary has shifted gears to run this campaign as the Hillary and Bill Show. She knows she's less likely to win if they keep her husband low-key, hence the two of them barnstorming all over Iowa this week.

Obama is trapped by doing the right thing. He's not going to hit below the belt, so he has to hope that Edwards stays competitive enough to throw gasoline on the fire. The GOP prefers Hillary as the nominee, because they know that they can slam her face in the mud repeatedly. Obama poses much more of a challenge in that respect, not having as long a public life as Hillary has had.

That said, she'd still probably win the general, though I doubt any candidate for president in '08 will get a mandate. And, a Bloomberg run makes Hillary the least attractive Democrat in the race.

Posted by: JamesCH | July 2, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

'From 1989 until October 1993, Larry Johnson served as a Deputy Director in the U.S. State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism. He managed crisis response operations for terrorist incidents throughout the world and he helped organize and direct the US Government's debriefing of US citizens held in Kuwait and Iraq, which provided vital intelligence on Iraqi operations following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Mr. Johnson also participated in the investigation of the terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103. Under Mr. Johnson's leadership the U.S. airlines and pilots agreed to match the US Government's two million-dollar reward.

From 1985 through September 1989 Mr. Johnson worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. During his distinguished career, he received training in paramilitary operations, worked in the Directorate of Operations, served in the CIA's Operation's Center, and established himself as a prolific analyst in the Directorate of Intelligence. In his final year with the CIA he received two Exceptional Performance Awards.

Mr. Johnson is a member of the American Society for Industrial Security. He taught at The American University's School of International Service (1979-1983) while working on a Ph.D. in political science. He has a M.S. degree in Community Development from the University of Missouri (1978), where he also received his B.S. degree in Sociology, graduating Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1976.'

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Go Gore Obama 08.

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 2, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

' moonbat'

Posted by: the towering intellect of the Rightwingers | July 2, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

To: Ms Jeffries

I will remind you that on the two big issues Senator Clinton promoted as First Lady and as a member of the Senate. 1 - Health Care Reform. 2 - Senator Clinton's vote to authorize the war in Iraq. In both cases the outcome was failure. In addition I don't recollect any major speeches on foreign or domestic policies over the last 6 years from Senator Hillary Clinton. Ditto for any major legislation passed under Senator Clinton's sponsorship.

Senator Barack Obama had the wisdom to speak out against George Bush's intention to start a war in Iraq, while in the Illinois State Senate in 2002. I give Senator Obama high marks for vision and wisdom for being correct on the biggest issue of the day - the Iraq Civil War.

Lastly, I noticed on the recent Iraqi funding bill that Senator Clinton waited until Senator Obama cast his vote against the bill, before she cast a no vote on the bill. I got the feeling Senator Clinton was stalking Obama, with the intention of voting in lock-step with Senator Obama. Clinton came across as a follower and not a leader.

Posted by: Maurice D | July 2, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"I'm over here making point after point he's talking about CID" - rufus

Again rufus, it's C I B . Let me try to make it clearer, so you might understand; it's C as in See; I as in Eye and B as in Bee.

That's not too difficult to understand, is it?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Rufas, I think I saw you behind the goalposts at the football game holding that sign.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

that's a good name, isiah. I wanted to name my son that. I got it as his middle name:)

Great prophet. We need more isiah's in the word. "saved by god"

His first name means powerful leader. So he is a powerful leader saved by god. Beware GOP. Think about the future. Where will you be in 10 years? What will the history books say. Your movement is done. You have no chance. Your kids are not as gullible as you were. The future is now

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 2, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

I just do not understand Obama supporters. He seems like a nice guy and all. And, it is conceivable that maybe he could be an O.K. president someday. But, most of his current experience was as a state senator. Honestly, have any of you ever thought about the possibility of your state senator becoming president? Personally, I find this very frightening as I wouldn't want my state senator even running the local Arby's, let alone the free world.

If Obama does win the nomination, I think Mayor Bloomberg will enter the race. Then, he should ask Clinton to be his running mate. Essentially, this could create a third party. You would have the former Democratic president not backing the nominee. Obama would be a moot candidate once the Republicans started running ads using the lack of endorsement from the former president. I think alot of people in the middle would find that an attractive pair. If you listen to the debates, I think this offers evidence that Hillary might accept a VP slot on such an indepedent ticket. Whether you like her or not, and with the possible exception of Biden, she is the only candidate that has been offering substantive positions during the debates. Also, not all of her answers will appeal to the far left such as her tough military stances (e.g., Darfur no fly zone). This probably indicates that she is actually motivated by her beliefs, which would make someone inclined to want to enact them.

Posted by: Bill in KY | July 2, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Enjoy your day in the sun Obama supporters.

Posted by: isaiah | July 2, 2007 02:36 PM


ok you know how to copy paste over and over that doesn't cover the truth.


I have to go you all be well and as isaiah says let us Obama supporters enjoy this day

Posted by: DanielleClarke | July 2, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

A device similar to a pipe bomb exploded in a trash can at a remote Walt Disney World parking lot early Monday, authorities said. No one was injured and no serious damage was reported in what officials believe was an isolated incident.

that's funny - Keith Olbermann

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Rufas, in case you didn't notice, we are ignoring you.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

The thing a crying baby/sissy hates the most , when he/she's crying, is to be ignored. I'm going to ignore the elementray school children on this site. This is not a game. I have bigger fish to fry.

"Published on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
Hillary, Rupert, and the Culture of Corruption
by Jeff Cohen

Excuse me for not getting fired up when I hear Democratic leaders bleating about the "culture of corruption" in Washington under GOP rule. Sometimes I have to laugh. . .and not because the charges against the Republicans aren't true. They're totally true.

It's just that top Democrats are up to their eyeballs in that same culture of corruption -- which may be why they seem blind to how activists see them. Take my New York senator, Hillary Clinton. The Financial Times just reported that she and her re-election campaign have lined up rightwing media mogul Rupert Murdoch to host a Hillary fundraiser in July.

Murdoch is the symbol of media conglomeration and the owner of Republican mouthpieces like Fox News, Weekly Standard and the New York Post. He and Hillary have lately conducted a public courtship. Last month, Hillary attended the 10th anniversary party for Fox News in Washington, where the presidential contender schmoozed Murdoch and Fox chair Roger Ailes. According to the Financial Times, Bill Clinton will address the summer conference of Murdoch's media colossus, News Corp. "

Posted by: rufus | July 2, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Coulter sure better hope Edwards isn't elected president. She may be serving jail time for her comments.

She thinks it's all fun and games, as long as she's making millions, (like the rpeublican movement as a whole)

Many people think this is not a game. Many people think calling a presidential candidate a fagg-- or saying HE SHOLD BE KILLED is not ok. Anybody giving her a forum is to blame for what she says. IGNORE HER. IGNORE RUSH/HANNITY.
Even zouk.

They only power they have is the power we give them

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 2, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Iraqi Citizens Pour Out To Fight al Qaeda The U.S. military is enlisting hundreds of fighters each day from tribal and insurgent groups in alliances aimed at countering al-Qaeda in Iraq - WaPo

someone told me there were no al quedas in Iraq. Just who is it they are fighting?

Posted by: Dems 6 months point to abject failure | July 2, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

The head of a Mississippi Democratic Party organization illegally suppressed white residents' votes, a federal judge ruled Friday

Democrats suppressing votes and cheating again - you don't say.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Edwards - too sissy to debate ann coulter

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Today's Right Wing inanity:

"I'm more of a man than any liberal."

-- ANN COULTER talking with Bill O'Reilly on his Fox show about her aggressive stance toward politicians like John Edwards

On topic: I think the election is Hillary's to lose. She came away from the Howard debate with many thinking she won it outright (including me). Pretty amazing with such an incredible candidate as Barak who was in friendly territory no less.

I don't believe a word of the anti-Hillary polling, either. If/when she wins the primary, she will obliterate any GOP candidate. The Hillary haters will be portrayed as the whiners they are, and the swing vote (Hispanic, women, young voters, midwest states) will all go her way.

Most important reason to vote for her imho, she's ready to get to work on Day 1.

Posted by: F&B | July 2, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

As a Hillary supporter and contributor, it is days like today that I most look forward to. Senator Obama's supporters are off on cloud 9 because of their record fundraising ability. Their abilty to raise lots of money have rendered them almost clueless on how Democratic politics work. It really is amazing.

If you look through the history of our party, any number of people would have secured our nomination if it depended on fundraising. The most recent example is Chairman Howard Dean. It now appears that Senator Obama will raise more than us throughout the process. And that gives him one thing: bragging rights. He's financial lead will be insignificant, as Hillary will be in the same range of dollars.

Even more important, several polls recently showed that liberal, well-educated, young white people are forming the base of Senator Obama's campaign. This is a very bad omen. This was the same type of base that fueled Paul Tsongas in 1992, Bill Bradley in 2000 and Dean in 2004. Of course, they all lost the nomination.

Hillary's base support is women -- who vote more often than men in America. Her supporters also tend to be less-educated, have less wealth and are more diverse. Those are the type of people who usually decide the Democratic nominee.

One final note. Though I am biased, it appears that Hillary is running the better campaign at the moment. Her team seems confident and very disciplined. When you consider her high negatives, it is stunning that she has maintained such a large lead for such a sustained period of time. Despite all his money and good press, Senator Obama has not been able to put any significant dent in Hillary's poll numbers...this after 6 months. This leads me to believe that Hillary has base support of about 30% that will support her no matter what.

Enjoy your day in the sun Obama supporters.

Posted by: isaiah | July 2, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Global Warming Claims Melt Under Scientific Scrutiny Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them Chicago Sun Times

Posted by: dang your science | July 2, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Now is the time for me to ignore ZOUk. Sorry for the rants. It's to easy for me to destroy him. I'll leave him to his haircut pieces. and Rosie O'Donnel'/paris hilton.

I/ We should leave him to his parroting and ignore him for what he is. If he was a man in the slightest he would take responsibility for his words. Ie a name.

He is a coward. I will ignore him from this point on. Sorry for what I contributed to this post. Back and forth. I'm done wiht him. To easy. I'm over here making point after point he's talking about CID and girlfreind's. It's to easy makin ghim look like a propogandists and a fascist. Now that you all see I'll ignore him and let him toil in his obsurity. He only has the power I give him. He is a joke.

Continue on wihtout the zouk vs rufus.

OOO. Zouk is a fascsit. LAst one. SOrry :)

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 2, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

I post; therefore I am!

Posted by: rufus666 | July 2, 2007 02:35 PM


he is a legend in his own mind ROFLMAO

Posted by: DanielleClarke | July 2, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary, however, is doing way better in the debates."

You call these things, debates? Neither party has what amounts to a debate yet.

BTW- It's not the Republican Commandment, it's the 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Olbermann and 'Expert' Laugh at UK Attacks With the new attack on Glasgow Airport, here's Keith Olbermann last night, speaking with "terrorism expert" Larry Johnson and scoffing at the London car bombs

Posted by: some newsman | July 2, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Though it is no doubt a waste of my time, I keep trying to remind people that polls and pundits prognosticating about likely nominess for president are essentially worthless 4,3,2,1,.5 .25 years before the first primary. pick any D race since 56 throw out the standing incumbent or his vp running for the slot and essentially, the front runner never wins. and yet we are subjected to the same nonsense every 4 years and no one remembers that being a front runner means nothing. money is no guarantee either, ask phil graham or steve forbes.
As for hillary, I would be surprised if she could win a general election and I think she presents the r's best chance for holding the white house. Arrogant, no charisma, tone deaf,with deservedly high negatives. Unfortunately a lot of d's are blind to her weaknesses. but if she should beat the odds and win the nomination, then all of a sudden there will be raft of stories, especially the commodity futures trades she made. then we'll all do the dope slap to the head, 'we never saw it coming'. we never do.
It is amazing to me how people get paid real money for punditry and are never asked for an accounting of how well they forecast. they just go on repeating the same nonsense. by the way, why does the DC punditocracy continue focusing on u s senators as presidential timber even while knowing that only two people moved directly from the Senate to the white house. You know one, (often considered the achetype rather than the anomaly) Kennedy, the other was Harding.
end of rant

Posted by: bird | July 2, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

As a Hillary supporter and contributor, it is days like today that I most look forward to. Senator Obama's supporters are off on cloud 9 because of their record fundraising ability. Their abilty to raise lots of money have rendered them almost clueless on how Democratic politics work. It really is amazing.

If you look through the history of our party, any number of people would have secured our nomination if it depended on fundraising. The most recent example is Chairman Howard Dean. It now appears that Senator Obama will raise more than us throughout the process. And that gives him one thing: bragging rights. He's financial lead will be insignificant, as Hillary will be in the same range of dollars.

Even more important, several polls recently showed that liberal, well-educated, young white people are forming the base of Senator Obama's campaign. This is a very bad omen. This was the same type of base that fueled Paul Tsongas in 1992, Bill Bradley in 2000 and Dean in 2004. Of course, they all lost the nomination.

Hillary's base support is women -- who vote more often than men in America. Her supporters also tend to be less-educated, have less wealth and are more diverse. Those of they type of people who usually decide the Democratic nominee.

One final note. Though I am biased, it appears that Hillary is running the better campaign at the moment. Her team seems confident and very disciplined. When you consider her high negatives, it is stunning that she has maintained such a large lead for such a sustained period of time. Despite all his money and good press, Senator Obama has not been able to put any significant dent in Hillary's poll numbers...this after 6 months. This leads me to believe that Hillary has base support of about 30% that will support her no matter what.

Enjoy your day in the sun Obama supporters.

Posted by: isaiah | July 2, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

As a Hillary supporter and contributor, it is days like today that I most look forward to. Senator Obama's supporters are off on cloud 9 because of their record fundraising ability. Their abilty to raise lots of money have rendered them almost clueless on how Democratic politics work. It really is amazing.

If you look through the history of our party, any number of people would have secured our nomination if it depended on fundraising. The most recent example is Chairman Howard Dean. It now appears that Senator Obama will raise more than us throughout the process. And that gives him one thing: bragging rights. He's financial lead will be insignificant, as Hillary will be in the same range of dollars.

Even more important, several polls recently showed that liberal, well-educated, young white people are forming the base of Senator Obama's campaign. This is a very bad omen. This was the same type of base that fueled Paul Tsongas in 1992, Bill Bradley in 2000 and Dean in 2004. Of course, they all lost the nomination.

Hillary's base support is women -- who vote more often than men in America. Her supporters also tend to be less-educated, have less wealth and are more diverse. Those of they type of people who usually decide the Democratic nominee.

One final note. Though I am biased, it appears that Hillary is running the better campaign at the moment. Her team seems confident and very disciplined. When you consider her high negatives, it is stunning that she has maintained such a large lead for such a sustained period of time. Despite all his money and good press, Senator Obama has not been able to put any significant dent in Hillary's poll numbers...this after 6 months. This leads me to believe that Hillary has base support of about 30% that will support her no matter what.

Enjoy your day in the sun Obama supporters.

Posted by: isaiah | July 2, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I post; therefore I am!

Posted by: rufus666 | July 2, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Ronald Reagan said, "The Republican Commandment is thou shalt not talk badly about a fellow Republican."

Bill Clinton said, "One election at a time."

We should listen to both of these political masterminds.

Hillary haters always shock me. I will not vote for Barack Obama because he's not experienced. His performance in the debates illustrates this best. That being said, I think he's a wonderful sentator and a promising individual. He should be the next vice president of the United States. Clinton-Obama all the way!!!!

Contrary to some of the prior comments, it is a fact that Hillary Clinton has consistently out performed EVERY other Democratic candidate in the televised debates. Everyone, including Senator Obama. I am not about doggin Obama. I am about giving props if they are due. Hill deserves her props. She's conducting one of the best public relations iniatives in history.

Moreover, the general election is a year away. Stop talking about it. We are in the primary season. The primary elections are months away. One election at a time, please. It does not matter how Clinton does against Republicans now. That's not the race we are in currently.

If we must speak about the general elections, lets speak about it in general terms. The money is important because it show the amount of interest in the political candidates. The good thing for the Democratic Party is that our leading candidates have raised more money than two thirds of the Republican candidates combined. Americans will elect a Democratic president. This primary is important because the winner will be the next President of the United States. In terms of money, Hillary and Barack have the most support.

Hillary probably raised about 27 million dollars. Barack raised over 30. They're both doing great.

Hillary, however, is doing way better in the debates. When it ultimately dwindles down to the top 5 (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Biden), Obama will have to out perform Clinton in order to win the nomination. The money will not matter. The voters will be listening. Based on the past debates, it will be hard for him to do this because Hillary Clinton IS ALWAYS PREPARED.

Posted by: SCProgress | July 2, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Ronald Reagan said, "The Republican Commandment is thou shalt not talk badly about a fellow Republican."

Bill Clinton said, "One election at a time."

We should listen to both of these political masterminds.

Hillary haters always shock me. I will not vote for Barack Obama because he's not experienced. His performance in the debates illustrates this best. That being said, I think he's a wonderful sentator and a promising individual. He should be the next vice president of the United States. Clinton-Obama all the way!!!!

Contrary to some of the prior comments, it is a fact that Hillary Clinton has consistently out performed EVERY other Democratic candidate in the televised debates. Everyone, including Senator Obama. I am not about doggin Obama. I am about giving props if they are due. Hill deserves her props. She's conducting one of the best public relations iniatives in history.

Moreover, the general election is a year away. Stop talking about it. We are in the primary season. The primary elections are months away. One election at a time, please. It does not matter how Clinton does against Republicans now. That's not the race we are in currently.

If we must speak about the general elections, lets speak about it in general terms. The money is important because it show the amount of interest in the political candidates. The good thing for the Democratic Party is that our leading candidates have raised more money than two thirds of the Republican candidates combined. Americans will elect a Democratic president. This primary is important because the winner will be the next President of the United States. In terms of money, Hillary and Barack have the most support.

Hillary probably raised about 27 million dollars. Barack raised over 30. They're both doing great.

Hillary, however, is doing way better in the debates. When it ultimately dwindles down to the top 5 (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Biden), Obama will have to out perform Clinton in order to win the nomination. The money will not matter. The voters will be listening. Based on the past debates, it will be hard for him to do this because Hillary Clinton IS ALWAYS PREPARED.

Posted by: SCProgress | July 2, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Ronald Reagan said, "The Republican Commandment is thou shalt not talk badly about a fellow Republican."

Bill Clinton said, "One election at a time."

We should listen to both of these political masterminds.

Hillary haters always shock me. I will not vote for Barack Obama because he's not experienced. His performance in the debates illustrates this best. That being said, I think he's a wonderful sentator and a promising individual. He should be the next vice president of the United States. Clinton-Obama all the way!!!!

Contrary to some of the prior comments, it is a fact that Hillary Clinton has consistently out performed EVERY other Democratic candidate in the televised debates. Everyone, including Senator Obama. I am not about doggin Obama. I am about giving props if they are due. Hill deserves her props. She's conducting one of the best public relations iniatives in history.

Moreover, the general election is a year away. Stop talking about it. We are in the primary season. The primary elections are months away. One election at a time, please. It does not matter how Clinton does against Republicans now. That's not the race we are in currently.

If we must speak about the general elections, lets speak about it in general terms. The money is important because it show the amount of interest in the political candidates. The good thing for the Democratic Party is that our leading candidates have raised more money than two thirds of the Republican candidates combined. Americans will elect a Democratic president. This primary is important because the winner will be the next President of the United States. In terms of money, Hillary and Barack have the most support.

Hillary probably raised about 27 million dollars. Barack raised over 30. They're both doing great.

Hillary, however, is doing way better in the debates. When it ultimately dwindles down to the top 5 (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Biden), Obama will have to out perform Clinton in order to win the nomination. The money will not matter. The voters will be listening. Based on the past debates, it will be hard for him to do this because Hillary Clinton IS ALWAYS PREPARED.

Posted by: SCProgress | July 2, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Ronald Reagan said, "The Republican Commandment is thou shalt not talk badly about a fellow Republican."

Bill Clinton said, "One election at a time."

We should listen to both of these political masterminds.

Hillary haters always shock me. I will not vote for Barack Obama because he's not experienced. His performance in the debates illustrates this best. That being said, I think he's a wonderful sentator and a promising individual. He should be the next vice president of the United States. Clinton-Obama all the way!!!!

Contrary to some of the prior comments, it is a fact that Hillary Clinton has consistently out performed EVERY other Democratic candidate in the televised debates. Everyone, including Senator Obama. I am not about doggin Obama. I am about giving props if they are due. Hill deserves her props. She's conducting one of the best public relations iniatives in history.

Moreover, the general election is a year away. Stop talking about it. We are in the primary season. The primary elections are months away. One election at a time, please. It does not matter how Clinton does against Republicans now. That's not the race we are in currently.

If we must speak about the general elections, lets speak about it in general terms. The money is important because it show the amount of interest in the political candidates. The good thing for the Democratic Party is that our leading candidates have raised more money than two thirds of the Republican candidates combined. Americans will elect a Democratic president. This primary is important because the winner will be the next President of the United States. In terms of money, Hillary and Barack have the most support.

Hillary probably raised about 27 million dollars. Barack raised over 30. They're both doing great.

Hillary, however, is doing way better in the debates. When it ultimately dwindles down to the top 5 (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Biden), Obama will have to out perform Clinton in order to win the nomination. The money will not matter. The voters will be listening. Based on the past debates, it will be hard for him to do this because Hillary Clinton IS ALWAYS PREPARED.

Posted by: SCProgress | July 2, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Ronald Reagan said, "The Republican Commandment is thou shalt not talk badly about a fellow Republican."

Bill Clinton said, "One election at a time."

We should listen to both of these political masterminds.

Hillary haters always shock me. I will not vote for Barack Obama because he's not experienced. His performance in the debates illustrates this best. That being said, I think he's a wonderful sentator and a promising individual. He should be the next vice president of the United States. Clinton-Obama all the way!!!!

Contrary to some of the prior comments, it is a fact that Hillary Clinton has consistently out performed EVERY other Democratic candidate in the televised debates. Everyone, including Senator Obama. I am not about doggin Obama. I am about giving props if they are due. Hill deserves her props. She's conducting one of the best public relations iniatives in history.

Moreover, the general election is a year away. Stop talking about it. We are in the primary season. The primary elections are months away. One election at a time, please. It does not matter how Clinton does against Republicans now. That's not the race we are in currently.

If we must speak about the general elections, lets speak about it in general terms. The money is important because it show the amount of interest in the political candidates. The good thing for the Democratic Party is that our leading candidates have raised more money than two thirds of the Republican candidates combined. Americans will elect a Democratic president. This primary is important because the winner will be the next President of the United States. In terms of money, Hillary and Barack have the most support.

Hillary probably raised about 27 million dollars. Barack raised over 30. They're both doing great.

Hillary, however, is doing way better in the debates. When it ultimately dwindles down to the top 5 (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Biden), Obama will have to out perform Clinton in order to win the nomination. The money will not matter. The voters will be listening. Based on the past debates, it will be hard for him to do this because Hillary Clinton IS ALWAYS PREPARED.

Posted by: SCProgress | July 2, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

As a Hillary supporter and contributor, it is days like today that I most look forward to. Senator Obama's supporters are off on cloud 9 because of their record fundraising ability. Their abilty to raise lots of money have rendered them almost clueless on how Democratic politics work. It really is amazing.

If you look through the history of our party, any number of people would have secured our nomination if it depended on fundraising. The most recent example is Chairman Howard Dean. It now appears that Senator Obama will raise more than us throughout the process. And that gives him one thing: bragging rights. He's financial lead will be insignificant, as Hillary will be in the same range of dollars.

Even more important, several polls recently showed that liberal, well-educated, young white people are forming the base of Senator Obama's campaign. This is a very bad omen. This was the same type of base that fueled Paul Tsongas in 1992, Bill Bradley in 2000 and Dean in 2004. Of course, they all lost the nomination.

Hillary's base support is women -- who vote more often than men in America. Her supporters also tend to be less-educated, have less wealth and are more diverse. Those of they type of people who usually decide the Democratic nominee.

One final note. Though I am biased, it appears that Hillary is running the better campaign at the moment. Her team seems confident and very disciplined. When you consider her high negatives, it is stunning that she has maintained such a large lead for such a sustained period of time. Despite all his money and good press, Senator Obama has not been able to put any significant dent in Hillary's poll numbers...this after 6 months. This leads me to believe that Hillary has base support of about 30% that will support her no matter what.

Enjoy your day in the sun Obama supporters.

Posted by: isaiah | July 2, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

I have three CIB and many others. the ones I famously threw over the WH fence belonged to someone else. I needed mine to display in my office.

When I issued ny botched joke about dumb MOS 11 s, I had in mind Rufas and IC, since they work on my staff as volunteers. Of course I wouldn't pay them, but I do get credit for employing recent brain injured vets.

but honestly, most grunts aren't quite that stupid.

Posted by: John Kerry | July 2, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

rufus is Sybil.

Those voices he hears are his own (or at least his other personalities).

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"With rush/Hannity/Fox news they are done."

Without. that is. Why do you need these people? Becasue without them you are the whigs. Embrace your destiny. It is toiling in obscurity. Join the rest of humanity. Stop the treason GOP. The brown peoplea re not evil. gay people are people to with differant preferances. Stop the fascism. Troops are not your toys. They are real people with real lives and real families. They are the same as George Bush or any american. All American's lives should be respected. Not just the gop sell-outs. This is why the GOP is done. Divide and conquer FOR DECADES. WE want to come together. Your time is up. You used it poorly. Now get back in the closet.

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 2, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Thanks JimD

Posted by: Jason | July 2, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Rufas has a girlfriend.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

do a little reading on what others are saying

http://www.oilempire.us/index.html

http://www.oilempire.us/map.html

Posted by: DanielleClarke | July 2, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Thanks JimD, go dems

Posted by: Jason | July 2, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Re: Why Obama | Report to Admin Reply
By Danielle Clarke USA Vietnam Vet Jul 1st 2007 at 6:11 pm EDT
Besides barack is putting his life on the line and god forbid is something happened at least today people would be smarter than my hippie generation that went out and got stoned after nixon was impeached and vietnam ended we would rebel. And yes they will try to make him look like a president who can't do anything but this time we will have a new group of senators and house members too to help him make the needed changes due to the ignorance of the GOP who haven't ended this STUPID WAR. The 2008 election is more than the presidency its going to be changes all over the USA.

Posted by: DanielleClarke | July 2, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

rufus - About that C I B! Or do you admit that you are just a fraud?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

We're not in kansa anymore. WOW. Thanks for the help DanielleClarke. If you are new here, the fascsits game is to divide an conquer. To delude the conversation with lies and propoganda. Or "Look at teh source"

With rush/Hannity/Fox news they are done. They need propgandists like you an dme need air. Without them their movment is done. After a dem/indy is elceted play tim e is over. Let them have their middle school fun now. I know it probably angers you, like me, they are playing games with so many lives. Don't be scared. Ignore the brave blank poster who IS SCARED to put his word with a name. Their time is up. Theiy showed their face. It was monsterours. President dem/indy. Senate/congress teh repubs will get swept.

Then we cna start to re-build. they have no hope. Zoukk is an ant. Ignore him. Just good info about this post. good post. Don't be scared by the fascsits. Good luck to you and god bless

Posted by: rufus | July 2, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

My own life experience with an ex CIA agent who died in 1975 in garberville Calif hospital. And you will read where later in 1996 what he told me about his son was true. 22 yrs later I had just got out of the USMC in 74 as nixons cryogenic tech mos6075

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/propagandamatrix/ 300407jfk
or

here i write about it in 2003
http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=30000 2198&messageID=300067748

We need a new JFK who can show the world we are not controlled by the "powers to be" BILDERBERG

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2007/300407deathbedconfession.htm

Did you miss Howard Hunts 2007 deathbed confession?? see link above

Posted by: DanielleClarke | July 2, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Brave tough posters who refuse to post their names should be ignored :)

Not me of course. But zouk:) Coward

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 2, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

"""""""""we need fresh blood in the whitehouse someone who can give the world a hope that imperialistic USA isn't still controlled by bilderberg.""""""""""

THE FOLLOWING STORY IS SUPPOSE TO BE A PUT DOWN OF
BARACK OBAMA.. IF THIS IS THE BEST THEY CAN DO ..I
WANT TO SAY KEEP EM COMING, BECAUSE THEY ARE MAKING
BARACK OBAMA LOOK LIKE THE SMARTEST KINDEST MOST
CARING MAN ALIVE.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/daniel leclarke/CrSB


THE PSYCHOLOGY OF POLITICS

THOSE WHO ASK "WHO + WHAT" = USE OR ABUSE POWER = MANY REPUBLICANS SOME DEMOCRATS = NON INCLUSIVE

THOSE WHO ASK "WHEN + WHERE" = WILL ACT / ACTION = SOME REPUBLICANS + DEMOCRATS = PARTIALLY INCLUSIVE

THOSE WHO ASK "WHY + HOW" = SHOWS EMPATHY = MANY DEMOCRATS SOME REPUBLICANS = INCLUSIVE

GEORGE "CUSTER" BUSH = "ABUSES POWER" + " ACTION" = "CUSTERS LAST SURGE",SPEAKS EMPATHY IN WORDS NOT ACTIONS

HILLARY CLINTON = USES ACTION + EMPATHY / REASONING = LACKS SOME UNDERSTANDING OF POWER RESPECT

BARACK OBAMA = POWER + ACTION + EMPATHY/REASONING = HAS ALL THREE IN EQUAL AMOUNTS = SAFE USA FUTURE

WE TEST DOCTORS, TEACHERS, PROFESSIONALS AND MOST CITIZENS FOR BASIC EMPLOYMENT PSYCHOLOGICALLY!

WHY NOT TEST POLITICIANS FOR ALL THREE ATTRIBUTES = RESPECT OF POWER, ABILITY FOR ACTION, EMPATHY TO OTHERS,
BEFORE THEY CAN RUN FOR OFFICE, SO THEY CAN LEAD USA SUCCESSFULLY

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ASK WHO,WHAT,WHEN,WHERE = LACKS MIRROR NEURONS TO ASK HOW + WHY = NON FUNCTIONAL


"""""""artificial intelligence gave us the war in iraq""""""""

Posted by: DanielleClarke | July 2, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

An al-Qaida suicide bomber blew himself up Monday at the site of an ancient temple popular with tourists, killing seven Spaniards and two Yemenis less than two weeks after the U.S. Embassy issued a terror warning about the area.


Must be because the Marines are in Iraq??????????

Posted by: moonbats rule | July 2, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

and for the gore supporters remember he is also a part and parcel of bill clinton and he didn't perform well enviromentally speaking during that administration and yes he is educating the usa who are abusers of energy and need to change their wastefull ways but lest just keep him doing what he is doing.

GORE IS USING GLOBAL WARMING FOR THE "POWER OF DISTRACTION"

http://www.oilempire.us/map.ht ml

The more damaging version of the official story is the admission that climate change is real and caused by our activities - but that technological shifts will be sufficient to solve the problem. The best example of this approach is Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth," which has a good description of the basic science of global warming. However, the film fails to address corporate or government responsibility in causing the problem or lifestyle shifts that would be needed in the wealthy parts of the world to address the crisis.

""Gore also neglects to mention in the film that he supported numerous policies that made the problem worse when he was in the White House such as the NAFTA treaty, World Trade Organization, energy deregulation and the largest expansion of the Interstate Highway System since President Eisenhower.""

Posted by: DanielleClarke | July 2, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

What did one moonbat say to the other?

"jfk murdered by republican cia controlled through bilderberg group "

"What a novil approch to government"

"George W. Bush and Paris Hilton--have so much in common"

"I live in you district, gop since it's inception (1985). I see you"

"The RNC finally has an 'internet strategy' which is trolls at political blogs like this, so I wouldn't be surprised if he was one. A paid one, I mean. He's covers the same territory every day as Limbaugh--even to his nicknames for Harry Reid."

"Apparently. a little-manhood challenged, aren't you? Is it that small?"

Posted by: towering intellect of the left | July 2, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

and for the gore supporters remember he is also a part and parcel of bill clinton and he didn't perform well enviromentally speaking during that administration and yes he is educating the usa who are abusers of energy and need to change their wastefull ways but lest just keep him doing what he is doing.

GORE IS USING GLOBAL WARMING FOR THE "POWER OF DISTRACTION"

http://www.oilempire.us/map.ht ml

The more damaging version of the official story is the admission that climate change is real and caused by our activities - but that technological shifts will be sufficient to solve the problem. The best example of this approach is Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth," which has a good description of the basic science of global warming. However, the film fails to address corporate or government responsibility in causing the problem or lifestyle shifts that would be needed in the wealthy parts of the world to address the crisis.

""Gore also neglects to mention in the film that he supported numerous policies that made the problem worse when he was in the White House such as the NAFTA treaty, World Trade Organization, energy deregulation and the largest expansion of the Interstate Highway System since President Eisenhower.""

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

WORD IS BORN DanielleClarke. Don't forget the cia files. The spying on Americans, MLK/John Lennon included.

don't forget Mccarthy's red scare. "you are a conservative (american) or liberal (communist/socialist). If you are a socialist you are going to jail or losing your job."

It continues. Read zouk posts ."we suppor tthe troops" (the ones that are GOP.)

"Clinton lied" " Let's pardon libby for the same offense."

The right in thsi country continues to choose party over country. Treason? Murder? Why are they never sentenced to jail time? Two americas?

They are fascists. The only power they have is the power we give them. I saw sweep them out. Get a real thrid and fourth party. send the repubs the way of the whigs, into extinction

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | July 2, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

PS: to my dear edwards supporters please know that we think Edwards might be open to not being a BILDERBERG but we NEED HIM to speak about his time because we all know the skull and bones connection of bush and kerry and how kerry edwards were the glory of the 2004 bilderberg conference so talk to your man.

>>>When you own all the ponies, you don't really care who
wins the race. So it is with the US presidential
elections in 2004.

After his triumphant appearance at the Bilderberg
Conference in Italy even the New York Times was
gushing at the performance of John Edwards. The
selection of John "Bilderberger" Edwards by John
"Skull and Bones" Kerry was inevitable, as the secret
societies own all the candidates in this "election."

This time around George "Skull and Bones" Bush is not
favored by the elite as his father George H. W. Bush
was replaced by Bill Clinton in 1992.

The New York Times wrote -- "Several people pointed to
the secretive and exclusive Bilderberg conference of
some 120 people that this year drew the likes of Henry
A. Kissinger, Melinda Gates and Richard A. Perle to
Stresa, Italy, in early June, as helping win Mr.
Kerry's heart. Mr. Edwards spoke so well in a debate
on American politics with the Republican Ralph Reed
that participants broke Bilderberg rules to clap
before the end of the session.<<<<

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rls=TSHB,TSHB:2006-45,TSHB:en&q=BILDERBERG+EDWARDS+CLINTON+BUSH+KERRY

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

To all you Hillary fans. I'm sure you all are out spoken critics of the secrecy of the Bush-Cheney Administration. Well, Carl Bernstein's biography of Hillary, A Woman In Charge, shows that she has a lifetime commitment to secrecy and has led a camouflaged life. So what do you say now about your candidate?

I don't think any of her so called experiences have been that great. I see more failures than successes. She has been riding on the coat tails of her husband. Take Bill out of the picture and look at what she has to offer - nothing. Don't be blind. Open your eyes. Judge her for what she is, a gold digger. If she gets in - which she won't, she'll make sure the limelight is on her at all times. She won't want Bill around. So you can be sure he won't be in her inner sanctum. So if you think you're voting for another Bill Clinton, think again, you're not. She's much different than her husband and deep in your hearts I think you know it.

If you want the next administration to be more open and transparent, then you better change over to Obama. Your girl is no different than GW.

Posted by: Andrea | July 2, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

To all you Hillary fans. I'm sure you all are out spoken critics of the secrecy of the Bush-Cheney Administration. Well, Carl Bernstein's biography of Hillary, A Woman In Charge, shows that she has a lifetime commitment to secrecy and has led a camouflaged life. So what do you say now about your candidate?

I don't think any of her so called experiences have been that great. I see more failures than successes. She has been riding on the coat tails of her husband. Take Bill out of the picture and look at what she has to offer - nothing. Don't be blind. Open your eyes. Judge her for what she is, a gold digger. If she gets in - which she won't, she'll make sure the limelight is on her at all times. She won't want Bill around. So you can be sure he won't be in her inner sanctum. So if you think you're voting for another Bill Clinton, think again, you're not. She's much different than her husband and deep in your hearts I think you know it.

If you want the next administration to be more open and transparent, then you better change over to Obama. Your girl is no different than GW.

Posted by: Andrea | July 2, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"When we change presidents, it is understood to mean that the voters are ordering a change in national policy. Since 1945, three different Republicans have occupied the White House for 16 years, and four democrats have held this most powerful post for 17 years. With the exception of the first seven years of the Eisenhower administration, there has been no appreciable change in foreign or domestic policy. There has been a great turnover in personnel, but no change in policy. Example: during the Nixon years, Henry Kissinger, a council member and Nelson Rockefeller protégé, was in charge of foreign policy. When Jimmy Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a council member and David Rockefeller protégé.

SINCE KENNEDY WAS MURDERED WE HAD ALL BILDERBERG CANIDATES
read blog below
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/danielleclarke/Crpz

Posted by: DanielleClarke | July 2, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Jason - check this out for as a template for scheduling primaries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduated_Random_Presidential_Primary_System

It makes too much sense; and you know what that means.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

JFK was murdered by the CIA controlled by the republican party.

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2007/300407deathbedconfession.htm

Did you miss Howard Hunts deathbed confession??


jfk murdered by republican cia controlled through bilderberg group johnson takes over and hands it to nixon / tricky dick NIXON ( I am not a crook) who gets caught and underhand pass to ford and so carter is asked to join (and make it seem we had a regime change) and wins and **then doesn't go along with bilderberg** so they set him up with iran hostage and reagan gets in and hostages are immediately freed??? then ex CIA chief bush sr , slick willy clinton (do nothing as alqeida is allowed to build up during clinton yrs) Then younger son GWBush jr gets his chance to attack the world and all peoples civil rights??? Now we have G.W.(custers last surge)Bush ,,,??

and so again another major bilderberg BLUNDER LIKE VIETNAM and we are to expect or infer THAT CLINTON IS COMING TO SAVE THE DAY ???? ROFLMAO

We don't need no more bilderberg regime running we the people of the USA

we need a we the people candidate we need Obama
We need a new JFK who can show the world we are not controlled by the "powers to be" BILDERBERG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

Posted by: DanielleClarke | July 2, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Toughening ethics laws, once a priority of Democrats, has bogged down in Congress as party leaders find their campaign promises colliding with lawmakers' re-election concerns.

"What are ethics?" - Dem congress

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Jason,

If we had a national primary as you suggest, it would guarantee that only extremely well funded candidates could compete. Starting the process in smaller states has allowed under-funded, lesser known candidates to mount successful campaigns in these smaller states and use the momentum gained thereby to gather the publicity and funding needed to compete nation wide.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 2, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

My sister is a hairdresser for Obama

Posted by: DCdc | July 2, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I take it the enthusiasm for Edwards has dwindled to nothing?

not a lot of hairdressers out there?

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 2, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Good post andrea. Others as opposed to self. The country as opposed to ME ME ME. What a novil approch to government. Doing what's best for the COUNTRY, as opposed to self or PARTY

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Tell your Mama,
I am voting for Obama

Posted by: Kelly | July 2, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Can someone explain to me why the primaries don't take place on the same day for all states? It seems like that would be more fair so the states that vote at later dates would not be "irrelevant."

Posted by: Jason | July 2, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary wants to talk about Obama's experience then she should yield to Dodd and Biden on that issue. They have been in the senate 25+ years compare to her seven. Based on exeperience, Richardson is the candidate who should be able to step right in. He managed a state and its economy. Also, he has vast foreign experience.
Obama is experienced enough to be president.

Posted by: Kelly | July 2, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Chris you said that after the last debate, Obama is about sharing his vision. If the test of a great president proposed by one of our most brilliant historians Henry Adams 125 years ago is correct, then Obama will be a great president. The American president, he wrote, "resembles the commander of a ship at sea. He must have a helm to grasp, a course to steer, a port to seek."1 The Constitution offers every president a helm, but the course and the port constitute the first requirement for presidential greatness. Great presidents possess, or are possessed by, a vision of an ideal America. Their passion is to make sure the ship of state sails on the right course. If that course is indeed right, it is because they have an instinct for the dynamics of history. Also, Charles de Gaulle once said "a statesman may be determined and tenacious, but, if he does not understand the character of his time, he will fail."

Obama's practical experience gives him the insight needed to truly deal with and correct the issues of our time. Having lived in a foreign country he understands these people; having been raised in a single parent household with the help of grandparents he understands what many American families are going through; and having been a community organizer he knows the suffering of many other American families trying to survive with little money or support. Practical experience counts more than experience in proposing and passing legislation without having a true understanding of the underlying problems. That's the problem with Congress they don't truly grasp the underlying issues because they haven't experienced it themselves. That's why in recent years they've passed ineffective legislation.

Obama is strategically positioned to move into the lead in the stretch to the finish line. How many times have you seen a horse in race stalking the winner all through the race and in the stretch to the finish line surpass the leader? That is what is happening here. In the end Obama will emergy as the Democractic nominee because he passes the Henry Adams test on vision having a vision of an ideal America, he's in tune to the dynamics of our time and he has practical experience.

Posted by: Andrea | July 2, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

The republican candidate talk about terror, enough for everybody. Enough for two lifetimes. That's all they got. It's funny though. They had a republican president AND a republican mayor on 9/11. DIidn't stop nothing. The aftermath? HAvn't done much domestically. Haven't fixed ground zero or catrina. Where is bin laden again?

But everything the dems/libs fault. Refusal to take any responsbility. Refusal to have ANY accountablity. The gop is done for a generation. Scared yet zouk YOu'll always have China or austrialia.

Posted by: JKrish | July 2, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"A prominent and rich family. A drunk-driving arrest. Serious doubts about intelligence. A misspent youth. Sudden inspiration through the Bible. It's interesting how two of the most unpopular and divisive figures in America today--George W. Bush and Paris Hilton--have so much in common."

Janice Min 2007

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

I mentioned that there was no mention of the war on terror during Thursday night's Democratic debate."

Much like the repubs refuse to talk domestic issues. ONLY terror. What about AMERICA

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Marianna Jeffries writes
"It is time for Hillary Clinton to make it very clear to the country that Barack Obama is too inexperienced to assume the position of Commander-in-Chief...We play a very dangerous game by flirting with a man who has only two years in the Senate and who cannot project himself as strong and commanding in a debate."

So, the difference you're counting on, in comparing Obama's experience with Clinton's is that Senator Clinton has 2 more years of Senate experience (you miscount Obama's service, by the way). Of course, prior to the US Senate, he served in the Illinois Legislature. Senator Clinton's prior position was spouse of the President - an unelected position, unaccountable to the people. While I agree that Senator Obama is 'light' in experience, the allegation is applicable to all three Dem front-runners, if we're still counting Edwards among that crowd. If experience is what you want, support Biden or Richardson for a Dem; otherwise McCain on the R side.

Posted by: bsimon | July 2, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/16535/

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0510-20.htm


I got you pink. There you go. If hillary thinks she is going to win the nomination BY SIDING WITH FOX and BUSH, she has been mislead. Generation X and later are not as stupid as their fathers/mothers. We have the internet now. The lies and propoganda are all out there. If only for the history books. The FCC is in shambles, the DOJ is in shambles, the supreame court is in shambles. Zouk would have you believe it's all my fault. Didn't Newt shut down the government when clinton was in office becasue they didn't get their way. LIke little middle school kids. "If I don't win, If I don't get everthing to go my way, I'm takin gmy ball and going home. Screw the country. If I can't have it may way no way at all." Right zouk. "Screw the country." You got more important things right zouk. Like making trillions of dollars for GOP memebers.I live in you district, gop since it's inception (1985). I see you

Posted by: rufus | July 2, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

'I mentioned that there was no mention of the war on terror during Thursday night's Democratic debate.'

that's because it doesn't exist except in the minds of the truly simple. what we have instead is a war on middle-class taxpayers.

right now there are terrorist training camps all over pakistan. and so what is bush doing? giving taxpayer money to the mushareff government to build more nuclear weapons so that when it falls [and it wll shortly] the jihadists will have lots of nukes to use against us. there's your war on terror, fool. god you people are stupdi.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

An Abysmal Panderfest of a Democratic Debate


Look, I try hard to see where the other side of the aisle is coming from, but this debate was painful - an egregious can-you top-this panderfest, in which nothing surprising, intriguing, thought-provoking or original was said.


The candidates knew what their audience liked and didn't like, and served up soundbites accordingly. The audience didn't like the war. They don't like the tax rate on the highest earners and want it raised. They didn't like the Supreme Court decision on the use of race to ensure diversity in schools, nor mandatory minimums in criminal sentencing.


They liked health care. They liked pledges of improving education. They liked just about any call for additional funding for just about any social program. They liked the citing of Dr. Martin Luther King, Thurgood Marshall, and major figures from African-American history. They applauded any comment that suggested that American society was a blatantly rigged game for African-Americans, that it was obvious to anyone with half a brain. They applauded any comment that suggested that our institutions were corrupt, racist, cynical, untrustworthy and rotted to the core.


They applauded John Edwards when he called for fully funding a cure for AIDS. As if the only obstacle to a cure is funding.


The only mention of the Pentagon was as a waste of funds that could be better spent elsewhere.


No mention of the war on terror.

The winner of this debate? Anyone who skipped watching it.

UPDATE: Campaign Spot reader Andrew notes, "No mention of immigration, either." One might think that it might have come up, what with the vote and all...

Posted by: Jim | July 2, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Kristin Gore is a comic writer, but there's nothing remotely funny about her scathing fictional portrait of Clinton... The roman a clef doesn't stop with the president and vice president. The first lady has a nasty disposition, a "glossy smile," a "hairsprayed coif" and "heavy perfume" (it makes Sammy sneeze), and her "paranoia was legendary." ... As it is, Kristin Gore has not told us anything about Bill Clinton that we haven't known for years. Still, for Al Gore's daughter to remind us of the former president's failings (and of her father's virtues) in this very public manner, at a time when Al Gore may still seek his party's presidential nomination, and Clinton's wife might be his rival, leaves us wondering if her excursion into recent history can be entirely innocent of political intent.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse


'This is a skilled and determined enemy. He's ruthless. He's got a thirst for blood like I've never seen anywhere in my life.'

oh for god's sake, zouk, give it a rest. stop with this ridiculous proopaganda. right. the nazis and japanese in WW2 were pansies, right? you bedwetters/chickenhawks are total saps and morons.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Just a reminder: we're rating candidates in July 07. We have over a year until the elections and much can happen between then and now. I'm just glad that there is some healthy competition this early in the game: many candidates, I'm certain, feel pressure to polish themselves early on. This promises to be an interesting election cycle.

Posted by: arlington | July 2, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Does Any Democrat Wish They Had Mentioned Terrorism in the Last Debate?

I mentioned that there was no mention of the war on terror during Thursday night's Democratic debate.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton's Appalling Comment on AIDS in the Last Debate

One of the more galling comments from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the last debate was her claim that if HIV/AIDS were the leading cause of death among white women between the ages of 25 and 34, "there would be an outraged outcry in this country", and thus, we are to presume, either a cure would have been found by now, or greater resources would be devoted to it.

Patrick Ruffini spotlights an anonymous YouTube ad that points out that in 2006, Hillary held up renewal of an AIDS funding bill, because her home state wasn't getting enough funds.

It's good to know inconvenient truths like this, even though few of her critics will be surprised

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

hillary, why are you hiding your senior thesis? why did you hide your failure of the DC bar for so long? where did you hide those whitewater docs? how many more bimbos are you hiding from us?

Hillary, can you be trusted to tell one grain of truth about anything in your shabby life?

Let's hurry to get back to the most convicted administration in history.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 2, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

See what I mean. Lylepink. I attacked an article that HIldog is going to let Rupert Murdoch, THAt's the woner of fox news among other things as well as satr tabloid and the post tabloid. Read the blog before posting

As to zouk. What happened to "support the troops"? I don't hear you now. Is that only if the troop is part of the gop frat? Just like verywhere else. You pople are conservatives/republicans before americns. You therefore are not americans. YOu choose your side. IT IS AGAISNT AMERICA. Your movement has sided with AMERiCAS ENemies. Your time is up. The last election you were slatered. HAve things gotten better for the gop or worse? Ok. Keep talking about congress all you want. Once we clean out the republcians we can have change and start to re-build. I say start with teh propogandists Like rush/zouk/hannity/fox news. Once they are gone their movment is over. Why is that? Why is the gop so scared of rush/hannity being pulled? Does the GOP need them? Without Rush/Hannity/O'reilly their movement has nothing. That should tell you al something. If they were on the side of right they wouldn't need liars and propogandists. They could tell the truth. The gop can't do that. They tell the truth they go the way of the whigs.

Since when did Torture, murder, homo-phobe racist, fascsit become a politcal platform. I thought we defeated them in war war 2. How is this happening in our own country

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 2, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

God, reagan was terrifying, judge, thanks for putting that in perspective. The man didn't understand what the hell was going on the last couple of years. It was just painful to watch Nancy answer for him, when he would look at her with that lost expression... sad, but he shouldn't have even been where he was.

Mark, yes, trying to wade through the mountains of lies this zouk character posts every day -- he sure does have a lot of time on his hands. The RNC finally has an 'internet strategy' which is trolls at political blogs like this, so I wouldn't be surprised if he was one. A paid one, I mean. He's covers the same territory every day as Limbaugh--even to his nicknames for Harry Reid.

I have a British friend who is here on a green card, and goes back to England for her medical care. Says it's cheaper to fly over there and get treated than to try to pay for it here. She says the Brits would never stand for getting gouged by corporations the way we do here. It's hard to explain all the years of corporate brainwashing we've been subject to that led us to this place, but both my canadian and british friends are astonished by the state of things here.

Posted by: drindl | July 2, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Are we referring to Reagan or Bush II with the following?

"wow it sure is. tax cuts for the already very wealthy and the biggest deficit ever. and tons of unnaccounted for taxpayer money in the pockets of crooked contractors.

what an accomplishment."

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 2, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Army Two-Star: Guerrillas as Bad as They Come [W. Thomas Smith Jr.]

Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commanding general of the Army's 1st Cavalry Division, describes the enemy in Iraq:

This is a skilled and determined enemy. He's ruthless. He's got a thirst for blood like I've never seen anywhere in my life.

Fil says the enemy's ambush techniques -- mine or IED blasts followed by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenade attacks -- are sophisticated (no news there). He adds, U.S. and Iraqi forces in East Rasheed, a district in southern Baghdad, have encountered a "very strong" Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq cell:

They're running out of maneuver space, and they are starting to fight very hard, and that's what we saw yesterday.

But just as Fil and other battlefield commanders are closing the box on the AQI diehards, American forces have another enemy to contend with: This one on Capitol Hill where the Reid-Pelosi crowd is hoping to quash their efforts. According to Pelosi:

We have many arrows in our quiver, and we are sharpening them.

Though the Dems have no love for the military (yet pretend they do), they seem to love military metaphors.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

lylepink - Did you read the Post's Gatekeepers of Hillaryland article two weeks ago?

There's one scenario in the that should make everybody have second thoughts about her becoming President.

It's not only "her" but how her staff acts. Anybody who has been around since Watergate knows that is just as important as who the President is.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

'What did Rs accomplish ??- how about tax cuts, that's a biggie. '

wow it sure is. tax cuts for the already very wealthy and the biggest deficit ever. and tons of unnaccounted for taxpayer money in the pockets of crooked contractors.

what an accomplishment.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

I see Rasmussen has Hillary ahead in NH by 17% points, 38 to 21. Some other recent polls I've seen has Hillary ahead in Fl., NY., Ca., Pa., Wi., Il., and Iowa has Edwards leading but falling and Hillary gaining. I have yet to find Obama leading in any state. I honestly think mountain man and myself are analizing the 08 election with "Common Sense", rather than emotion. The opponents of Hillary are even trying to say Fox News is supporting her. I have checked the more "Liberal" blogs, and found little or no support for Hillary. During my voting life, since 1960, every POTUS has been elected mainly by those that are considered Moderate. Once in office is a different thing with the exception of Bubba, and we will never know about JFK.

Posted by: lylepink | July 2, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Yes, a happy Fourth to all!

Tip to Fixers looking for a good time -- It's fun to rent the movie musical "1776" in the days leading up to the Fourth of July.

The musical is about all the political ins and outs at the Second Contintental Congress leading up to the drafting and acceptance of the Declaration of Independence.

The best bit is when Adams, Franklin, Livingston, Sherman and Jefferson sing an upbeat number about being on a committee. Each one sings how he is not best suited to write the Declaration and someone else on the committee should do it. Jefferson is the last one to sing, so he gets stuck with the job.

The movie does clock in at 3 hours so lay in a good stock of beer and chips.

Posted by: Golgi | July 2, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

"Desperate to ruin the conversation."

My God, rufus, take a look in the mirror!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

What did Rs accomplish ??- how about tax cuts, that's a biggie. then there's NCLB, prescription drug coverage to name a few. you may not agree with all of them, as I do not, but it does count as something. Anything. that is not a statement you can make about the Dems. they are the party of seinfeld, the party about nothing.

Ultimately, Bush scored big with his Supreme court choices. the day of Lib hegomony is over. Get used to a dwindling position Lib losers. now that the truth is getting out, your days are numbered. Please accelerate this by continuing to post your positions for all to see and reject.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 2, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

rufus:

Uh...what does it matter which university or college a candidate attended?

I was not talking about education. If I were, my wife who has three degrees could run for President. I was talking about experience, qualifications and the ability to exert authority and committment.

Obama fails that test.

He just does.

Posted by: Allan Leigh | July 2, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"He is vague, speaks in generalities and seems
somewhat fazed when asked about important
issues. How on earth is this guy going
to run the country?"

Which describes Reagan to a 't' and lots of deranged people still want to put him on Mount Rushmore.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 2, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

It is time for Hillary Clinton to make it very clear to the country that Barack Obama is too inexperienced to assume the position of Commander-in-Chief.

We play a very dangerous game by flirting with a man who has only two years in the Senate and who cannot project himself as strong and commanding in a debate.

Posted by: Marianna Jeffreys | July 2, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Let's not elect a rookie for the most important job in the world.
"

Yale has had their chance. EVERY PRESINDET since Reagan, and ford before him. are from yale. they had their chance. They have failed us. It's time to give someone else a shot. We need chance. Obama is jus tthe guy to give it to us. Look at these names, scary stuff.

"All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates, namely George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton (who attended the University's Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), and George W. Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney, (although he did not graduate). Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: Bush, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.

Other Yale-educated presidents were William Howard Taft (B.A.) and Gerald Ford (LL.B). Alumni also include several Supreme Court justices, including current Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_bones

Posted by: rufus | July 2, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

well just out of curiosity zouk, if you can take time out of wasting bandwith, what did the repubicans accomplish when they were in charge?

honestly stay on topic for once.

as for obama, his 2nd quarter fundrasing is impressive,but how many of those donating small amounts will vote for him in the primaries much less the election? also whats his effect if he wins the nomination for the rest of the ticket in other states?

just because a poll has him in second place really dont mean much at the moment. if anything, ask me again if he beats hilary consistantly in fundrasing.

and what of the repubicans? awfully quiet on the right about their fundraising,or how a rudy or a fred is going to crush any of the dems?or does the gop have a canidate?anyone care to comment or more right wing spam?

if anyone eles doesnt say it ill do it, i would like to wish everyone on here a happy fourth of july.(even the hillary worshippers like cc) ill be at home grilling some steaks and chicken and enjoying a baseball game over the radio with a cold beer. i got a couple of packs of thick porterhouse steaks and some marinades. enjoying the nations birth and having fun while im at it. everyone stay safe and dont burn your weenies over the grill

Posted by: spartan | July 2, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

The comment from mountain man about how Obama reminds him of Dean does not ring true to me.

Posted by: Golgi | July 2, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Great; they collected $51 millions in total, which I beleive "D", will be spending on the campaign, only to get a ticket for the presidential election. Did we even think how many people are suffering in our country only who donot have health benefits, who donot have enough money to buy tylenol for their kids.
I have no words for them

Posted by: AM Ali | July 2, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

There is no way, based on what I have seen of Obama, that he has the authoritativeness to be President. He is vague, speaks in generalities and seems
somewhat fazed when asked about important
issues. How on earth is this guy going
to run the country?

He has a lot of "fans" who are willing to
donate in small amounts to his campaign, but let's be real folks. Let's not elect a rookie for the most important job in the world.

Posted by: Allan Leigh | July 2, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Hi drindl - hope you get to see this in the flood of "personals" among KOZ, Rufus, and "|".

I suspected that "Sicko" was fairly accurate because I have friends in Toronto and an adult daughter, married to an Englishman, living in the UK; further, I have dealt with insurors over the years. Obviously, I would be speaking from anecdotal and not statistical evidence.

However, I had no way to gauge the Cuba stunt, at all.

I was appalled by the testimony of the physician before Congress. I went to your fact check source but it did not speak to the pervasiveness of insurance industry bonuses paid to employees/contractors to encourage denials of coverage - I may be able to find something at a Bar or AMA source, but it is just one more piece of bad news I probably do not have time to research.

Thanks for following up on the previous thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, JimD was a Naval Supply Officer and responded later to my request for discussion from folks with hands-on experience in our exchange about budget waste. I was also hoping someone could actually verify or deny the Lincoln story I repeated, and that someone with an Army QM Corps background could address current Army accounting practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The man whom I thought handled the three D forums most capably, Joe Biden, has hopeless poll numbers. I send him money, anyway. But not too much, because I do not think he can win.

That says something about me, of course. But it may say something about the effect of reading articles about "money raised", and reading "polls", as well.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 2, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

11b Fort benning. Ga. Fort campbell kentucky. Air assult.

If you can't hear my words without saying who is speaking. Constant right attacks. "Don't look at the words" "Don't determine if what he's saying is truth or not, on your own." ATTACK ALL DISSENT WITH AN ATTACK OF CREDIBILITY. This is why they are done. Instead of talking facts. It's constant accusations by the right. I blame the right-wing attack dogs for making their views (murder, tortue, domestic spying) seem mainstream. They are not. They are treason and should dealt with accordingly. I just didn't resond because I'm not a slave to zouk. I agree with the budda when he says," Before following a man's word, even me, ask yourself if you agree yourslef first"

this goes agisnt everything the dittheads fascsits represent.

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2.Create a gulag
3.Develop a thug caste
4.Set up an internal surveillance system
5.Harass citizens' groups
6.Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7.Target key individuals
8.Control the press
9.Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law

Posted by: rufus | July 2, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

I presume you will offer many names and chants of lies, lies lies, but try to deal with reality for once.


We don't need no stinkin' facts, we're Libs.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

'Hillary's current support comes primarily from "ill-informed" and "media obsessed" younger women (read bimbos), remnants of the bra-burning feminists and democratic party hacks who are indebted to porno-Bill's fund raising skills.'

So, do you hate all women, David? Apparently. a little-manhood challenged, aren't you? Is it that small?

Posted by: Sue | July 2, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone know how much Biden raised in the second quarter? WaPo likes to ignore him....

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | July 2, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

jeezus, once zouk gets on here, it's a veritable torrent of RNC BS.

Posted by: Sam | July 2, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Tim - sorry about the grammatical errors. rufus must be contagious.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's current support comes primarily from "ill-informed" and "media obsessed" younger women (read bimbos), remnants of the bra-burning feminists and democratic party hacks who are indebted to porno-Bill's fund raising skills. Not what one would call a coalition of the sublime despite overwhelming sycophantic media support.
Given Hillary's near 50% negative approval ratings, the question remains whether the democratic establishment will acquiesce and will commit election suicide by nominating Hillary?

Posted by: David G. Ward | July 2, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

'Apparently, Leahy has not heard of the separation of powers inherent in our constitutional system of government'

no zouky, leahy is trying to ENFORCE the separation of powers. stop trying to obfuscate with RNC talking points...

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi sounded more apologetic than celebratory Friday when she announced with her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democrats' list of accomplishments six months after they seized control of Capitol Hill and promised "a new direction" in Washington.

"I'm not happy with Congress, either," Pelosi, of San Francisco, conceded.

She pinned the blame on "the obstructionism of the Republicans in the United States Senate."

Immigration has joined Iraq, stem cell research, Medicare drug pricing, the 9/11 Commission's recommendations and other promises in the dustbin of the current Congress.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/06/30/MNGSCQOVNF1.DTL

Translation - I didn't do it. Is bart simpson now running congress?

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 2, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

"Money doesn't vote. It will be telling indeed to see how Obama spends his money. If the ads he's already put out are any sign of where he is going we can call Obama Howard Dean part2"

The money Barck got, as opposed to Romney/Hillary/Thompson/Rudy is from AMERICAN citizens for the most part. HE's getting his money from people. Not corporations or miltary influences. Normally I would agree with you, if they are getting donations from big business. In this case IT IS AMERICA THAT IS SPEAKING. I think it's a great thing. It just shows the support among the comman people for obama. As opposed to hillary (using her husbands contacts/gop) or the GOP candidates(big business).

I think it's great. The people are finally speaking up. ALL POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE.

Now we just need to silence the right-wing attack propogandist liars who are selling htis country out to line their pockets, and we can start to rebuild all the damage the conservatives have done to this great country

Posted by: rufus | July 2, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

tim - I do have a CIB. Personally, I wouldn't have have asked rufus otherwise.

But, I think that it's a fair question for anybody to ask him, becaue he keeps salting his entries with this bit about being infantry, as if that gives him some special standing. I asked because I find it offensive that he keeps doing this.

The way rufus has uses it but has avoids answering questions on it, the way Zouk avoids answering when he is asked about how served his country, I suspect that rufus is a fraud. And little better than Zouk!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

See what Imean. Desperate to ruin the conversation. "If you cna't win cheat". Or kill the conversation with accusations and lies. The repeat and parrot the lies.

NOt good zouk. You show you face. You movement is over. Move to china. You can work for your boy at news corp

Posted by: Rufus | July 2, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

the list of broken Dem promises is just too long to contemplate. go here for the full text, complete with facts, news articles and alternatives. I know you Libs don't particularly like facts and links, especially when they go against your warped out hippy views, but for once try to fight back with some dignity and logic. I presume you will offer many names and chants of lies, lies lies, but try to deal with reality for once.

http://republicanleader.house.gov/uploadedfiles/brokenpromises.pdf

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 2, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Money doesn't vote. It will be telling indeed to see how Obama spends his money. If the ads he's already put out are any sign of where he is going we can call Obama Howard Dean part2

Posted by: mountain man | July 2, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary is not stupid, and that is a "FACT"."

She is if whe thinks she's gonna win the democratic nomination by making a deal with the devil. Clinto touring the world with Bush 41. Taking money from News Corp. If she thinks she's gonna win grass-root dems she is stupid. I think she said "srew them."

This is moderate and conservative uniting and saying screw the left. BAd idea, to say "screw the base". BAd idea to turn your back onthe consciance of this great country

Posted by: rufus | July 2, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

:)

Once the repubs are cleared out, it will be soon we can move forward. The repubs are stuck in time. Or lost in time, whatever you preferr. The year is 2007 not 1962. Congress has not gotten much done. they have the mistake of thinking that the GOP are AMericans not a seperate entity of this country. Now we know differant. The repubs don't have to answer to the same laws as the rest of us therefore they don't see the world/country the same. They ar untouchable right now. Not forever. They got a few months left of their sbotage.

"Power corruptes. Absolute power corrutes obsolutly."

Again, regardless of all zouk's parrot posts, trying to make it look like more people are with the GOP than are really are, the GOP is done in this country for my lifetime. Write it down.

Posted by: rufus | July 2, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #3: Make Children's Health Care a Priority
Promise: "In the next Congress, Democrats will take America in a New Direction, making health care for our children a real priority." - Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Release, December 9, 2006

Broken Promise: "The [State Children's Health Insurance Program, or S-CHIP] coverage program expires Sept. 30, but [Democratic Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman John] Dingell offered no specific timetable for marking up reauthorization legislation." - "Dingell Plays Down Tobacco Tax as SCHIP Funding Source," Congressional Quarterly Health Beat, March 29, 2007. This legislation had still not been moved by Democrats as of June 26, 2007.

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #4: Universal Children's Health Care
Promise: "Universal Children's Health Care. . .[We should] make sure all parents in America have the responsibility and the means to obtain health insurance for their children." - The Plan, Rahm Emanuel & Bruce Reed, Page 55

Broken Promise: During the first six months of the Democratic Congress, no legislation has been passed to provide universal children's health care.

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #5: Improve Health Information Technology
Promise: "We need to cut the cost of health care so that. . .every child in America at last can get it. We can save hundreds of billions by adopting electronic medical records [and implementing other reforms]. . ." - The Plan, Rahm Emanuel & Bruce Reed, Page 55

Broken Promise: Democrats have passed no legislation to improve health information technology since taking power in Congress. In 2006, the Republican-led House passed such legislation with bipartisan support (the Better Health Information System Act, H.R. 4157 - passed July 27, 2006 by a vote of 270-148) - but then-Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chairman Emanuel voted "no."

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #6: Expand Small Business Health Care
Promise: "Instead of leaving small businesses to fend for themselves [on health care], we should give them the opportunity to pool their purchasing power." -The Plan, Rahm Emanuel & Bruce Reed, Page 113

Promise: "We need to cut the cost of health care so that every business can afford it. . .As we [achieve savings through health care reform], we should use them to give small businesses access to the same health care plans as members of Congress. . ." - The Plan, Rahm Emanuel & Bruce Reed, Page 55

Broken Promise: House Democrats, including now-Democratic Caucus Chairman Emanuel, unanimously opposed a House Republican proposal to enable small businesses to pool their purchasing power and offer their employees the same health care benefits large corporations and unions can offer - even though 36 House Democrats supported this plan in the last Congress. The GOP proposal opposed by Chairman Emanuel would have significantly expanded access to health coverage for uninsured families across the country by giving small businesses the opportunity to pool their purchasing power and purchase health coverage for their workers on par with the plans used by larger businesses and the federal government. - Roll Call Vote #17, January 10, 2007

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #7: Make Prescription Drugs More Affordable
Promise: "We will begin by making prescription drugs more affordable for our seniors by allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower prices." - Then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Release, August 16, 2006

Broken Promise: Six months after Democrats took power in Congress, their "Six for '06" Medicare price control legislation remains stalled in the Democrat-controlled Senate, and no such legislation has been sent to the President.

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #8: Lower Drug Prices For ALL Americans
Promise: "This crucial legislation requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices on behalf of the more than 22 million Americans in Medicare prescription drug plans...This is just the beginning of Democratic efforts to ensure that quality health care is accessible and affordable for the American people." - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Release, January 12, 2007

Broken Promise: "The [nonpartisan] Congressional Research Service said that if the government negotiated lower drug prices for Medicare, pharmaceutical companies might respond by increasing prices for other buyers." - "Bush Threatens Veto of Medicare Drug Bill, But a Senator is Seeking Middle Ground," New York Times, January 12, 2007. After six full months, not a single bill to make more accessible and affordable for the American people has been sent to President Bush by the Democrat-controlled Congress.

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #9: Cut Loan Interest Rates in Half for Parents
Promise: "Our new direction plan will slash interest rates on college loans in half to ... 4.25% for parents." - Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) "A New Direction for America," Page 17

Broken Promise: "Although Kennedy's proposal would reduce rates on parent-borrowed PLUS loans to 4.25 percent from 8.5, the House bill offers no break." - "Bills to Ease Student Loan Rates on Hill," Chicago Tribune, February 4, 2007

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #10: Cut Loan Interest Rates in Half for Students
Promise: "Our New Direction plan will slash interest rates on college loans in half to 3.4% for students ..." - Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) "A New Direction for America," Page 17

Broken Promise: Democrats drastically scaled back their plans for a student loan interest rate cut shortly after taking power in Congress. And six months after Democrats took power, no legislation to cut student loan interest rates - temporarily or otherwise - has been sent to the President. "The much-touted House Democratic measure to slash in half student loan interest rates over five years has been drafted to offer only temporary relief." - "House Dems Offer Only Temporary Student Loan Rate Cut," CongressDaily AM, January 16, 2007.

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #11: Improve College Access for All
Promise: "A college education is as important today as high school was a generation ago - and Democrats intend to make attending college just as affordable and available to all." - Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) "A New Direction for America," Page 17

Broken Promise: "'It's a great sound bite - cutting rates in half,' says Mark Kantrowitz, the publisher of FinAid.org, which gives information about ways to pay for college. 'But it's an incredibly expensive proposal with very little student aid benefit. The benefit ... comes after students have graduated, which makes it unlikely to get more low-income students to enroll in college, especially since they tend to fear debt more.'" - "Congress Moves to Cut College Loan Costs," Christian Science Monitor, January 16, 2007. Six months after Democrats took power in Congress, no legislation to make college more affordable or accessible has been sent to the President. In June, House Education & Labor Committee Democrats also voted en masse against a GOP alternative proposal that would have used savings from higher education programs to increase funding for the Pell Grant college access program by $12 billion over the next five years, instead voting for a Democratic measure that puts the bulk of that money into benefits for individuals who have already graduated from college and earned a degree.

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #12: Reward Teachers for Performance
Promise: "It's time to revive the standards movement [by] attracting top-flight teachers by rewarding them for performance, not just credentials ..." -The Plan, Rahm Emanuel & Bruce Reed, Page 77

Broken Promise: As Democratic Caucus Chairman, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) is co-sponsor of a bill that fails to fulfill his promise - the Teacher Excellence for All Children Act (H.R. 2204), legislation authored by Education and Labor Committee Democrats that places a premium on teacher credentials and tenure, rather than on classroom performance. Republicans, however, have stepped forward with legislation to reward good teachers for good performance. Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) has introduced the Teacher Incentive Fund Act (H.R. 1761), a Republican alternative to provide grants to local school districts to design and implement their own performance pay systems to reward teachers for closing the achievement gap inside the classroom.

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #13: Universal Retirement Savings
Promise: "From now on, every job ought to come with a 401(k). . .Employers should be required to offer 401(k)s, and workers will be enrolled unless they choose otherwise." - The Plan, Rahm Emanuel & Bruce Reed, Page 55

Promise: "[W]e should require all employers to offer workers a pension or 401(k) ...." - The Plan, Rahm Emanuel & Bruce Reed, Page 91

Broken Promise: As of June 27, 2007, no legislation to encourage universal retirement savings has been passed by the Democratic Congress. In fact, last year the majority of House Democrats (including now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi) voted against the Pension Protection Act, the most comprehensive reforms of the worker pension system in more than a generation. Of note, the Pension Protection Act included measures to automatically enroll employees into worker 401(k) savings plans. - Roll Call Vote #422, July 28, 2006

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #14: No More Borrowing from Social Security
Promise: "We will not borrow the money from the Social Security trust fund and from other creditors around the world." - Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ), House Floor Remarks, March 28, 2007

Broken Promise: 215 Democrats, including Democratic Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ), voted "NO" on a Republican proposal to prohibit increases in authorization spending levels if the Social Security surplus has been spent the previous year. - Roll Call Vote #300, May 3, 2007

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #15: Protect Social Security
Promise: "And we will ensure retirement security every day by protecting Social Security, protecting pensions and making savings easier for retirement for our seniors." - Then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "Press Conference," July 28, 2006

Broken Promise: "[The Democrats'] spending plan does nothing at all to address the problems facing the Social Security and Medicare systems, which are growing ever closer to spending more than they take in as the gigantic baby boom generation ages and retires." - "A New Budget Proposal in No Way Unassuming," The Republican (Springfield, MA) Editorial, May 17, 2007

Broken Promise: House Democrats voted en masse against a House Republican substitute budget that would have achieved balance by 2012 while ending the raid on Social Security, voting instead for a Democratic budget that allows the raid to continue

Posted by: 100 broken promises | July 2, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #3: Make Children's Health Care a Priority
Promise: "In the next Congress, Democrats will take America in a New Direction, making health care for our children a real priority." - Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Release, December 9, 2006

Broken Promise: "The [State Children's Health Insurance Program, or S-CHIP] coverage program expires Sept. 30, but [Democratic Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman John] Dingell offered no specific timetable for marking up reauthorization legislation." - "Dingell Plays Down Tobacco Tax as SCHIP Funding Source," Congressional Quarterly Health Beat, March 29, 2007. This legislation had still not been moved by Democrats as of June 26, 2007.

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #4: Universal Children's Health Care
Promise: "Universal Children's Health Care. . .[We should] make sure all parents in America have the responsibility and the means to obtain health insurance for their children." - The Plan, Rahm Emanuel & Bruce Reed, Page 55

Broken Promise: During the first six months of the Democratic Congress, no legislation has been passed to provide universal children's health care.

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #5: Improve Health Information Technology
Promise: "We need to cut the cost of health care so that. . .every child in America at last can get it. We can save hundreds of billions by adopting electronic medical records [and implementing other reforms]. . ." - The Plan, Rahm Emanuel & Bruce Reed, Page 55

Broken Promise: Democrats have passed no legislation to improve health information technology since taking power in Congress. In 2006, the Republican-led House passed such legislation with bipartisan support (the Better Health Information System Act, H.R. 4157 - passed July 27, 2006 by a vote of 270-148) - but then-Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chairman Emanuel voted "no."

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #6: Expand Small Business Health Care
Promise: "Instead of leaving small businesses to fend for themselves [on health care], we should give them the opportunity to pool their purchasing power." -The Plan, Rahm Emanuel & Bruce Reed, Page 113

Promise: "We need to cut the cost of health care so that every business can afford it. . .As we [achieve savings through health care reform], we should use them to give small businesses access to the same health care plans as members of Congress. . ." - The Plan, Rahm Emanuel & Bruce Reed, Page 55

Broken Promise: House Democrats, including now-Democratic Caucus Chairman Emanuel, unanimously opposed a House Republican proposal to enable small businesses to pool their purchasing power and offer their employees the same health care benefits large corporations and unions can offer - even though 36 House Democrats supported this plan in the last Congress. The GOP proposal opposed by Chairman Emanuel would have significantly expanded access to health coverage for uninsured families across the country by giving small businesses the opportunity to pool their purchasing power and purchase health coverage for their workers on par with the plans used by larger businesses and the federal government. - Roll Call Vote #17, January 10, 2007

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #7: Make Prescription Drugs More Affordable
Promise: "We will begin by making prescription drugs more affordable for our seniors by allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower prices." - Then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Release, August 16, 2006

Broken Promise: Six months after Democrats took power in Congress, their "Six for '06" Medicare price control legislation remains stalled in the Democrat-controlled Senate, and no such legislation has been sent to the President.

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #8: Lower Drug Prices For ALL Americans
Promise: "This crucial legislation requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices on behalf of the more than 22 million Americans in Medicare prescription drug plans...This is just the beginning of Democratic efforts to ensure that quality health care is accessible and affordable for the American people." - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Release, January 12, 2007

Broken Promise: "The [nonpartisan] Congressional Research Service said that if the government negotiated lower drug prices for Medicare, pharmaceutical companies might respond by increasing prices for other buyers." - "Bush Threatens Veto of Medicare Drug Bill, But a Senator is Seeking Middle Ground," New York Times, January 12, 2007. After six full months, not a single bill to make more accessible and affordable for the American people has been sent to President Bush by the Democrat-controlled Congress.

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #9: Cut Loan Interest Rates in Half for Parents
Promise: "Our new direction plan will slash interest rates on college loans in half to ... 4.25% for parents." - Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) "A New Direction for America," Page 17

Broken Promise: "Although Kennedy's proposal would reduce rates on parent-borrowed PLUS loans to 4.25 percent from 8.5, the House bill offers no break." - "Bills to Ease Student Loan Rates on Hill," Chicago Tribune, February 4, 2007

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #10: Cut Loan Interest Rates in Half for Students
Promise: "Our New Direction plan will slash interest rates on college loans in half to 3.4% for students ..." - Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) "A New Direction for America," Page 17

Broken Promise: Democrats drastically scaled back their plans for a student loan interest rate cut shortly after taking power in Congress. And six months after Democrats took power, no legislation to cut student loan interest rates - temporarily or otherwise - has been sent to the President. "The much-touted House Democratic measure to slash in half student loan interest rates over five years has been drafted to offer only temporary relief." - "House Dems Offer Only Temporary Student Loan Rate Cut," CongressDaily AM, January 16, 2007.

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #11: Improve College Access for All
Promise: "A college education is as important today as high school was a generation ago - and Democrats intend to make attending college just as affordable and available to all." - Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) "A New Direction for America," Page 17

Broken Promise: "'It's a great sound bite - cutting rates in half,' says Mark Kantrowitz, the publisher of FinAid.org, which gives information about ways to pay for college. 'But it's an incredibly expensive proposal with very little student aid benefit. The benefit ... comes after students have graduated, which makes it unlikely to get more low-income students to enroll in college, especially since they tend to fear debt more.'" - "Congress Moves to Cut College Loan Costs," Christian Science Monitor, January 16, 2007. Six months after Democrats took power in Congress, no legislation to make college more affordable or accessible has been sent to the President. In June, House Education & Labor Committee Democrats also voted en masse against a GOP alternative proposal that would have used savings from higher education programs to increase funding for the Pell Grant college access program by $12 billion over the next five years, instead voting for a Democratic measure that puts the bulk of that money into benefits for individuals who have already graduated from college and earned a degree.

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #12: Reward Teachers for Performance
Promise: "It's time to revive the standards movement [by] attracting top-flight teachers by rewarding them for performance, not just credentials ..." -The Plan, Rahm Emanuel & Bruce Reed, Page 77

Broken Promise: As Democratic Caucus Chairman, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) is co-sponsor of a bill that fails to fulfill his promise - the Teacher Excellence for All Children Act (H.R. 2204), legislation authored by Education and Labor Committee Democrats that places a premium on teacher credentials and tenure, rather than on classroom performance. Republicans, however, have stepped forward with legislation to reward good teachers for good performance. Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) has introduced the Teacher Incentive Fund Act (H.R. 1761), a Republican alternative to provide grants to local school districts to design and implement their own performance pay systems to reward teachers for closing the achievement gap inside the classroom.

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #13: Universal Retirement Savings
Promise: "From now on, every job ought to come with a 401(k). . .Employers should be required to offer 401(k)s, and workers will be enrolled unless they choose otherwise." - The Plan, Rahm Emanuel & Bruce Reed, Page 55

Promise: "[W]e should require all employers to offer workers a pension or 401(k) ...." - The Plan, Rahm Emanuel & Bruce Reed, Page 91

Broken Promise: As of June 27, 2007, no legislation to encourage universal retirement savings has been passed by the Democratic Congress. In fact, last year the majority of House Democrats (including now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi) voted against the Pension Protection Act, the most comprehensive reforms of the worker pension system in more than a generation. Of note, the Pension Protection Act included measures to automatically enroll employees into worker 401(k) savings plans. - Roll Call Vote #422, July 28, 2006

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #14: No More Borrowing from Social Security
Promise: "We will not borrow the money from the Social Security trust fund and from other creditors around the world." - Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ), House Floor Remarks, March 28, 2007

Broken Promise: 215 Democrats, including Democratic Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ), voted "NO" on a Republican proposal to prohibit increases in authorization spending levels if the Social Security surplus has been spent the previous year. - Roll Call Vote #300, May 3, 2007

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #15: Protect Social Security
Promise: "And we will ensure retirement security every day by protecting Social Security, protecting pensions and making savings easier for retirement for our seniors." - Then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "Press Conference," July 28, 2006

Broken Promise: "[The Democrats'] spending plan does nothing at all to address the problems facing the Social Security and Medicare systems, which are growing ever closer to spending more than they take in as the gigantic baby boom generation ages and retires." - "A New Budget Proposal in No Way Unassuming," The Republican (Springfield, MA) Editorial, May 17, 2007

Broken Promise: House Democrats voted en masse against a House Republican substitute budget that would have achieved balance by 2012 while ending the raid on Social Security, voting instead for a Democratic budget that allows the raid to continue

Posted by: 100 broken promises | July 2, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #2: "Open, Honest, & Ethical Congress"
Promise: "[W]e will make this the most honest, ethical and open Congress in history." - Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Conference, November 8, 2006

Broken Promise: "When Democrats recaptured the House of Representatives last November after 12 long years in the minority, they promised voters 'the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress.' Five months after Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team took control, that promise remains unfulfilled." - "A Wake-Up Call For Congress," Cleveland Plain Dealer Editorial, June 10, 2007

Posted by: 100 broken promises | July 2, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

JKrish: Maybe you are the only one that picked up how Al Gore distanced himself from Bubba and where he is now. Bubba is by far the most popular pol in the world today and to even think of turning him away from your campaign is the height of stupidity. Hillary is not stupid, and that is a "FACT".

Posted by: lylepink | July 2, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #1: Prepared to Govern & Ready to Lead
Promise: "Democrats are prepared to govern and ready to lead." - Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Release, November 8, 2006

Broken Promise: "Six months after taking over Congress, Democrats find they have accomplished little of their agenda. Perhaps not coincidentally, Congress' job approval rating has reached a dramatic low ... If they can't reverse the trend, some Democrats are starting to worry, their majority could be short-lived." - "Democrats Promised Way More Than They've Delivered So Far," Chicago Tribune, June 21, 2007

Posted by: 100 broken promises | July 2, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Dunno about that Dean/Obama comparison. I never thought much about Dean, but Obama is very impressive to me.

I feel that the Deaniacs have a whole lot in common with today's Goremasters.

If there is any overlap with us Obamaites, the overlap exists simply because Obama is a powerful crossover candidate. Obama attracts all sorts of voters.

Posted by: Golgi | July 2, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"sse what i mean, rufus? zouk's here and will be all day, under all different names but all saying the same things exactly, because he has other life. or he gets paid for it."

I feel you. Parrot lies and propoganda. That's GOOD for me though. We have the internet now. ALL independant thinkers are feel to reasearch, if they care about this country. If they research what zouk says they will see what he is doing. We have the internet now. History will judge these fascsits. OUR job as Americans is to VOTE. That's it. T make sure selling out your country to line your pockets never happens again, and is indeed treason. Zouk has asked me in the past "show me where treason is illegal". That is the mentallity we are dealing with

I think most Americans are AMericans first and a dem/rebub/indy second. I personally am a Indy. With that said the conservatives are conservative/rebuplicans first. BEFORE they are christians (if they claim that) and before americans. In my mind, and most americans, that is treason. I'm not the problem. I am a blank post. The people want change. That is change fromt he last 20 years for forced conservatisim and a move towards fascsim. America is a free nation. They WILL reject fascsim. Much to the dismay of the GOP and zouk

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 2, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

It's already June and those promises remain completely unfulfilled. In fact, the biggest problem facing House Democrats is their fondness for making promises -- promises they can't make good on or never had any intention of keeping.


Sure, you say, politicians make a lot of promises -- but they usually keep at least a few of them. A report released last week by House Republicans -- titled "The Top 100 Broken Promises by Democrats" -- chronicles the astonishing divide between what congressional Democrats promised and what they've actually delivered. The leaders of the current majority promised they would run the "most honest, open, and ethical Congress in history." What they've delivered is a more closed, intellectually dishonest and ethically ambivalent legislature -- precisely the opposite of what the American people thought they were getting.

The Democrats have been entirely unable to govern and their string of broken promises has left few accomplishments of which to speak. Indeed, nearly half of the 39 bills signed into law either name federal property or build a road.

Posted by: John B | July 2, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

...well, he's asked so many times i've found myself hooked: do you have a CIB?

i don't, so i'm certainly not qualifying or discrediting, i'm just wondering if you do.

thanks for putting that to rest.

Posted by: tim randle | July 2, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats have staggered and stumbled through an ill-conceived, haphazard agenda that seems to be going nowhere, and they've got the failing mid-semester scores to prove it. Their approval polls have sunk into the 20s, and in some surveys the teens, as Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of the job they're doing.


The latest Gallup Poll shows that voters are most concerned about the war in Iraq, the economy and jobs, and the costs of health care, in that order. But there is little if any evidence that Congress is dealing effectively with any of these issues.

Instead, the Democrats seem intent on fighting the 2004 presidential race all over again. Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the deeply partisan Judiciary Committee chairman, is lobbing subpoenas at the White House to demand internal documents and memos about the president's handling of national-security actions taken to foil further terrorist plots to kill more Americans.

Apparently, Leahy has not heard of the separation of powers inherent in our constitutional system of government. He wants every e-mail, every scrap of paper prepared for the president and vice president regarding the issue of warrantless eavesdropping on terrorist intercepts to be delivered to Congress' doorstep, where it can be leaked to the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Posted by: donald | July 2, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Jealous REMF - "Kerry was right about certain MOS 11s."

And Kerry said?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

""Published on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
Hillary, Rupert, and the Culture of Corruption
by Jeff Cohen

Excuse me for not getting fired up when I hear Democratic leaders bleating about the "culture of corruption" in Washington under GOP rule. Sometimes I have to laugh. . .and not because the charges against the Republicans aren't true. They're totally true.

It's just that top Democrats are up to their eyeballs in that same culture of corruption -- which may be why they seem blind to how activists see them. Take my New York senator, Hillary Clinton. The Financial Times just reported that she and her re-election campaign have lined up rightwing media mogul Rupert Murdoch to host a Hillary fundraiser in July.

Murdoch is the symbol of media conglomeration and the owner of Republican mouthpieces like Fox News, Weekly Standard and the New York Post. He and Hillary have lately conducted a public courtship. Last month, Hillary attended the 10th anniversary party for Fox News in Washington, where the presidential contender schmoozed Murdoch and Fox chair Roger Ailes. According to the Financial Times, Bill Clinton will address the summer conference of Murdoch's media colossus, News Corp. "

aGAIN, jOHN. hILLARY SUPPORTS ARE WOMEN, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. And know-knowing democarts. Maybe young people who say they are rebus but have no idea who barack of edwards are. That will change. Once all dems see who her bed follows are, and they will in the debates, she is done. No democratic candidate can win if she is in bed with news corp. Think about it. Didn't the dnc remove itself from all debates? They are not news.

WHEN THEY WANT TO START REPORTING THE NEWS, THEN THEY CAN BE TREATED LIKE THE NEWS. Right now fox is in the same catagory as Us Weekly or the National Enquier, IMO

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 2, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Bert, mi amigo - Another wonderful thing about the Immigration bill defeat is that everything gets to stay the way it's been for the past 20 years.

Great, aint it!

p.s. I wouldn't be counting on Edward M. Kennedy going anywhere for a few more terms yet. Not as long as he's Chairman of the committees he wants to be on, and sets the agenda.

Adios!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

'Harry Reid has vowed that the bill, though severely wounded, will live to rise another day. It reminds you of those scary movies in which the evil creature, apparently dead and buried, suddenly climbs out of its grave. Come to think of it, that also reminds me of Harry Reid.'

sse what i mean, rufus? zouk's here and will be all day, under all different names but all saying the same things exactly, because he has other life. or he gets paid for it.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Hillary can't afford to lose Iowa, especially if she comes in third. If Obama comes in second and Edwards at first, then Obama can claim the victory because it is expected that edwards will first.

If edwards keeps his "lead" in iowa then whoever comes in the strong second will actually be perceived as the victor.

Posted by: Wes, SC | July 2, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Harry Reid has vowed that the bill, though severely wounded, will live to rise another day. It reminds you of those scary movies in which the evil creature, apparently dead and buried, suddenly climbs out of its grave. Come to think of it, that also reminds me of Harry Reid.

Posted by: Bert | July 2, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

zouk's here, rufus. it's noon, after all, and his obbsession with reid and pelosi never diminshes.

'I have been watching and reading the news of the UK terror plots over the last few days. One thing that struck me is that very little has been mentioned that one of the people that drove the Jeep into the Glasgo airport was from Iraq, and had lived there at least until 2004, well into bush's invasion.

Specifically from the UK's Telegraph:

The other man detained at the airport was named today as Bilal Abdulla, who qualified as a doctor in Baghdad in 2004. He appears to be an Iraqi.

He was working at a NHS hospital - to be the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley where his fellow bomb suspect is currently being treated - under a renewable year-long licence.

Certainly the fact that this person is an Iraqi is important. Especially since bush's oft repeated message is that "we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here." Though many more details need to be revealed, it would appear that fighting "them" there caused them to come here wanting to create terror.

So why is this important detail being left out?

Posted by: Rock | July 2, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

The wonderful thing about the demise of the immigration bill is that it managed to delight not only those who wish Ted Kennedy would retire to the home for old sots, but those who are eagerly counting off the days until George Bush can finally devote all his waking hours to clearing the brush down in Crawford.

Posted by: Bert | July 2, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

The jackels have turned on each other. Kerry was right about certain MOS 11s.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

It is amazing to read all these writings from Dean-like OBAMA fans. Keep your hopes up but you are not going anywhere - not even a VP consideration.

There are a lots of dems at the grassroot level who are for HRC but do not have money to contribute, but are ready to walk to the polls come the primary election. You must be afraid

Posted by: John | July 2, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse


Australia plans to withdraw troops from Iraq: report
July 1, 2007

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australian Prime Minister John Howard is secretly planning to begin withdrawing Australian troops from Iraq by February 2008, Australian media reported on Sunday.

The Sunday Telegraph, quoting an unnamed senior military source, described Howard's withdrawal plan as "one of the most closely guarded secrets in top levels of the bureaucracy."

The Sunday Telegraph said the drawdown of troops would focus on soldiers based in southern Iraq on security duty with Iraqi soldiers.

Posted by: zox | July 2, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman was on ABC's This Week and once again proved that he's not only the most predictable politician in Washington, he's also the most frightened and divisive. Just wind him up and he goes through all his lines.

How are things in Iraq? Shorter Joe: The surge is working, sectarian violence is down and Anbar is a success (he doesn't count mounting US deaths or those we kill by mistake). We're making great progress, but we should stay there no matter what.

Who should we fear? Shorter Joe: Iran is just like the Nazis. And Iran and al Qaeda are joining up to come get us over here.

Gosh, if we'd only known it was this easy to reconcile the extremist Sunni jihadists with the fundamentalist Shia from Iran, we could have pursued this policy decades ago.

But the most predictable thing about Joe? As soon as he starts to talk about how awful partisanship is in Washington, duck, because you know he's going to take another nasty shot at Democrats for being unpatriotic and unworthy of voters' support -- this time because they think the President should get a warrant and obey the law when he conducts surveillance. And anyone who gives money to Democrats? Well they're downright "anti-American."

Meanwhile, on Face the Nation, a leader of Joe's favorite party was expressing a very different view.

Shorter Richard Lugar: the surge couldn't work even if we gave it years, because it will take longer than that for the Iraqi factions to agree with each other. So it makes no sense to wait for September (or March) for a surge report before thinking about a Plan B.

Lugar must be one of those extreme partisans Joe warned us about.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

tha's wha tthe elections are for nathan. Patience. How long have they held? Senate is too close. Once the president is no longer gop, whether indy of dem, we can start the change. We need the presidential election, then one more senate/congress elction. It is the repubs holding up progress not the dems. They have a slim margin. Time will straigten that out. The gop's time is done, at least in my lifetime. Wait a little longer. They are trying. There's just a lot of gop opposition right now. Sabotage. Holding up progress. Turn back the clock to 1962. That is the gop plan.

It wil take one more election to clean then out. Then WE can have change. Then we can have progress, with the 1962 GOP sabotaging the conversation

Posted by: rufus | July 2, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

The Swiftboaters have never been debunked! Kerry never released his military records. Sounds to me that the new verb "to swiftboat" means to accuse someone of something they actually did when they are unable to refute it, hence they ignore it and are tarred by it! True eh?

Posted by: You Know Carol | July 2, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

The financial assets of the two frontrunners is one factor. Their poll numbers this early in the race is another. What is not mentioned here are political liabilities, in which Hillary Clinton is the handsdown winner. For one, she has the largest and hardest negatives of any candidate, which casts serious doubts on her electability, Bill's spin on the subject notwithstanding. Moreover, it is only a matter of time before the Clinton legacy comes back to haunt her. Americans will inevitably have to come to terms with how the Clinton's left the country deeply divided (this did not begin with George Bush, he only capitalized on it) and the White House blighted in the closing days by gross corruption of the constitutional provision for presidential pardons, of which Hillary was a benificiary.

Posted by: wizinit | July 2, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

'The Democratic Underground, and The Daily Kos web sites were already hatching 102 different conspiracy theories about how this was planned by the evil genius George Bush.'

And not a single link to support this is offered by 'kevin' -- do you think you might be a little bit more coherent, instead of just parroting sean hannity?

'So you're average jihadist is able to run around free as a bird, put together these rather conventional style bombs, and what does the left in America say?'

Why don't you try to speak englilsh, moron?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

When the President's approval rating sinks, the American news media display all the signs of obsession, repeating the statistic over and over again. Yet, when public opinion of Congress takes a downturn, we barely hear one word from the big three network news anchors.

It's time for media pundits to recognize the fact that, as far as politics is concerned, Pennsylvania Avenue should be a two-way street. It's high time that the Speaker of the House is held accountable for Congress' actions--or inactions. Speaker Pelosi should be held to the same standard as the man who occupies the White House. And I'd hazard a guess that, if Gallup polled Americans on that point, the vast majority would agree.

Posted by: Nathan | July 2, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

"Obama raised the money himself while Hillary had Bill helping her. Just like she uses experience when she is using Bill's resume.
Seems like Clinton is weak unless she runs to Bill to help."

Very good point. If she was a real leader she would distance herself from her husband and run be herself. Anything to win. Screw the country. Sounds like arepublcian manta to me

Posted by: JKrish | July 2, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

FCC. MOS. MID. NIE

WOW. I feel smart today. ANything to discredit. I hate the media/movies/lawyers/judges/the military

any body who is not gop. But I love the first ammendment when protecting the gop. I love free speech, if the speaker is gop. I hated wars when a democrat was in office BUT I LOVE THEM NOW. I am rich. It's a great time to live in this country. Patriot act. Google earth. Lieberman wanting to use more servaliance. Going through mail/email/calls. Hey, if they are doing nothing wrong they have nothing to worry about. Let's put a camera on every corner, like UK. Lets go through every email and call to make sure obody is mentioning anything we don't like. Let's make sure any non-gop voices are silenced. That's free speech

Posted by: GOP | July 2, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Obama raised the money himself while Hillary had Bill helping her. Just like she uses experience when she is using Bill's resume.
Seems like Clinton is weak unless she runs to Bill to help.
Obama is conducting everything without and expresident helping.
And the most impressive is the number of donors. How many people gave to Obama is a better indicator than polls (which are conducted from landlines. Majority now have internet phone or cells and are not home much).
and the people who support Obama are very loyal and true believers. I think alot of Clinton's support is rather soft and without much depth. Like Hillary herself.

Posted by: vwcat | July 2, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

'I want a Democrat as President again, and I want one who will not shy away from a good, clean response when the opposition party's campaign starts its nasty "Swiftboating" stuff.'

Absolutely. It will be the worst ever this time around, because the R's are desperate to hold onto power. It's scary to think what they will do. I know Hillary can handle it, Obama I'm just not sure. I know Gore could now, because I believe now he knows what the stakes are. Nobody knew back then just how truly awful bush wuould be. I, like most people, thought he would be more like his father, not great maybe, but not a complete disaster.

Posted by: Carol | July 2, 2007 11:54 AM | Report abuse

"Many Obama supporters are repubs that know he cannot win the General in 08. "

I sincerly hope so.

And blank poster. You are a coward. I'm not going to humor you. Get a girlfreind. Get a life. You cannot discredit me by trying to pull me away with topics that have no relevance, IE paris hilton Alec Baldin, The hoff, Rosie.

That may work on fox. It doesn't work in the real world. Rather than attacking and trying to discredit, WHY NOT VOICE YOU OWN OPINIONS? If you have any. I'm sure Rush Limbaugh is on right now. If you need a topic to discuss and need to know HOW to discuss it. I don't take my orders from blanck fascsit posters. You time is up coward. Why not join us. Lest see what you have to say?
\

Crickets Crickets.

Little kids. The right are middle school kids. Greedy, selfish, me me me, willfully ignorant unless it's about you. Brave blank poster, join us. don't be scared. I won;t hurt you

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 2, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

MOS? MRE??

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

I'm hoping to vote for Obama. I used to think I would vote for Hillary in the general if she were the D nominee, but now I am less sure.

If it's Hillary, I would hope that Bloomberg was in and vote for him, and no complaints about spoilers please.

If Hillary is nominated and Bloomberg tips it to a Republican, it would be the Democratic Party's fault for nominating a candidate who can't attract votes.

It is not my responsibility to support a political party who fails to nominate the best candidate.

Posted by: Golgi | July 2, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Each of the bombs over the weekend were estimated to hold 250 gallons of petrol, 8 canisters of propane, and 18-20 cases of carpenter nails. All legally accessible products and when combined could create a fireball that expands to over 400 feet in length in every direction.


So you're average jihadist is able to run around free as a bird, put together these rather conventional style bombs, and what does the left in America say?


Well as of press time for this column, none of the Democratic candidates for President had publicly addressed the matter. Most leftist media also shrugged it off. But their "nutroots" supporters were all over it. Posters at the Huffington Post, The Democratic Underground, and The Daily Kos web sites were already hatching 102 different conspiracy theories about how this was planned by the evil genius George Bush.


What was shocking in many of the posts at all three sites were the confessions by those who posted them, that they were, "just too cynical to believe these reports anymore."


In other words the freaks who live in these internet caves are more willing to trust the intentions of the "control ordered" Islamic killers, than they are of multiple confirmed reports from CNN, the BBC, and of course the major broadcast networks - none of which lean in any imaginary way in support of the War on Islamic Fascism.

Posted by: Kevin M | July 2, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

rufus - C I B ? Any infantryman knows what it is?

It would appear that you are a fraud.

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

Many Obama supporters are repubs that know he cannot win the General in 08. No matter how you slice/dice it he is in reality the one dem the repubs can beat in 08. I have been getting information from around the country and not only are repubs giving to the Obama campaign, but are going to change their registeration so they can vote for him in the primary. When I mention FACTS and the "Fear" factor, this is some of what I am talking about. Hillary will win in 08 and I still have hope she will win the Iowa caucaus.

Posted by: lylepink | July 2, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

'MANCHESTER, N.H. -- The venue was vintage Fred D. Thompson: a gun shop. Perfect for the down-home, Washington-outsider candidate who campaigned across Tennessee in the 1990s with a red pickup truck, rolled-up shirt sleeves and a straight-talking attitude.

But there was a difference on Thursday. Thompson was dressed in a dark blue suit, a white shirt and shiny black loafers as he chatted with gun purchasers. And as he sped away to visit a diner, it was in a caravan of a black Chevy Suburban and a black GMC Yukon, each with tinted windows and filled with advisers.'

Snapshot in time of American politics: Wealthy Hollywood actor pretending to be regular guy, pandering to gun buyers, of all constinuencies. Something has gone terribly wrong somewhere.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

What's your mid? CID? Aggghhh. Your so hard blank poster. Why not try to post as a big boy. Why not join the conversation unstead of constant sabatoge. I know that's what the gop is about, sabotage, but what are you scared of?

Posted by: rufus | July 2, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Carol:

I hoped so, too, about Al Gore for a long time. He was my first choice in 2004. I now am finally convinced that unless something happens to convince him that he should get in that he'll be content to be an engaged private citizen who in many ways is doing greater things for more people on this planet than as President. But, oh, if the SC had ruled the other way, how different the landscape in this country and abroad would be.

Took me quite a while to get over the 2000 Supreme Court ruling. No need for you to justify your enthusiasm. When you like a candidate you like him or her. And it's better to be involved than to be apathetic or totally cynical as so many are today when it comes to politics.

I want a Democrat as President again, and I want one who will not shy away from a good, clean response when the opposition party's campaign starts its nasty "Swiftboating" stuff.

Posted by: aroc | July 2, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Have have a girlfreind and kids, brave blank poster. Why are you so worried about me? Post your garbage. If you lose the debate's, so be it.

Why are you so worried about me. What are you afraid of? To much truth? No enough people read this site. Don't be scared zouk. I can only combat lies with truth hate with love and intolerance with understanding. Don't hate me cause I'm beautiful :)

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 2, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

I heard Obama speak in 2002 against the Iraq invasion and at the 2004 convention. He conveys good judgement and strong, well prioritized values. He has fought for civil rights and the little guy not just in his speeches but with his 10+ years of legislative experience and his work before becoming state senator. He is the only major candidate of either party that does not employ a lobbyist or have a lobbyist advising him (according to New York Times).

Hillary had her chance to fix health care. She and Edwards also had their chance in 2002 to show leadership against invading Iraq. (I REALLY don't understand why more people don't hold them accountable for their disasterous vote to support Bush's use of force.) If Hillary were to have 2 terms as Prez that would mean 28 years of Bushes and Clintons. We need something different if we are going to get real and workable solutions to health care, iraq, energy independence, and campaign finance reform.

A leader like Obama doesn't come along very often. Obama especially clicks with independents and the centrists of either party. In contrast, there are too many people motivated to vote against Hillary for her support to grow. Sooner or later more party machine Dems will start to realize that with Hillary as a nominee the general election is in jeopardy, but with Obama it is in the bag.

Posted by: Jeff L. | July 2, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

rufus - The question is still out there, do you have a CIB?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

MR. RUSSERT: And joining us now is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Good morning and welcome.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): Good morning, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: As you well know, you have issued subpoenas on the Bush White House regarding the eavesdropping, wiretapping put in place by the president after September 11th. Critics this morning will say, senator, that this plan is so essential to monitoring contacts between international terrorists and people here in the United States that subpoenas now is very, very counterproductive and could affect our anti-terrorism situation.

SEN. LEAHY: Well, of course, that's the kind of talking point that the White House has tried to put out, and they, the White House has chosen confrontation over cooperation. I think that's unfortunate. Nobody on my committee, Republican or, or Democrat, is trying to subpoena the operations of what's been done in wiretapping terrorists. And I was a prosecutor for eight years. I believe in going after criminals, terrorists or anything else. Use wiretaps, use search warrants, whatever. What we're asking is, what was the legal justification they tried to follow, when, for years, they were wiretapping ordinary Americans and everybody else without a warrant. We have a FISA court. We can, we can redesign the FISA law, if need be, if they need help to go after terrorists.

MR. RUSSERT: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ACT, FISA.

SEN. LEAHY: Yes. And, and, and moot to that, I mean, everybody wants us to get somebody who wants to strike at the United States.

MR. RUSSERT: So you have no problem with the plan of eavesdropping as such?

SEN. LEAHY: Of course not, provided it follows the law. What I don't want is this open-ended idea that they had at the White House, until the press found out about it, which would allow, for example, if they didn't like some comment that you made on NBC, they could then go without any warrant, wiretap your phone, check out your bank account, surveil you. Well, we don't want that in America.

MR. RUSSERT: Even if I had no contact with someone overseas?

SEN. LEAHY: Even if you had no contact with someone overseas under the broad way that they were doing it. So what, what we've asked is, what was their legal justification for it? Their answers, as we've asked these questions, as the press has asked these questions, has changed so many times, some of it in testimony under oath, we'd kind of like to find out what is the basic reason for it. And we will work with them. I've talked to Senator Rockefeller, who's a chairman of the Intelligence Committee. We will work with whatever changes are needed in the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act, so there'd be no question you can go after potential terrorists with wiretaps and all. But we'll do it with a check and balance. I don't want us to ever go back to the situation that we had 30 years ago when we put into place this FISA court, as you called it, where they were wiretapping somebody who disagreed with the government on the Vietnam war. In this case, somebody disagrees with the administration on the Iraq war, under their broad views, you could just go in and wiretap them. This, this is America. This is not a, this is not a dictatorship.

Posted by: clarification of R smears | July 2, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

"Published on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
Hillary, Rupert, and the Culture of Corruption
by Jeff Cohen

Excuse me for not getting fired up when I hear Democratic leaders bleating about the "culture of corruption" in Washington under GOP rule. Sometimes I have to laugh. . .and not because the charges against the Republicans aren't true. They're totally true.

It's just that top Democrats are up to their eyeballs in that same culture of corruption -- which may be why they seem blind to how activists see them. Take my New York senator, Hillary Clinton. The Financial Times just reported that she and her re-election campaign have lined up rightwing media mogul Rupert Murdoch to host a Hillary fundraiser in July.

Murdoch is the symbol of media conglomeration and the owner of Republican mouthpieces like Fox News, Weekly Standard and the New York Post. He and Hillary have lately conducted a public courtship. Last month, Hillary attended the 10th anniversary party for Fox News in Washington, where the presidential contender schmoozed Murdoch and Fox chair Roger Ailes. According to the Financial Times, Bill Clinton will address the summer conference of Murdoch's media colossus, News Corp.


"

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 2, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Your boy cc is silencin gmy content. Lucky for you zouk. Just like republicans. If you can't win, cheat. I'll just leave the post. Your time is up GOP.

http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/16535/

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0510-20.htm

I know you have to cheap GOP. If you don't cheat. You have no chance. Fascists

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 2, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

"Someone said that Obama's right where he wants to be; he doesn't want to be the leader/frontrunner - he's better off 2nd place"

JD - I've come to believe that that is just campaign B.S.

Being the Front Runner makes you a target, but if you intend to win, you're going to have to be the front runner at some point in time anyway.

Ask any baseball club if they would rather "be in First Place on the 4th of July" or simply "in the chase." It ain't the pennant, but you're in a better position if you're in First on the 4th, than if you're in any other position.

What I take out of that is that it simply shows that Obama can B.S. with the rest of them.

BTW - Referencing your comment on the previous thread, I would tend to believe that there are quite a few of us who are "local" on this blog.

All blog contributors who live within the Washiongton Metropolian area, please raise your hand!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Fascinating piece. "Indeed, the more you understand the historical record, the more the parallels leap out -- but they're between Bush and Chamberlain, not Bush and Churchill." ... "Likewise, Churchill almost certainly would look askance at the Bush administration's years-long campaign to shut down public debate over the 'war on terror' and the conflict in Iraq -- tactics markedly similar to Chamberlain's attempts to quiet his opponents. Like Bush and his aides, Chamberlain badgered and intimidated the press, restricted journalists' access to sources and claimed that anyone who dared criticize the government was guilty of disloyalty and damaging the national interest. Just as Bush has done, Chamberlain authorized the wiretapping of citizens without court authorization; Churchill was among those whose phones were tapped by the prime minister's subordinates. Churchill, by contrast, believed firmly in the sanctity of individual liberties and the need to protect them from government encroachment."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902304.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

The unstated dynamic here that explains everything is racism and sexism. The Democrats seem determined to nominate a black or a woman as their candidate. That would be throwing away a golden opportunity to elect a president.

Why do I state that? Look at the fundraising and poll numbers. Obama raises the most money from the most number of donors, but he is not leading in the polls. Why not? Because plenty of people, even Democrats, are not ready to vote for a black for President.

How do I know? Because of the only poll where people revealed their true thoughts. When asked if they would vote for a black for president, 90% of Americans vote yes. But they are lying. How do I know they are lying? Because when asked if they thought American is ready to elect a black, a large portion of the people who said yes to the "would you" question said no to the "is America ready" question. People are embarrassed to say they are racist. But they are willing to admit that the people around them are racist. And all those racist "friends and family" are going to vote Republican if the Democrats nominate Obama.

The same problem will face the Democrats if the nominate Hillary. The Democrats won many congrssional elections in 2006 because conservative voters stayed home as an expression of disgust with high spending scandal ridden Republicans. But no matter how disgusted they are with Republicans or president Bush, none of those conservative voters are going to stay home if it means Hillary Clinton might get elected President. Add to that (i) the liberal women who normally vote Democratic but won't vote for Hillary because she stayed with Bill after it became public that he cheated and (ii) the moderate suburban women who will never forgive Hillary for the "what should I do, stay home and bake cookies" remark, and you have an overwhelming majority of Americans who will oppose Hillary.

Close to 49% of Americans hate her guts. That means she needs to win EVERY SINGLE ONE of the people who don't hate her guts to get elected. Not going to happen. After all, President Bush only got 78% of the white Christian evangelical vote in 2004. How the heck can Hillary get 99% of the "don't hate her guts" vote?

The sad truth is, if the Democrats want to win in 2008, they either have to nominate a white man or a woman whose name is not Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Taxhoncho | July 2, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

The disparity between the money (not just how much but from how many) and the polls is striking. It may show that name recognition is still a big part of what is keeping Clinton in the lead. And I'd have to agree with Chris that Clinton was the best performer in the debates so far. But, I'm not sure how much that matters. First, very few are watching at this point. Second, all the current debate format does is allow a candidate to demonstrate an ability to give very polished answers in a short amount of time. There's no time for anyone to offer much in the way of substance, let alone someone like Obama (who, I think, as a law professor tends to want to take the time to get to the heart of the question).

Anyway, the next few months should be interesting. Who knows what will happen?

Posted by: junkie | July 2, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Obama will say the Palestinians are suffering to AIPAC, say we need greater fuel efficiency to Detroit, and say that more family bonds and personal responsibility are needed when speaking to a black audience at Howard. He speaks what he believes no matter what the audience, and that kind of levelling with the American people is what we need right now.

Posted by: bokonism | July 2, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

GORE! GORE! GORE!

I can't help it, I'm still hoping.

Posted by: Carol | July 2, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Rufus - Again yesterday you said that you were " I am a formor army infantry soldier"

Do you have a CIB?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

no edwards employee here but I'm still backing him. Clinton and Obama's campaigns appear to be following a familiar theme and it is way too close to the Kerry manuscript for my taste. Both of the media appointed front runners are way too cautious and afraid to say anything which may be viewed as controversial (especially Obama). I think the best candidate on the D side for the general election is Edwards. My ranking for D's would go:
1) Edwards
2) Clinton
3) Richardson
4) Obama
5) Biden

Posted by: j33 in illinois | July 2, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

'I have ultimate faith in George Bush.'

From the Rudy transcript in the Journal. He has 'ultiimate faith' in bush. If that doesn't scare you away from him, I don't know what will. that sends chills down my spine.

Posted by: Sam | July 2, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

"Rupert and Hillary Make Nice
During Hillary Clinton's first New York senate run, the op-ed folks at Rupert Murdoch's New York Post ruthlessly pencil-whipped the former First Lady as a carpet-bagging, left-wing opportunist. Now, New York Times columnist David Carr reports, the Post is instead beating up on Clinton's senate challenger, Jeanine F. Pirro. Right-leaning media mogul Murdoch has apparently achieved a pragmatic truce with straining-toward-center-while-holding-her-nose Clinton. As for the Post's Pirro-bashing, Carr writes, "skewering a likely loser is much more fun."
"

Posted by: rufus | July 2, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

aroc,

you Edwards employees need to be a little more subtle. Too smarmy sounding, but y'all have larned from themaster!

Posted by: huh! | July 2, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Rudy dodges Iraq:

'About a week ago, TPMtv featured a revealing video montage of Rudy Giuliani going to almost comical lengths to duck the issue of Iraq. A leading presidential candidate, on the dominant issue of the day, simply doesn't want to talk about it -- and hasn't for the last year or so.

With that in mind, I was encouraged to see a transcript the Wall Street Journal published over the weekend of a Giuliani interview with the paper's editorial board. The WSJ's editors, to their credit, seemed intent on getting some sense of the former mayor's thoughts on the war. It's a shame they came up empty.

The transcript is worth reading, if for no other reason than to enjoy the constant use of the phrase "on offense." Giuliani demonstrated confusion about de-Baathification, repeatedly compared Iraq to New York City, and said national polls would show stronger support for the war if only pollsters would use the word "retreat" in the questions. All in all, the former mayor's responses lacked a certain, shall we say, sophistication.

Consider this exchange:

WSJ: [Y]ou would give Petraeus all the time he needs?

Giuliani: Sure, if I thought he was right. I had a similar, on a lesser scale, issue with the police department or the fire department or whatever.

Or perhaps this illuminating question and response:

WSJ: So six months out and you're on the campaign trail. The results of the surge are inconclusive, but Petraeus says "I can use more time" and you're taking a beating for it, what are you going to say?

Giuliani: If I believe that General Petraeus is right, then I take the beating and you try to explain it to people. I think the American people in November 2008 are going to select the person they think is strongest to defend America against Islamic terrorism. And it is not going to just focus on -- as some of the media wants it -- just Iraq.'

Yes, it's that darned media's fault Americans want presidential candidates to talk about a tragic war and how they'd handle it. If only journalists would stop asking these pesky questions, Giuliani wouldn't have to go to such lengths to dodge them.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010280

Posted by: Sam | July 2, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Sorry about the double post folks, not sure how that happened...

Posted by: Fred lorrain | July 2, 2007 11:04 AM | Report abuse

"Kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel, here, aren't you?"

Actually, no...you could review the in depth investigative articles of this paper, the Washington Post, and the in-depth investigation of PBS's "Frontline", and you would understand that at more and better polls we get numbers from folks unacquainted with serious investigative reporting.

In principle, we agree with your notion that there have already been scandals involving candidates, especially RG and HRC. None of them have led to indictments or convictions. While more and better polls can understand "no harm, no foul", we think that it is theoretically possible for some level of scandal, perhaps RG caught in church with...probably not...we cannot think of the level, but it exists, in theory.

Lighten up.

Posted by: more and better polls | July 2, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

NC Voter and Others:

Sorry, but I still am supporting Edwards. I think he has stated his vision for this country very clearly. In this pre-primary year, I have donated now in two quarters more than I have ever given to a candidate before this early.

I don't hate any of the other Democratic candidates. I just feel Edwards has been thoughtful and has expressed what he feels honestly. Plus, he is the best speaker on the Democratic side. When he addressed the problem of "two Americas" that really hits home with me and I believe as time goes on it will resonate with other citizens as well.

Posted by: aroc | July 2, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Sorry for the double posts. CC likes to mess around. trying to discredit a player :)

Posted by: rufus133 | July 2, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

"They have zero chance. Their time is up. They had thier chance. They screwed the country"

Fox/Rush and their candidates. :)

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 2, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

My guess is that Obama will never get the front-runner label off of Hillary, then go on to win in the primaries, and a Reagan style landslide in the general. Picking Hillary as the Dem candidate would be like throwing red meat at the Ailes/Rove machine, They've got years of material to throw at her, and it could come to one of those "too close to call" general elections that the S.C. would decide, sound familiar? The only poll numbers I'm interested in are crossovers, how favorable a Dem rates with the large group of republicans that may jump ship in 2008 for the good of the country.

Posted by: Fred Lorrain | July 2, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

My guess is that Obama will never get the front-runner label off of Hillary, then go on to win in the primaries, and a Reagan style landslide in the general. Picking Hillary as the Dem candidate would be like throwing red meat at the Ailes/Rove machine, They've got years of material to throw at her, and it could come to one of those "too close to call" general elections that the S.C. would decide, sound familiar? The only poll numbers I'm interested in are crossovers, how favorable a Dem rates with the large group of republicans that may jump ship in 2008 for the good of the country.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 10:56 AM | Report abuse

"They have zero chance. Their time is up. They had thier chance. They screwed the country.
"

Fox and their people that is

Posted by: rufus | July 2, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

"They have zero chance. Their time is up. They had thier chance. They screwed the country.
"

Fox and their people that is

Posted by: rufus | July 2, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

'as the suppression of Rose Law Firm records that would have given probable cause to indict HRC, if not enough evidence to convict.'

Kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel, here, aren't you? Last time I looked, if there isn't enough eviidence to convict you, you are considered 'innocent' But of course, in the last few years the American legal system hasn't really functioned as it used to, has it? Since the entire Justice Department seems to have gone through the looking glass and down the rabbit hole, I guess it's hard to tell.

In any case, where are the much vaunted 'values voters' that media was so excitable about the last time round? All those 'values' seem to have evaporated in this gop cycle...

Posted by: drindl | July 2, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Fox's( and the right-wing attack dogs) people are trying to control both ends of the candle. They want to tell you WHO TO VOTE FOR if you a conservative. They also what to put out a dem candidate, that they can attack. They hope this will force people against FOX to go with Hillary. Fox gets one of their people in both ways.

Nope. Not going to work. Obama will not back down. Hillay WILL NOT BE the CANDIDATE. Write it down. We can't trust her. I wish she was speakign the truth. Really I do. I have done my research. I know what time it is. If you love fox vote Rudy/Romney/thompson/hillary.

Everybody else vote for obama or edwards. They have zero chance. Their time is up. They had thier chance. They screwed the country.

ALL POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 2, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

"Check the polls and remember her victory is ALL three debates - Hillary is the frontrunner by far."

Hillary is the Fox candidate (for dems). That makes me a little sceptical she is telling the truth. What with Bill Clinton touring the country with bush 41 for years. This with her (and her husband's) yale ties, like bush.

Hillary is the top candidate with women, for obvious reasons, and know nothing peaople who want to be involved in politics but know nothing about what's going on in the world.

I'm just gald MOST dems see the charade. HEcn, Obama fundraising taking all challangers. Go Obama Gore 08. Or better yet Gore Obama .08

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 2, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

I walked away from the Fix to take time to reflect - there is a disconnect in politics - Obama front runner money - people like him - but polls show otherwise - maybe the polls are part of the disconnect because America is on the fence about this election

Personally I am not voting in the Democratic Primary in Texas - it will not matter anyway - the election will be long over by the time Texas gets its say - I will be signing the petition to put any independent on the ballot- Like so many democrats I am done with the party - we the people have become irrelevant

America is faltering at every level and not one candidate from either party is willing to set down with America and converse - have a conversation with the real America - American does not matter

Corn as a biofuel has been denounced throughout the country on environmental grounds, efficiancy grounds, and the negative impact it is having on food prices - but Hillary and Obama are still sucking up to Iowa - the Disconnect.

Our education system is in complete disarray - Obama and Hillary now where to be found with solutions (for the record there is not Democrat at this time I will vote for - I will stay home or vote independent as a protest)

just my insight as to why Obama's poll numbers do not match his dollar numbers - America is on the fence and this horserace is anyone's guess

http://balancingtheissues.com/ignorance.htm

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | July 2, 2007 10:47 AM | Report abuse


'If you cant find out that your husband is cheating, then you are not qualified to be my command in chief.'

the fact that people this stoopid are allowed to vote is one of our biggest national probelms. who are you gonna vote for, then, trina? Rudy Guiliani?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 10:47 AM | Report abuse

You know, I've seen a few posts today lamenting the ostensibly ridiculously high amounts of money the candidates are forced to raise to be competitive. While I agree that this election will set records in this dept., perhaps a little perspective is in order.

Over this 2-year presidential/election cycle (and yes, I think it's now a 2 year cycle, unfortunately), all federal campaigns combined, for all offices legislative and executive, will likely spend about $2 billion (or $2.5b if Bloomberg gets in). That sounds like a lot, until you realize that it's to decide the leadership of the free world during this critical time.

To put that in perspective, Americans alone spend twice that on Easter candy, *each year*.

Posted by: JD | July 2, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse

US Had Glasgow Warnings; Never Reached Scotland
Maybe this could be the big news story about the attempted terrorist attacks in Britain, instead of "ZOMG yards away!": As ABCNews.com reported, U.S. law enforcement officials received intelligence reports two weeks ago warning of terror attacks in Glasgow and Prague, the Czech Republic, against "airport infrastructure and aircraft." The warnings apparently never reached officials in Scotland, who said this weekend they had received "no advance intelligence" that Glasgow might be a target.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse

'Lieberman asserted that the surge is making progress. "In Iraq we've got the enemy on the run, but for some reason, in Washington, a lot of politicians are on the run to order a retreat for our troops, even as they are beginning to succeed," he said.

The Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000 played it coy when host George Stephanopoulos asked if he would vote for a Republican in the 2008 presidential election.'

The reviled Loserman is probably the biggest wh*re in DC... which is why the teevee shows luve to have him come on and bash Democrats and channel cheney.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 2, 2007 10:39 AM | Report abuse

First of all, I will support whichever Democrat is nominated. I would much rather it be Obama, but if it is Hillary, she will get my vote, after I have at least three drinks. She would be better than anyone on the Republican side.

Secondly, Hillary supporters - at least some of them - are understandably defensive, but I think they have to recognize that by turning off those who support the other Democratic candidates, they're not doing Her Highness any favors. Referring to Obama supporters as "idiots" is just stupid and offensive. Hillary's negatives are at almost 50% in the last poll I saw, which means that she will need the votes of Obama, Edwards, Richardson etc. supporters to win.

You Hillaricious people need to recognize that, and to treat those who are not as convinced as you are of your candidate's inevitable ascension to the throne of St. George (Washington!) disrespectfully is only shooting Hillary's candidacy in the foot. I support Obama, and I am not an idiot. Nor are others on this blog who agree. Nor, for that matter, are the Hillary supporters, although I would still like to see an ongoing discussion of Hillary's (and the other candidates') positions, and how they compare. Who agrees?

Posted by: Bokonon | July 2, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Obama is not leading in the poll because some blacks do not believe that he can win. That is one reason many are supporting Hillary. As the campaign season moves, I predict many will change their suppo0rt to him. They will actually see that he could win this nomination (presidency is a different story).

Posted by: Kelly | July 2, 2007 10:34 AM | Report abuse

" 'ABSENT a scandal? His whole life is a 'scandal'."

Well, OK - to be fair, for either HRC or RG, how about "absent a continuing new scandal that actually catches the attention of a voter who otherwise would support ( supply name of candidate ).

So far, cocaine in SC and the molesting priest have not seemed to affect RG, and the other RG stuff is almost as old as the suppression of Rose Law Firm records that would have given probable cause to indict HRC, if not enough evidence to convict.

These are tolerant voters we are talking about, at more and better polls.

Posted by: more and better polls | July 2, 2007 10:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm comforted with what I deem to be a consensus here that Edwards is toast. This is to a large extent implied by lack of support or positive comments about him, not that their is much positive to say. Hope I'm right! Correct?

Posted by: NC Voter | July 2, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

If you find out that your candidate is a cheating husband (for example, RG), then he is apparently fully qualified to be your command in chief.

Posted by: ashamedtobeGOP | July 2, 2007 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Maybe Chris and the rest of the media knows something we do not. They like to select the Democratic nominee themselves - we have known since January that, for 2008, it is Hillary. They are waiting for an Obama slip-up and, if there is none, they will create one before the Iowa caucuses. A trip down memory lane: Remember Dean 2004? You think you've seen the real Dean Scream? Think again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQh0BEUlJWY&mode=related&search=
Dianne Sawyer was the only journalist with enough integrity to report the truth.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/tgraham200401300919.asp
What did it all mean?
http://www.blackcommentator.com/75/75_cover_dean_media.html

Posted by: Carol | July 2, 2007 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Obama is awesome... but I would like to say one thing. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008!!! A Clinton/Obama '08 ticket would definately take the White House.

Mrs. Clinton has remarkable experience, and has earned the trust of the American people, and people abroad. We need someone at the helm with the ability to clean up this mess. I think Hillary is the best person for the job.

Posted by: Peter | July 2, 2007 10:20 AM | Report abuse

'RG is the pro-choice Republican option. He may not win, but he does not get driven out, either, absent a scandal.'

ABSENT a scandal? His whole life is a 'scandal'. Jeezuz christ, he's dumped two wives [one of them his cousin] for other women, had several mistresses [one of them on the public payroll at $175,000, doing we were never sure what] while mayor, humiliated his wife and children publcily and tried to have them thrown out of Gracie Mansion so his girlfriend could move in, announced to his wife he was divorcing her on TV...

I mean, what does it take nowadays to the GOP voter to be considered scandalous? They don't seem to have any 'values' whatsoever these days.

Posted by: drindl | July 2, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

so happy to hear from you,have a nice vacation.refreshing to have one journalist at WP that I can agree with.

Posted by: sue | July 2, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Obama is awesome... but I would like to say one thing. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008!!! A Clinton/Obama '08 ticket would definately take the White House.

Mrs. Clinton has remarkable experience, and has earned the trust of the American people, and people abroad. We need someone at the helm with the ability to clean up this mess. I think Hillary is the best person for the job.

Posted by: Peter | July 2, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

e careful Hilary, WaPo and the rest of the Dem establishment. Something is happening out there. People are Really pissed-off about where this country is. BO's money isn't coming from "controlled sources".

Posted by: thebob.bob | July 2, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse

If you cant find out that your husband is cheating, then you are not qualified to be my command in chief.

Posted by: Trina | July 2, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Is it me, or does the idea of a candidate raising more money that most cities yearly budgets sound ludicrous? I find it disheartening that we now view how much money some one has as qualification to be in office. And how is that someone (Hillary) has 10 million sitting in an election fund for the senate and just transfers it over to her next campaign. I maybe wrong, but I feel that if an elected official is not going to run for that office again, then it should be law that their "war chest" be donated back to that states treasury.

Posted by: Paul | July 2, 2007 10:06 AM | Report abuse

CC's chain of reasoning is starting to sound a lot like lylepink. It's a funny world. The Clinton campaign is going to have subtle, yet inescapable effects all over American politics. Who knew?

What will the Hillary team do after 2008, if she does not win? It is unimaginable that she would leave politics, so she will still be around no matter what happens.

Posted by: Golgi | July 2, 2007 10:05 AM | Report abuse

I think that Obama won the last debate at Howard, and has shown a Presidential demeanor in refusing to go for cheap applause lines, which Hillary does almost religiously. Hillary turns up the rhetoric based on her audience, and what she lacks and what will hurt her eventually is the credibility gap between her and Obama. Obama will say the Palestinians are suffering to AIPAC, say we need greater fuel efficiency to Detroit, and say that more family bonds and personal responsibility is needed when he was at Howard. He speaks what he believes no matter what the audience, and that kind of levelling with the American people is what we need right now.

Posted by: mike | July 2, 2007 9:59 AM | Report abuse

You are missing the real story -- the large number of people who had given up on the political process (or, were never involved in the first place), who are excited, energized, and ON BOARD with the Obama campaign. Everyone from grandmothers to teens. All over the Internet. All races and income levels.

Americans haven't been this excited about a candidate in a long time. None of the other candidates can match this appeal. The enthusiasm continues to grow.

This is the real story.

Posted by: Linnie | July 2, 2007 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Mark in austin -- You had wondered here if 'sicko' was mostly accurate, and apparently it has been pretty thoroughly fact-checked by a number of sources. Everything I've read about it so far supports that:

'(CNN) -- Michael Moore's "Sicko," which opened nationwide Friday, is filled with horror stories of people who are deprived of medical service because they can't afford it or haven't been able to navigate the murky waters of managed care in the United States.It compares American health care with the universal coverage systems in Canada, France, the United Kingdom and Cuba.

Moore covers a lot of ground. Our team investigated some of the claims put forth in his film. We found that his numbers were mostly right, but his arguments could use a little more context. As we dug deep to uncover the numbers, we found surprisingly few inaccuracies in the film.'

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/28/sicko.fact.check/index.html

An indication of the writer's political leanings can be be found in the 'surprisingly few inaccuracies'. Why would he expect inaccuracies?

Posted by: drindl | July 2, 2007 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Drilling down in Rasmussen reflects HRC's extraordinary strength among women, the majority of voters. How many males are missing this point? Despite HRC's high negatives, she has an unyielding core of supporters. She might lose in the end, but she certainly will not be driven out, absent a scandal.

When you look at RG's numbers, you must remember that about half of all Republicans are pro-choice. The more that issue gets played in the Republican forums, the more RG is the pro-choice Republican option. He may not win, but he does not get driven out, either, absent a scandal.

Money makes Obama a contender until the end. Shoestring campaign and lots of shoeleather bring rising trendlines for Richardson in IA and NH, and he can expect a rising trendline in NV too. Probably can't win, but stays in. Edwards probably stays in.

The real money tale is that the other 4 Democrats must concede before the big states vote in early February.

Posted by: more and better polls | July 2, 2007 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Hey Idiots is apparently trying hard to live up to his/her moniker. The full quote that you are apparently too lazy/idiotic to read is:

"and was widely recognized as performing best of the top candidates in the three debates held during the past three months."

What poll supports this? That HRC is leading in the polls is a !duh! statement so you don't need to restate it again. That she won all three debates is an assertion requiring proof. Are there polls out there supporting the assertion that HRC won all three debates? Is this clear enough for you?

Also, is the statement "1+1 = 2" too complex for you?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 2, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

'hey idiots' -- you know, there are better ways to address your fellow citiziens.

In any case, Dean was killed off by the media, because he is a DC outsider, not part of the club. Obama may face the same fate. It seems very clear that the Media Club likes the narrative of a woman as the dem nominee [even though they don't think she will win] and they are pushing her hard.

Posted by: Cassandra | July 2, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Dry Fish: I agree with you, let her loose Iowa and the next thing you know is that she got to go back and get some rest in her bed because that will be done. Let me tell you that she feels the presure is coming and this why she' s going to bring Bill in Iowa ths week. But i am telling you there will day that she will regret to have Bill by her side. By the way, the day is coming when Obama will spring and take the lead for real. THe think is that to win this election, you have to beat Hillaty and Bill. Obama will do just that. I remind you to say you beat someone, that person has to lead at a point and then you take over for the final. If someone does not see Hillary will loose the nomination by December, that person should not write in this blog because he/she does not know jak in politics

Posted by: Tibwa | July 2, 2007 9:50 AM | Report abuse

I had never made a political donation before but I gave to the Obama campaign (and it felt good). There were multiple reasons for this but the main issue for me is that I hate how divided our country has become. Sure, they're always wrong about pretty much everything and we're always right (cause we're smarter and more attractive), but do we really have to rub it in their faces by electing someone who they already have vehement feelings of antipathy for? I have nothing against Hillary, I thought her husband was a great president and she is certainly fit for the position, but do I really want the same two families running the country for over a quarter of a century? And what will the other-side do to up the ante, Jeb? And then who, Neil?!?! God forbid.

I'll vote for Hillary if I have to in the end, but I hope that I get to vote for Obama next November...

Posted by: Jon | July 2, 2007 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Enjoy your vacation.

Be prepared for a new front runner by the time you return.The race for money is an elusive indicator of who will win, seconded only by polls. I think Gov. Dean was an early, strong front runner once.

Senator Clinton will always show a strong presence in the polls because her name is as famous as Paris Hilton, and so is her public image.

Senator Obama will soon outpoll her because his reputation and image is far more admirable, he can, and will grow stronger.. Hillary will gradually wear and fade.

Posted by: roneida | July 2, 2007 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Cassandra,

Just look at the polling. HRC is dominating this race nationally. She significantly out polls Obama in New Hampshire. She beats him in the February 5th states like CA. She beats him in the 1/29 Florida primary. Ultimately, once this becomes a pure binary choice for voters, she can always have Bill Clinton make her closing argument for her. And don't trot out the Lieberman example from '04. HRC has much more in the way of credibilty with base democratic constituencies and overall strategic advantages than Lieberman ever did.

Posted by: dry_fish | July 2, 2007 9:43 AM | Report abuse

HRC can afford to lose Iowa and still win the nomination...Obama can't?

Why do you say this?

Posted by: Cassandra | July 2, 2007 9:36 AM | Report abuse

'How well does Clinton poll against the Republicans running for president?'

The most recent polls I've seen have all top 3 dems beating all 3 top republicans in straight head-to-head matchups.

Posted by: drindl | July 2, 2007 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Obama's got a strategic problem...based on polling...HRC can afford to lose Iowa and still win the nomination...Obama can't. Therefore expect Obama opponents to focus their attention on preventing his victory at that natural choke point.

Posted by: dry_fish | July 2, 2007 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is leading in every poll

Also, the thing with Obama is that you have all the ingredients of another Dean effect

tons of money
campaign based on "hope"
youth = inexperience, hype, not actual voters

Posted by: Hey idiots | July 2, 2007 9:22 AM | Report abuse

off-topic:
JimD - thanks for Navy Supply reply.
JD - having now read "Wisconsin RTL|" I understand your note about Breyer. Would have chosen a different Justice to quote...

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 2, 2007 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is leading in every poll

Posted by: Hey idiots | July 2, 2007 9:20 AM | Report abuse

what does Obama have to do before you the Media decides that he is, and has been, the frontrunner? He raises more money, has more grass roots support than Hillary. Obama is spanking her silly in every catagory and still the Pundits just can let go of their Hillary dream. They annointed her the forntutnner status (they foolishly did the same with McCain) and got it wrong on both accounts.

Posted by: James | July 2, 2007 9:16 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Janet; "widely recognized as performing best" means what, exactly? Is this from a poll somewhere or just an informal sampling of a group of guys at the WaPo? Sources, please.

Obama's strategy has to be slow and steady. He's still organizing himself and his troops and that takes time. He obviously hasn't paid any attention to all this press-driven hyperventilating about the "chronic need for policy statements" and similar blathering. Nor should he. Time is on his side.

As far as "Clinton still looks like the strongest of the field" I remind you that McCain did at one point as well.

Happy 4th, everyone! I plan to pollute my neighborhood with extensive quantities of air-borne sulfur compounds.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 2, 2007 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Am I the only person who finds the amounts of money raised for the 2008 election to be obscene? Do we really want our president to be the person with the most money? How discouraging.

Posted by: Connie Owens | July 2, 2007 9:15 AM | Report abuse

A quarter million donors. 31 million in primary cash. The Obama campaign is rolling. I don't think the national polls and these uber-early debates are really going to factor that much into who the nominee is. We have a long, long road to go...

Posted by: fulch | July 2, 2007 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Obama is the official frontrunner from now on.

He won the first two debates (according to the polls on the debates - not the media take by some eggheads)

Do not forget that the trend is your friend!!

If beating Hillary on the primary money by about 50% did not make him the frontrunner in what the former president told us is the primaries that mattered most right now, then I don't know what is

Posted by: F.Igwealor | July 2, 2007 9:14 AM | Report abuse

I personally am somewhat distrustful of Obama because of his lack of experience. However, I dislike Edwards intensely and am not particularly fond of Clinton. Obama could really shake things up. His appeal reaches to surprising places. My wife was talking to this fellow we know. He is a small businessman doing a repair type business. He is the quintessential Southern red neck type. He told my wife that he hated all politicians and had not been a registered voter for years (he is at least in his late 40s). However, he had decided to register so he could vote for Obama. Should Obama continue to gather support from folks like him, he will surprise an awful lot of people.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 2, 2007 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Just a comment re the debates. I only watched one half of one probably putting me in the top 1/millionth of Americans who actually even watched part of one. Ultimately, they mean nothing at this point except to the small number of people who actually are paying attention now, political junkies, reporters, etc.

Posted by: AnnS | July 2, 2007 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Just a comment re the debates. I only watched one half of one probably putting me in the top 1/millionth of Americans who actually even watched part of one. Ultimately, they mean nothing at this point except to the small number of people who actually are paying attention now, political junkies, reporters, etc.

Posted by: AnnS | July 2, 2007 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Even though you are on vacation, I could not resist challenging your remark that Obama raised his money while "Clinton rode HIGH in national polls" and widely recognized as "performing best" in the three debates during the past three months. Again I repeat myself, you are so in the tank for Clinton, its disgusting. I would not call Clinton's early lead as "riding high", nor would I say she "performed best" in the 3 debates. If she is popular in Iowa, why does she have to prop Bill Clinton up beside her now? The forum at Howard clearly showed Obama and Biden at their best, while Clinton pandered to the crowd by her one sound bite. Its talking points like your blog, that exaggerates the truth about Clinton's early lead. How well does Clinton poll against the Republicans running for president?

Posted by: Janet | July 2, 2007 8:59 AM | Report abuse

No, Obama's not the frontrunner yet. But Hillary can't be pleased that BO's "fading" campaign was able to rake in record amounts of cash.
http://political-buzz.com/?p=243

Posted by: paul88 | July 2, 2007 8:44 AM | Report abuse

A lot of the weaknesses Obama suffers from - lack of policy specifics, debate performance - can be improved over the next few months - when most people start paying attention, when it really matters. By contrast, I'm not sure Clinton can do much for either her favorability or electability problems in that time. I think that suggests Obama is much better off than the polls suggest.

Also, don't rule out a Gore endorsement, with his 15% or so going to Obama. Obama's netroots and citizen-style campaign might appeal to him more than running himself.

Either way, Obama will definitely be on the ticket, as president or vice president...

Posted by: freedom410 | July 2, 2007 8:44 AM | Report abuse

A lot of the weaknesses Obama suffers from - lack of policy specifics, debate performance - can be improved over the next few months - when most people start paying attention, when it really matters. By contrast, I'm not sure Clinton can do much for either her favorability or electability problems in that time. I think that suggests Obama is much better off than the polls suggest.

Also, don't rule out a Gore endorsement, with his 15% or so going to Obama. Obama's netroots and citizen-style campaign might appeal to him more than running himself.

Either way, Obama will definitely be on the ticket, as president or vice president...

Posted by: freedom410 | July 2, 2007 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Check the polls and remember her victory is ALL three debates - Hillary is the frontrunner by far.

Posted by: csh | July 2, 2007 8:32 AM | Report abuse

And even more important, a fact that Chris has forgotten, is that Obama's 31 large came from 250k contributors, which averages just over $120 per. This means there's potentially lots more to come from those sources.

Posted by: JD | July 2, 2007 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Enjoy your vacation Chris.

As for Obama, I thought the discussion on This week without david brinkley was fascinating - they were asking why his greater money doesn't equate to better poll numbers (he's second behind HRC in most states). Someone said that Obama's right where he wants to be; he doesn't want to be the leader/frontrunner - he's better off 2nd place, and enlisting help at bringing down the shrew from all the other Dem candidates.

Very interesting strategy.

Posted by: JD | July 2, 2007 8:26 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company