Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Obama in Iowa: Preview of 2008?

After watching Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D) closely over the last few months, we've grown more and more convinced that he will come under significant pressure to at least consider a run for president in 2008.

While Obama -- and his staff -- continue to deny any interest in a national bid in two years time, his actions seem to belie his comments on the subject.

Sen. Barack Obama
Sen. Barack Obama accepts a Grammy award for the spoken word version of his autobiography. (Reuters)

The latest evidence? Obama will be the special guest of Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin (D) at his annual steak fry held this Sunday at the Warren County Fairgrounds in Indianola. Harkin has hosted the event for the past 29 years, and it has become a regular stop for presidential aspirants. Harkin's guest in 2005 was former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who is widely expected to run for president again in 2008. Obama won't have the event to himself, however, as Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner are also set to appear. (Warner is not on the official program but will likely make a few informal remarks.) Iowa Secretary of State Chet Culver, who is running for governor this fall, will also attend. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the party's 2004 nominee, will be in Iowa this weekend but is not planning a stop at the steak fry.

"It's no secret that Barack Obama has a bright future," said Harkin about his steak fry headliner. "But make no mistake -- this guy is a work horse, not a show horse. He's fighting hard in the U.S. Senate for causes that benefit everyone -- not just those at the top."

It is Obama's first trip to Iowa since winning his Senate seat in 2004. Despite the shuffle in the Democrats' nominating calendar, the Jan. 14 Iowa caucuses are expected to remain the first proving ground for potential presidential candidates. Given the primacy of the Iowa caucuses, Harkin's endorsement has long been coveted by presidential candidates. That influence may have been diminished after the 2004 election where Harkin backed former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean only to see him place third in the caucuses. And, assuming Vilsack runs for president, Harkin will likely endorse his fellow Iowan.

Obama's trip to Iowa comes just a few weeks after he undertook a lengthy tour of Africa, a trip that included a hero's welcome in his native Kenya. The visit drew national press coverage for days -- the kind of coverage usually reserved for a president or foreign dignitary. (The Chicago Tribune's Jeff Zeleny traveled with Obama and filed dispatches from the road.)

Despite that travel -- and the fact that his Hope Fund PAC has raised nearly $4 million in this cycle alone -- Obama says his goal is to simply help elect Democrats in 2006, not further his own ambitions.

Denials aside, there is considerable energy for an Obama bid -- both among activists across the country and among party insiders within the Beltway. Need evidence? Look at the overflow crowds Obama draws when he speaks at state party functions or happen by a happy hour filled with Democratic campaign types where the Senator's political prospects are the hot topic of conversation.

The argument for Obama is relatively simple. He is the hottest commodity in the Democratic Party and one of only a few candidates who can simultaneously raise the $50 million (or more) to compete with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the early primary and caucus states and run to Clinton's ideological left on the war in Iraq. (Obama was not in the Senate in 2002 and therefore did not vote on the use of force resolution against the country.)

The argument against Obama is similarly simple. He's been in the Senate for less than two years and is still very young -- allowing him to bide his time until he is the presumptive frontrunner in 2012 or 2016.

All of this speculation is just that -- speculation. And, it doesn't take into account the possibility that former Vice President Al Gore could run. At an appearance in Australia to promote "An Incovenient Truth" Gore left his future deliciously vague. "I haven't completely ruled out running for president again in the future but I don't expect to," Gore said.

Whether it's Obama, Gore, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold or someone else, we are convinced that a candidate who has opposed the war since its inception could make a serious run at the nomination. Clinton has almost no weak spots, but her unwillingness to call for a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq has angered liberal activists, who are actively looking for an alternative.

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 14, 2006; 11:35 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: CT-05: Rep. Johnson's New Ad Stresses Security Issue
Next: Obama Watch: Another Hint of '08 Intent?

Comments

In the 1992, 1996, and 2000 elections foreign policy credentials were at the bottom of the list of what people were looking at in terms of experience. The Cold War was over, the emerging threats of the post-Cold War world hadn't emerged yet, those campaigns were won and lost on domestic issues alone (hence Clinton's 1992 slogan). Kerry was nominated due to his military creds, but he blew it horribly by gfailing to properly articulate a vision and playing into the Republican trap with that "voted for it before he voted against it" line ( I know whell what he meant, but a politician running forPresident can never be so stupid as to hand their opponent ammo like that). Bush was still basking in the glow of 9-11, and Kerry never gained the momentum to make the race a referendum on his failures, allowing it to be a referendum on Kerry instead. A military/foreign policy resume isn't sufficient in itself, but it is a necssary prerequisite.

Posted by: Michael | September 17, 2006 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Those who say that Barack Obama lacks foreign policy experience need to think twice. In the 2000 election, Al Gore's foreign policy expertise dwarfed Bush's by a factor of one thousand to one. In 2004, Kerry was probably better versed in the minutiae of security and foreign policy than was Bush. So much for foreign policy experience.

That said, in the past year, Obama has been working on the serious issue of non-proliferation with none other than the respected Republican foreign policy and security stalwart Sen.Lugar, whom I hear as high regard and respect for the Illinois senator. Next year, Obama is scheduled to visit a region, Asia, which is sure to be this century's most important region in terms of trade, security and foreign policy. The countries he is likely to visit are China, India, and Indonesia.

Folks, Obama is on the move.

Posted by: Eric Otiende | September 17, 2006 4:47 AM | Report abuse

If Obama is too young to be elected president in 2008, how did Kennedy in 1960 and Clinton in 1992 win when they were even younger? If elected in 2008, Obama would only be our 4th youngest president. John McCain, on the other hand, would break the record for oldest president ever. What a great contrast that would present people!

Ann Richards' death is sad indeed, and she deserves a moment of honour. She was one of a kind and irreplaceable.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | September 16, 2006 4:31 AM | Report abuse

In this world, you'll need a ticket with strong foreign policy credentials; that rules out multiple governors, and many governor-senator combinations. A Clark, Biden, Richardson, or to this point low profile military or foreign policy expert, maybe even a moderate Republican crossover, will be needed to give the ticket credibility. Doesn't have to be on top of the ticket (although at least a year or so of service would be desireable for the top spot, and not in the TNG), but I don't see Obama/Some Governor, Feingold/Obama, etc., standing much of a chance.

Posted by: Michael | September 15, 2006 7:40 PM | Report abuse

America needs motivation. Few leaders in American history have been able to motivate the masses . My Judgement tells me that Barack Obama has that capacity to motivate and will restore America to Glory just like Ronald Reagan did in the 80's .

Posted by: Peter S. | September 15, 2006 6:28 PM | Report abuse

To the criticisms of Obama as playing a role as a poor kid with a rough background: how do you back that up?

In his autobiography, he writes about his time after college working as a community organizer on the south side of Chicago. He bemoaned to a fellow organizer that he envied her for growing up in the Chicago ghetto, which enabled her to really BE one of the people she was organizing -- to have a deep connection with them.

To which she responded: "And here I've jealous that you got to grow up in Hawaii."

I don't think Obama's presented himself as growing up poor. Fatherless and struggling with identity questions, yes, but not poor. In his book, he struggles with exactly that issue: being an advocate for the poor while not having that background.

He's more an idealist than a populist.

Posted by: YellowDogJZ | September 15, 2006 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton has "almost no weak spots"? I'm active in the Democratic party in Iowa, and I hear widespread comments along the lines of, "She rubs people the wrong way and so can't win" Even: "She just rubs me (liberal Democratic activist) the wrong way, and I don't really want to see her as president."

After the Dukakis debacle, Democrats went the other way with the empathetic Bill Clinton. My guess is that most Democrats are so frustrated that Kerry's cold and elitist personality cost them the last campaign that they'll (wisely) look for someone skilled at connecting personally. That won't be Hillary.

Democrats thinking she's a sure loser in the general is a HUGE weakness -- probably fatal for her candidacy.

Posted by: YellowDogJZ | September 15, 2006 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Nice try Chris, yet Sen. Obama had little opposition in his first encounter(a guy from Maryland the GOP sent in because he was Black and conservative). Obama likes to play the role of the poor kid--his wife(and her brother)went to Princeton and Obama to the Ivies too. They live in a million dollar mansion in Chicago. Like most liberals he talks the game yet plays differently. And John Edwards--others already pointed out that he could not even carry his own state in 2004. Oh how you hate Bush and he beat you twice.

Posted by: Dr. Ben Laime | September 15, 2006 10:25 AM | Report abuse

JEP - good observation on Ellison. He's in my district, and while I haven't payed him too much attention, his response to his GOP opponent's attacks on Wed were perfect. I'm supporting the 3rd party candidate, but Ellison will likely skate to an easy victory in this district, and do a fine job as Rep.

Posted by: bsimon | September 15, 2006 10:19 AM | Report abuse

lylepink I agree a woman would be great but I also think it is important that the Democratic party have a minority somewhere on the ticket sooner or later.

Bill Richardson would be an awesome choice - former congressman, ambassador to the UN, sec of energy, two-term governor of a swing state, hostage negotiator, this man has an unbelievable resume. Sebelius and Richardson are probably my top 2 choices for VP but I lean towards Richardson.

Posted by: Ohio guy | September 15, 2006 3:57 AM | Report abuse

Ohio Guy: Your ticket looks pretty good to me. The thing I've talked with a few friends about is their desire to have a woman on the ticket, not just for the sake of a woman being on the ticket, but it would be that there are so many good women in the dem party it would be a shame not to have one in 08, unlike Gerry sometime back when the dems stood almost no chance of winning. Senator Fienstein is another good one, highly thought of and respected by most everyone regardless of party. The dems have so many good choices I know I can't think of them all. After this Nov. we will have a better perspective and by this time next year it will be down to 4 or 5.

Posted by: lylepink | September 15, 2006 2:56 AM | Report abuse

"the Republican National Committee (RNC) distributed a list yesterday declaring that 14 once-competitive House GOP seats are no longer endangered." - koz

Sooooo....they're not competitive anymore just b/c the republicans SAY that they are'nt? Well, if the Republicans say it is so then it must be true.....

"continue to dream about Kerry or Gore or Edwards or some other washed up old Lib actually getting the nod. they don't stand a chance. Rudy will expose them for the girlie men they are." - koz


LOL. you mean the same Rudy Giuliani who dressed up in drag? Wow - what a manly man. Ok Koz.....keep dreamin...

Posted by: Ohio guy | September 15, 2006 2:18 AM | Report abuse

"How about a "Good Governors" ticket?

Vilsack/Sebelius? Or vice-versa?

That way we get a pair of experienced, powerful and progressive Democratic governors, real movers-and-shakers who have both dealt with a rogue Republican statehouse and still managed to govern quite graciously by all reasonable accounts and perspectives.

As VP material, either Vilsack or Sebelius would make a ticket stronger. And either one of them could handle the top job, if they were given the opportunity."

I'm so glad someone else realizes how awesome Kathleen Sebelius is!

Warner/Sebelius '08!!

Posted by: Ohio guy | September 15, 2006 2:04 AM | Report abuse

Two more I did not mention are Byah and Richardson. Either one has quite a bit of support, and would make great choices for VP. These posts of mine have been given a great deal of thought and I am only trying to get the most likely at this point in time. We all know almost anything can, and most likely will happen, before the convention. my favorite ticket now is Clinton/Warner. This may seem odd for Hillary has been playing down her desire to run, but most of us think she will and she is playing politics, just like all the rest.

Posted by: lylepink | September 15, 2006 1:41 AM | Report abuse

You're right Annandale!

Osama for 2008.........

By the way, Condi Rice agrees with every aspect of the Bush Administration's foreign policy (because she is after all the primary author.) Is that such political gold?

Posted by: Yeaha | September 15, 2006 12:44 AM | Report abuse

I apologize for submitting the same comment twice. It was inadvertent, I swear, but...my bad.

Posted by: LonestarJR | September 14, 2006 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Interesting sentence construction by our hero: (Obama was not in the Senate in 2002 and therefore did not vote on the use of force resolution against the country.) The Use of Force Resolution was, just as Brother Cilliza's construction suggests, against OUR country.

When The Fix discussed the Case For Barack Obama a few weeks ago, I pointed out that we do not elect national leaders whose résumés most impress us, but rather those who prove able to capture our imagination. For whatever reason, Senator Obama has been able to do that, at least to an extent that must be the envy of Senators Bayh, Biden, Feingold, Kerry and Dodd and of Governors Warner, Vilsack and Richardson.

That said, the only way he will ever be on the National Democratic ticket is to win the top spot. When the Bland are nominated for President, their response is to choose a Vice Presidential running mate from the ranks of the Even Blander. If Senator Obama wants to be President, he should jump to it and he should understand that his time is Now, not after all his edges have been worn down by another 8 years in the Senate.

Posted by: LonestarJR | September 14, 2006 11:52 PM | Report abuse

Interesting sentence construction by our hero: (Obama was not in the Senate in 2002 and therefore did not vote on the use of force resolution against the country.) The Use of Force Resolution was, just as Brother Cilliza's construction suggests, against OUR country.

When The Fix discussed the Case For Barack Obama a few weeks ago, I pointed out that we do not elect national leaders whose résumés most impress us, but rather those who prove able to capture our imagination. For whatever reason, Senator Obama has been able to do that, at least to an extent that must be the envy of Senators Bayh, Biden, Feingold, Kerry and Dodd and of Governors Warner, Vilsack and Richardson.

That said, the only way he will ever be on the National Democratic ticket is to win the top spot. When the Bland are nominated for President, their response is to choose a Vice Presidential running mate from the ranks of the even Blander. If Senator Obama wants to be President, he should jump to it and he should understand that his time is Now, not after all his edges have been worn down by another 8 years in the Senate.

Posted by: LonestarJR | September 14, 2006 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama is a freshman senator, who will have a grand total of 2 years served in the US Senate in 07', when the campaigning started. Remember, Obama in 04' had a very easy race. The Republican incumbent resigned due to speculation that he had abused his wife both mentally and sexually, by forcing her to perform sexual acts in some wacky club. This didnt go well, and the Republican's had to import Allan Keyes to even have a nominee against Obama. The man claimed Obama supports slavery b/c he supports abortion...Keyes had no chance what so ever of winning that election. This basically handed it to Obama due to the circumstances. Unless he was in any close races while running for state senator in Ill., he's never been in a close one. Obama has certainly never been in a tough fight like the one he would pick on if he choose to run for the dem. presidential nomination. I believe Obama when he say's he's not running. I think if Obama were planning to run, he's say so. Most don't, but McCain and Allen make no secrets. Clinton has denied she has those ambitions, but come on! Edwards hasn't shied from the idea of running as much. I think Obama is legite and I take him at his word: he ain't running! Truth is, if any Dem.politician were invited to Harkin's steak fry they'd be a fool not to do it. It provides fresh meetings with donors, name recognition and a great opportunity to be notice in Iowa in case a politician ever did want to run for higher office. The only think in Iowa better than an endorsement by Harkin for a general election, is an endorsement by Grassley! Obama is just doing what anyone else would do, I think he's going to be an Ill. senator for a while!

Posted by: reason | September 14, 2006 11:32 PM | Report abuse

I just came across this in an article on Slate, "Won't Deploy? Can't Deploy." Recalling "Parsing the Polls," I thought JimD might appreciate the reference to the Carter administration.

"In terms of ground-force readiness, the United States is in worse shape than at any time since the aftermath of Vietnam, when revelations about a "hollow" military sparked defense buildups from the Carter and then Reagan administrations. While most press coverage of the Iraq conflict has understandably focused on loss of life and the damage done in that country by the insurgency, the readiness of the U.S. military has also been a casualty."

Posted by: Sharytn | September 14, 2006 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | September 14, 2006 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Because he's irrelevant?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | September 14, 2006 9:51 PM | Report abuse

General Wes Clark has been speaking out about Iraq more than anyone else, including for the Democrats. How come Chris never mentions him?

Posted by: Tricia | September 14, 2006 9:37 PM | Report abuse

PS

Tina, Condi's one of the liars.

Posted by: JEP | September 14, 2006 8:49 PM | Report abuse

"Southern Democrats" couldn't stomach their own party's transformation into one of tolerance, so they jumped into the local minority party, (Republican), took it over and turned the party of fiscal conservatives into the party of failure.

Lncoln was Democrat, as far as modern ideology is concerned. The changing of the labels don't ever change the truth.

Tina, I think you are a future Democrat. You heart's in the right place, but your loyalties have been hijacked by liars and cheats.

JEP

Posted by: JEP | September 14, 2006 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Anyone know where to find results for today's special primary in OH-18?? Neither Ohio.gov nor the Columbus Dispatch nor the Cleveland Plain Dealer seem to have anything.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | September 14, 2006 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Then in the 1940's the black vote shifted to Dems under Roosevelt, while Republicans abandoned their roots and began under Goldwater pushing the "Southern Strategy" to pull in the former Southern Dems as the backbone of the new Republican Party (Thurman, Helms, etc). Maybe this is why Republicans get about 8% of the black vote, they have to go back over 100 years to cite these issues, never minding that both parties are 180 from what they were back then, in terms of ideology, geography, pretty much every way you can imagine other than name.

Posted by: Michael | September 14, 2006 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I stand corrected, Brown vs Board of Education was in 1954. Earl Warren was a Republican, that is true, and in 1952, he was the Republican Governor of California. He was not on the Supreme Court in 1952, he was exploring a run for president on the Republican ticket. But the support went to Taft, Harold Stassen, and IKE.(I looked it up.)

JEP posted this: southern-state rebel-flag waving, testosterone laden redneck base. Sounds like the Southern Democrats who created the Jim Crow laws to block the blacks from voting. (look that up) The Southern Democrats were scared to death over newly liberated African-American men gaining too much control in elected office in their states, like Louisana, Mississippi, and Florida.

The 15th Amendment gave black men the right to vote and run for office, passing on Feb. 3, 1870. Then in Mississippi, the Republican leaders selected the very first black leader, Hiriam Revels, to the US Senate. Then Mississippi selected Blanche Bruce, a black leader, as US Senator in 1874. Then Republican president, James Garfield, appointed Mr. Bruce as Register of the US Treasury. That is just a part of what the party of Abraham Lincoln started.

Posted by: Tina | September 14, 2006 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Just saw Keith Ellison on Hardball, this guy is a real player, and the fact he is a Muslim can only help heal the rift the Bush administration has created between all of us.

Keep an eye on Ellison, he's about as straightforward and real as a candidate gets.

Gotta go, Chris is on right now, and he managed to interrupt Matthews before Matthews could interrupt him..

Now that's a first.

Posted by: JEP | September 14, 2006 7:56 PM | Report abuse

OK, Gore/Feingold would probably be an even better choice than Gore/Obama. Put me down for that ticket.

Wonder what they'll be saying when the Wave crashes over the Reds ... gonna be a lot of change in places noone thought it would happen.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | September 14, 2006 7:47 PM | Report abuse

The contenders will be around 8 or 10. Some of my thoughts are along the lines of who is the most likely for the dems to be elected as well as to not be elected. There are two I could not support-- Al and Joe-- very frankly they threw a lead pipe cinch in 2000. Just think back to the speech Joe made on the Senate floor then think of how Al refused to have Bubba campaign for him. I can not think of any two people that appeared to want to get beat for the office they were seeking. I have felt this since 2000 and nothing they have done has in any way changed my mind about them. I know this is harsh, but it is the way I feel. Kerry got swift-boated and it will be done again. The idea not to say what I think is foreign to me.

Posted by: lylepink | September 14, 2006 7:33 PM | Report abuse

I'm still not sold on McCain getting the nomination. Beyond his moderate streak and conservative distrust of his ability to toe the Republican line, there's his age. He'll be older than Reagan, and has a history of cancer and other problems that could recur between now and then. Two years is a long time from now and a lot of time for things to change, one reason I'm not spending a lot of time on this right now. Too many things can change. The month and a half between now and the midterms is an eternity in politics, the next two years are a lifetime. Iraq could completely disintegrate in the next two months blunting any Republican security argument, or things could show real signs of stability undercutting Dems. Anything can happen in two years.

Posted by: Michael | September 14, 2006 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Someone else used my name earlier, wasn't me, I'm still for Warner/Clark

Posted by: Michael | September 14, 2006 7:10 PM | Report abuse

"McCain will most likely win the Republican nomination"

not if the real conservatives have a say in it...

Posted by: JEP | September 14, 2006 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Drindl;

Quite hypocritically, Rudy's marital philandering isn't nearly as damaging out here in Hooterville as his cross-dressing, which he has done for years and makes no apologies for it, its just a gag and not a lifestyle.

Fun with women's fashions, I guess...

(Again, I must admit, I'm a recovering dominant male...)

But, unfortunately for his Republican nomination chances, there are a lot of pictures around of Rudy in drag.

Too bad such a trivial issue can make or break a candidate, and while we know he should be judged on his REAL bad moral issues and not some knee-jerk redneck gaybashing prejudice, if Giulliani gets the "R" nod, expect a lot of cross-dressing photos to pop up every time he looks like he's gaining ground with the rednecks out in Wyoming.

Do you suppose there is a picture anywhere of Bush in a dress? How about Karl? And Wolfie?

The neocon chorus line, all dressed in drag...

Posted by: JEP | September 14, 2006 6:55 PM | Report abuse

I think Venicemenace has a good point saying:

"When are mainstream Democrats going to realize that dismissing other people's beliefs with condescension and arrogance is costing our party election after election?"

Obama and Edwards both have the ability to connect with folks who don't necessarily buy into the complete Democratic agenda. Warner obviously succeeded in Virginia, while Gore has improved stylistically and finally has an issue where he can show genuine passion and show he's authentic-- climate change.

Bill Mahr made me wince the other day on Hardball when he called Republicans stupid. Given he is a satirist with different rules than a politician, but this cultural elitism, I believe he said that Republicans lack education, left me cold.

As the party of the common man, we need not to blame our failure on the stars, but on ourselves, to paraphrase Shakespeare in Julius Caesar, if we continue to lose elections, due to cultural arrogance.

Mahr did have a valid point on the decent communication skills of Biden and Edwards. Biden on the bottom of the ticket or Gore at the top of the ticket, provides an opportunity for the more or less greenhorns (Obama, Edwards, and Warner) an opportunity to run in 2008.

Hillary probably does as well, although I think her real skills lay in the Senate where she has shown she can forge consensus as a future Senate Majority leader. I also think this Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton cycle wears on the nerves of the voters. Hillary's talents seem to me to be more in the legislative realm.

I understand the desire to be top banana, but ultimately the important thing is to get something done. Working with a Democratic president, I think Hillary might make a real contribution to the country through legislative achievement. A sort of Lyndon Johnson, without Vietnam. In many ways, that would be as successful legacy as any modern president.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | September 14, 2006 6:49 PM | Report abuse

One thing to keep in mind about 2008. McCain will most likely win the Republican nomination and it's hard to imagine any of the Democrats beating him, unfortunately. Obama doesn't have the experience that McCain does and I think McCain would really use that against him quite effectively. Americans know that foreign policy experience is particularly important for a president to have right now. If Obama waits until 2012, he'll have a better shot at winning.

Posted by: CS | September 14, 2006 6:44 PM | Report abuse

I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but Obama has a new book coming out in October -- it's called the 'Audacity of Hope.' It sounds like he's going to be doing a press tour to promote it and will be on Oprah. I would love to know what his motivation is for doing the book -- to test the waters for a run or just get his ideas out there.

His message stands in such stark contrast to what we've been hearing from the Republicans. They've been talking about what Americans should be against and about fear, whereas Obama's message is about hope and what America should stand for -- could be the Democratic version of "morning in America."

Posted by: CS | September 14, 2006 6:39 PM | Report abuse

After being so rightfully admonished for making suppositions about Mark Warner's "gentrified upbringing," I say with all contrition, I think we should all attempt to stay away from statements like, "If the Dems nominate this guy for the top of the ticket, it'll be another lost opportunity."

My real political heroes are Russ Feingold, Barb Boxer and Tom Harkin, but I support Edwards and Obama as the most hopeful and heartfelt ticket.

And as I admitted earlier. I obviously don't know enough about people like Warner to have a proper opinion, and he may prove to be a serious contender on my own list. Both Kerry and Dean still own a place in my heart, and either would make a better President than anyone the Republicans have to offer.

So I'm not going to dis ANY of them, I'll support my favorites and laud those for whom I have a great deal of respect, but I won't say anything negative.

Because, no matter who wins the Democratic nomination, they carry with them the most noble hopes and dream of millions of Americans, good people who yearn for a government that they can trust.

About the only thing I ever agreed with Reagan about was that you don't dis your own party members.

Tell us who you support, tell us why, and go off all you want about any given issue.
But when the conversation starts to sour and supposed Democrats start taliking about other Dems in a negative light, the Republicans just benefit from it.

To be quite honest, and I mean this, the only Democrat I would NOT trust above the Republican options at this point is Lieberman.

Al, Hillary, Russ, John E., John K., Ted K., Charlie Wrangel, John Conyers, they are all worthy leaders, and whether you agree with their every position doesn't matter as much as whether you want a real change at the top of our misguided government.

Picking apart the minutia that divides us will never get us anywhere, and usually, when someone claims to be a Dem but consistently uses their post to point out the Dem's flaws (easy enough) under the auspices of intra-party competition, I begin to wonder if they are a real person or a politically planted troll.

I have my favorites, but that doesn't mean I don't like the alternatives. We have a first-class collection of potential candidates,and instead of beating up on each other, lets work together to form a "more perfect Democratic Party."

What Vilsack did with the labor unions is a great example of what I am suggesting. As Democrats, lets try a little pre-emptive unity for a change.

Again, my apologies to the Warner folks. I'm getting my "Warner" families mixed up. It won't happen again.

Posted by: JEP | September 14, 2006 6:34 PM | Report abuse

The heart of the matter is exactly that - the "heart" of the matter. I am another individual who has an "Obama in 2008" bumper sticker. This is a man to be trusted - his motives are not so much political as they are to use a political platform to benefit mankind. Are we so cynical now that we don't believe this can exist?? I find it no coincidence that the Biography channel ran a program titled "JFK and Barack Obama" - although he reminds me more of RFK. It is my belief that if the country is exposed to Mr. Obama and hears him speak on a regular basis, he will have no problem winning the U.S. presidency in 2008. If he waits, it may be too late for US in the eyes of the global community - we have a lot of repair work to do there - who else would get this done with such grace and strength combined?

Posted by: chicken little | September 14, 2006 6:30 PM | Report abuse

oops comment appeared in wrong place. sorry eamon.

Posted by: drindl | September 14, 2006 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Me thinks I scared everyone away. After reading the posts for the past hour I found almost what I expected, with about 5 [five] exceptions, mainly the serviceman's father. Bless the both of you. The dislike of Hillary is still a puzzle to me. For 08 Gore has a fork in him, Obama this country is not ready for a black, Biden no way, Edwards already a loser with the help of Gore. That only leaves, in my opinion, my favorites Clinton/Warner.

Posted by: lylepink | September 14, 2006 6:05 PM | Report abuse

....NOT.

Posted by: DRINDL | September 14, 2006 6:04 PM | Report abuse

the conventional wisdom that obama is too young/inexperienced to run in 08 absolutely infuriates me, I see it as a perfect example of inside the Beltway thinking that completely misses the point. If what the country hungered for was more "experienced" politicians, Gore and Kerry would have won landslides. Sometimes experience is a hindrance, not a help. What does Obama have to gain from staying in the Senate?Mastering the art of Kerryesque Senatese, indecipherable to normal Americans?

Obama has plenty of experience to point to, his entire adult life has been spent in public service, in many different forms. He is a fresh face and voice, he shimmers with that rarest of political qualities-authenticity. I can only hope that he has the courage to withstand the naysaying and enter the fray-this is his moment. An entirely uninspiring Democratic field that he would wipe the floor with in the primaries..."experience" notwithstanding, none of the prospective Dem candidates can hold a candle to Obama on either style or substance...I believe he could win the general as well, obviously a much harder task but I think the number of people who would be newly energized by an Obama candidacy is larger than most would guess...he would give a lot of people who have been ignored by mainstream American politics something to hope for again....he would conduct a campaign that Democrats would be proud to rally around...I think you have to go back to 1968 and Bobby Kennedy to find a Democratic candidate who gave people reason not to be disillusioned with their political process. underestimate Obama at your peril...he is the real deal

Posted by: Eamon | September 14, 2006 6:04 PM | Report abuse

welcome to the club, zathras.

MikeB; I cannot think of a genuine liberal that believes that Chuck Hagel or Colin Powell or Rudy Giuliana are anything other than decent men.'

Certainly agree with you on Hagel and Powell i feel sorry for, I do think he regrets what he did. And the way he challenged bush today about torture was great.

But if you had lived in NY while Rudy was mayor, as I did, you might feel differently about him. He was a serial adulterer even when his kids were little, keeping one woman after another on the city payroll. It isn't a rumor, we had to pay for security for them! Judy was the last one, whom he finally marrried. But there were plenty of others. Plus he has been profiting hugely from the Iraq invasion with a shady 'security company' he started on Day 1 of the invasion -- and by hugely I mean instant millions. So I'm too enthusastic.

Posted by: drindl | September 14, 2006 6:02 PM | Report abuse

It looks like KOZ is getting the silent treatment the last couple of hours. What a great idea! I'll sign on to that pact, as should everyone else here.

Posted by: Zathras | September 14, 2006 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Actually, it is most of the time. but thanks for acknowledging it. that is the first step to recovery.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 14, 2006 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Only one Senator had the guts to vote against the Patriot Act. Russ Feingold is the man who has done more than anyone to rid Washington of the monied special interests. We are at what I hope is the end of a second Gilded Age. It is time for another Teddy Roosevelt. Time for a new Upton Sinclair. It's time for Russ Feingold

Posted by: Mike Dowling | September 14, 2006 5:38 PM | Report abuse

'To JEP who wrote about Mark Warner's "gentrified upbringing":

Mark Warner was a poor boy, the first of his family to go to college.'

My apologies to the Warner crew, my ignorance is blatant at times. I'll look more closely...

Posted by: JEP | September 14, 2006 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Kasey says:
"bsimon; where have you been? Edwards has been all over the country promoting his ideas for change, and lord knows we need change. Two strong Democrats that that have worked their way up in life, educated themselves, have charisma, good ideas, good looks, and haven't forgot where they came from! Edwards/Obama? Yea, thats the ticket!"

Talk is cheap. I want a capable leader who's proven they can accomplish something. Building a campaign organization does not qualify, in my book. Is it helpful? Sure. But shouldn't they have some relevant experience first? Edwards gives a nice speech, don't get me wrong. Same with Obama. But like Obama said at some point "Wait until I do something." It would appear that Edwards is not willing to overcome that hurdle first. One Senate term, of which a huge portion was spent running for President, does not qualify. If the Dems nominate this guy for the top of the ticket, it'll be another lost opportunity.

Posted by: bsimon | September 14, 2006 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Feingold may bring in votes from the left but he will send all center and right voters running for the hills. not going to happen. I don't see any of the guys you talk about here getting to the end. do you have any on the deep bench you could use?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 14, 2006 5:30 PM | Report abuse

"Whether Feingold would be willing to be VP could also be an issue."

Russ may be independent, but he's not willful. Any good, potential future president should consider the VP spot somewhere on the ladder, and Feingold would help any moderate ticket bring in some votes from the left.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 14, 2006 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Some random thoughts/comments:

26 months is an eternity in politics. Overwhelming favorites for the Democratic nomination 26 months out over the last 35 years or so include Ed Muskie (72), Gary Hart (88), and Mario Cuomo (92). I do not remember any particular early favorite for 1976 but no one was predicting in 1974 that Carter would be the nominee.

Truman tried to recruit Eisenhower to run for president as a Democrat in 1948. He even offered to run for VP on that ticket.

Posted by: JimD in FL | September 14, 2006 5:20 PM | Report abuse


I'm for an Obama-Warner ticket or a Warner-Obama ticket.

And I'm from Illinois, in the Quad Cities, on the Iowa-Illinois border, home of John Deere and Co.

I think both Governor Warner and Senator Obama are excellent candidates -- smart, integrity, speak well and have the ability to pick up votes in red and purple states.

They will be at Tom Harkin's steak fry in Indianola on Sunday. Perhaps I'll get them together and make this suggestion. Stay tuned. I'll let you know how it goes on Monday.

Posted by: values matter | September 14, 2006 5:19 PM | Report abuse

To JEP who wrote about Mark Warner's "gentrified upbringing":

Mark Warner was a poor boy, the first of his family to go to college. He made a pot of money by investing very early on in cell phone technology, when the smart people didn't see any use for people to carry around a phone. But he has never forgotten his upbringing.

He was a damned good governor, who really got people to work productively together.

Posted by: NoVA | September 14, 2006 5:17 PM | Report abuse

More bad news for the Socialists:

"the Republican National Committee (RNC) distributed a list yesterday declaring that 14 once-competitive House GOP seats are no longer endangered."
DCCC had a $5.5 million cash-on-hand advantage over the NRCC as of June 30. By the end of July, Republicans had outraised Democrats enough for the NRCC to post a $1.1 million advantage in cash-on-hand over the DCCC, " From "the hill"

Te he he. so it starts. You are circling the bowl.

continue to dream about Kerry or Gore or Edwards or some other washed up old Lib actually getting the nod. they don't stand a chance. Rudy will expose them for the girlie men they are.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 14, 2006 5:16 PM | Report abuse

"Sure, he's campaigned, and built an organization, etc."

Duh! Thats what its all about.

Ditto Kasey's post..

But isn't it great we have so many good Democrats to consider?

And if our neocons think they'll be happy with Giulliani, they haven't studied his politics. The only thing that is really "R" about Rudy is his first initial.

Posted by: JEP | September 14, 2006 5:13 PM | Report abuse

I do not thnk it is a realistic ope, but my favorite candidate is John Kerry. Mr. Edwards, however, would make a fine alternative. If I can't have either of them, give me Colin Powell. My deal ticket would be Powell-Kerry with either man on top. Delussional, perhaps, but allow me to dream today.

Posted by: MikeB | September 14, 2006 5:06 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is too young, like Edwards was in 04, and Edwards hasn't done jack since then, which rules him out for 08 too. I'm still a bit boggled that he 1) ever did and 2) continues to get support from so many in the D party"

bsimon; where have you been? Edwards has been all over the country promoting his ideas for change, and lord knows we need change. Two strong Democrats that that have worked their way up in life, educated themselves, have charisma, good ideas, good looks, and haven't forgot where they came from! Edwards/Obama? Yea, thats the ticket!

Posted by: Kasey | September 14, 2006 5:05 PM | Report abuse

In the interests of bashing members of both parties, I will throw Giuliani in the same bucket as Edwards. What's Giuliani done since ending his career in New York - besides raising money for R candidates? Is this really what we expect out of our leaders? Ug.

Posted by: bsimon | September 14, 2006 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you're forgetting the best Democratic national security candidate to take on 2008 GOP nominee John McCain who has
had a consistent anti Iraq war position since 2002:

General Wes Clark.

Posted by: gopmemekiller | September 14, 2006 5:03 PM | Report abuse

JEP, were you claiming this:
"But as for "Edwards hasn't done jack since then..." either you haven't been paying attention, or you are trying to spin this away from the facts.

Edwards is the future, not the past. "


Ok, what has Edwards done since then, if not Jack? Sure, he's campaigned, and built an organization, etc. As far as I can tell though, he doesn't have a job - elected or otherwise - and thusly isn't doing a whole lot in terms of making this country a better place. That is what I mean when I say he hasn't done Jack.

Posted by: bsimon | September 14, 2006 5:00 PM | Report abuse

The best ticket would be Gore/Feingold. Both are seasoned veterans. Both have been adamant about the issues that count, not the hype issues. Gore did win the pop vote in 2000, he is only more popular now than in the past. Feingold is awesome in his integrity and repeatedly standing up for high ideals, often alone. In terms of win-ability - Gore has that potential riding on the slip stream of his current popularity internationally. I don't know about Feingold, but I think he would be best running mate with gore b/c of his integrity and skill. He could crush the competition with his debating skills too. He is SO on the ball and always returns to the most significant points. Something the opposing party often can't grok - the issues. They are both the best possiblity we have though I suppose Gore/Edwards woudl be viable. Or Feingold/Edwards if Gore is not up for it. Whether Gore will run remains to be seen. Whether Feingold would be willing to be VP could also be an issue. That's my 2 cents

Posted by: Tshann | September 14, 2006 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Having taken a good nap, I noticed the humber of posts and read only a few but I will go back and read all of them after this post, and see how close I guess what the comments will be. Clinton/Warner 08.

Posted by: lylepink | September 14, 2006 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Anon - Like it or not, Eisenhower sent in Federal troops to enforce Brown. Prior to his actions, no one enforced the Supreme's decision. And, further, Eisenhower became an active proponent of civil rights after that. He tried a "middle road" that got him into trouble with the segregationists and he wasn't active enough for the integrationists, but he did all he thought he could without splitting the country. He was genuinely GOOD man. You really ought to read "Eisenhower" by Stephen E. Ambrose.

Posted by: MikeB | September 14, 2006 4:49 PM | Report abuse

JEP - do you have any idea how much a fool you sound? you have gone from complete arrogance about setting prices and demanding all buyers pay the bid price for milk (dumbest economic ideas ever) to being able to peer into every soul and detect racism. If we were all as smart and omnipotent as you, of course we would want to rule all those other dummies.

your pedantry is revealed for its underlying miasma. those long winded rants you post display some sort of psychological yearning for attention and reward. Un fortunately, you do not know everything and the evidence I have gathered here indicates you know very little.

Just more examples of you know-it-all Dems with plenty of ugly accusations to throw around and no facts. the world is laughing at you.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 14, 2006 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Tina's post - "To MikeB, thank you for mentioning Brown vs Board of Education, which was in 1952. (The Dems hate to admit it was a decision under a Republican president.)"

1) Eisenhower did not take the oath of office until January 1953,
2) Brown v. Board of Education was a argued in 1952, reargued in 1953 and decided in 1954,
3) It was a Supreme Court decision which did not involve the Executive Branch (until it had to be enforced by Eisenhower as a result of the 1955 Brown decision), and
4) The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was at the time of the decision Republican Earl Warren, whom most Conservative Republicans despise today.

If it were to be argued today, I can picture many of today's Republicans resisting it, because the initial opponents of it would label it as Affirmative Action, knowing the knee-jerk reaction that would evoke.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 14, 2006 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Anon poster - On this site, we often use hyperboly to make points. Just now, however, I feel sobered and not much for ranting. I cannot think of a genuine liberal that believes that Chuck Hagel or Colin Powell or Rudy Giuliana are anything other than decent men. They are certanly not racists. I believe they are honorable, patriotic, just good American's and think they would make great presidents. Likewise, only the looniest fanatic would think that Democrats like Kerry and Edwards and Rangel are cowards. They, too, are patriots and honestly decent men. I would be honored to have any of them as my President. There are certainly others that deserve to be on this list, too. The fact is, this country deserves better leaders than we have had the past 20 years; certainly better men than we have right now. Our last truly great president was Reagan. Like his policies or not, Ronald Reagan was a good father and a great leader. Along with the late Pope John-Paul, he rid the world of the Soviet Union, Poland and much of Europe, and fathered the high tech revolution (and, I might add, avoided outsourcing and similar programs that threatened our nations security). I genuinely believe that, if he were alive today, Reagon would join Mr. Powell in condemning the actions of the Bush Administration; their conduct of the war in Iraq, their silly "war on terrorism", their brutal negative "scorched earth" political camapaigns, and their unconstitutional actions with regards to prisoners, wire taps, and much more.

Posted by: MikeB | September 14, 2006 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Rock on Senator Obama - and yes -- PLEASE DO RUN !!

Thank you Chris for an excellent article! I do think Governor Mark Warner will also be running, but they are both great candidates.

BTW, thanks also to drindl on that interesting info on pathetic Santorum. What a sad case he's become.

Posted by: Shelby Meyers | September 14, 2006 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Fieldmouse:

"anybody but Clinton and Bush, I want my president to be smarter than me."

Please. Putting the Rhodes Scholar (and by everyone's estimation usually the smartest man in the room) in the same *paragraph* as Dumbya says more about you than the two men.

Posted by: B2O | September 14, 2006 4:36 PM | Report abuse

forgot to post my JEP on that last one...

also, in response to the anonymous poster, (K or B no doubt.)

"you mean all Rs are racist?"

Of course not.

What I meant was "most racists are R's"

No one in their "right" mind would even try to argue with that one.

Posted by: JEP | September 14, 2006 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Tina saw Letterman last night. He congratulated Canada for being the first country to put a man on Condi.

Posted by: lower case larry | September 14, 2006 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I agree Feingold is worthy of our respect, and if he gets close enough, our support for either President or VP.

But as for "Edwards hasn't done jack since then..." either you haven't been paying attention, or you are trying to spin this away from the facts.

Edwards is the future, not the past.

By the way, an Edwards/Feingold ticket wouldn't be a bad combination, either.

However, if I was picking a team right now, not necessarily my own favorites, (I did that earlier) but according to all the models in my over-active imagination, I would not be surprised to see a Clinton/Vilsack team, and that would be very good ticket.

Maybe not in terms of popularity with the extremes, but in the practical terms of total political experience and proven leadership qualities, it would be very hard to beat that team.

In any party.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 14, 2006 4:28 PM | Report abuse

GOP Pa. Sen. Rick Santorum's flagging re-election campaign has launched a new TV attack ad that can only be described as absurdist theatre, if not out-and-out absurd.

Santorum... he's meltingggg....
'Using actors and interspersed with grainy black and white, the new 30-second spot seeks to tie his Democratic foe, state treasurer Bob Casey, to a shady cast of corrupt characters, without naming names. In fact, not a single one of the past Casey backers vaguely alluded to in the ad has anything to do with his current race for the Senate.

Indeed, one of the past Casey donors -- portaryed by an actor -- died 22 months ago, while the Democrat had not yet even been considering his race for the Senate. And while he was alive, Philly power broker Ron White also forged a link to Santorum through their charities.

A second didn't give money to Casey's Senate campaign -- but donated $1,000 to Santorum in 2003 (later returned). During that time, fundraiser Bob Feldman was working for the private bank that gave Santorum the $500,000 mortgage -- not available to the general public -- to pay for the senator's McMansion in Leesburg, Va.'

Posted by: drindl | September 14, 2006 4:26 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, I want to thank your son for his service... and I hope that this nightmare is over soon and he can come home. I truly respect you and others who have such a stake in this -- I have a child and I can't imagine. I don't know how you stomach the cowardly war cheerleaders and chickenhawks who come on here -- you're a good guy.

Posted by: drindl | September 14, 2006 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"Many stereotypes have a basis in reality. This one is surely on that list."

you mean all Rs are racist? I heard somewhere that all Dems are yellow-bellied cowards and they love to take your money away. does that have a basis in reality? you have now sunk to an all time ignorant low.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 14, 2006 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama is too young, like Edwards was in 04, and Edwards hasn't done jack since then, which rules him out for 08 too. I'm still a bit boggled that he 1) ever did and 2) continues to get support from so many in the D party. I'd vote for Feingold. Gore is damaged goods. Clinton is far, far too divisive - through no fault of her own - but facts are facts. Dems need to find a principled, charismatic leader with experience and respect if they want to win in 08. I don't know jack about Warner, so I'm back to Feingold.

On the R side, Condi is immensely overrated. She's over her head; her only positive is actually being able to budge Bush on foreign policy, as Powell was unable to. But that hardly makes her Presidential. For one thing, wasn't she in charge of National Security 5 years ago? Yikes.

Posted by: bsimon | September 14, 2006 4:13 PM | Report abuse

That Condi is such a strong leader type. All of our leaders should be out buying shoes and watching Broadway shows while thousands of our citizens are dying during a category-5 hurricane. What if all of our leaders acted this way? Oh wait...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 14, 2006 4:12 PM | Report abuse

"Not to mention the fact that the counter-argument always assumes widespread Republican racism"

Don't be naive.

Many stereotypes have a basis in reality. This one is surely on that list.

Also, let me repeat an old refrain; blogs that stay on topic lose readership, so you aren't doing Chris, The Post or their advertisers any favors by creating a demanding a purely academic blog.

Posted by: JEP | September 14, 2006 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, it is always all about you. and yes, you are totally wacked out, even your fellow Dems are now politely trying to give you a hint.

Venice menace - thanks for the breath of fresh air. I know there are reasonable Dems out there with a mind of thier own.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 14, 2006 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Gore?

Like I said too close to Maui Wowie. At that point, let Bill Clinton run as his VP.
And then we'd have Hillary in the White House because I don't think she could get elected.

And Colin Powell would be a great candidate.

Since when has the american electorate cared much about being lied to? It is almost tradition in most elections.

More specifically the Current Occupant has raised it to a fine art. And he has managed to continue his Occupancy by hook and by crook....But he still got a lot of votes no matter how one looks at it.

Posted by: poor richard | September 14, 2006 3:54 PM | Report abuse

MikeB;
Just like candidate Webb in Virginia, people like you who have family in Iraq or Afghanistan, have a much deeper understanding of the issues than those of us who sit on the sidelines and pontificate and prognosticate.

I also know you understand when I tell you that my own sons and my daughter and granddaughter are the main reason I am so active in this dialogue.

God bless you and your family.

We all hope and pray they stay safe abroad, and that they return home safely. And thank you for your posts, they have always moved us, and now it is clear, at least to me, why your words ring so true, so often.

Posted by: JEP | September 14, 2006 3:51 PM | Report abuse

MikeB wrote: "Yes, that's Jordan. God I love him so much. He is such a wonderful and brave and good young man."


Good on him.

Though, to your credit, it's been my experience that the apple don't fall too far from the tree as well. So good on you too.

Just keep your chin up, keep plugged into the unit FSG (if he's married, his wife will have info on FSG - Family Support Group - activities and info).

Prayers for your son's safe return.

Posted by: Gaithersburg, MD | September 14, 2006 3:49 PM | Report abuse

venicemenace-- I want to reply becuase I know you';re talking about me. You were right about Tina today -- she was fine. A lot of people here think it's silly the way she goes on so breathlessly over someone who says theyre not running. And I think you are being way too generous to say that a lot of republicans aaren't racists because they run black candidates. Didn't you ever hear about the southern strategy?

And as far as going off-topic with 'GWB conspiracy theories and election-stealing accusations' --if all electronic voting machines were owned by democrats and you knew they were easily hacked, what would you think? Would you be okay with that if they siad, just trust me?

And I don't know which conspiracy theories you're talking about--do you mean about bush's grandfather prescott bush collaborating with the nazis? Sorry that's not a theory. The whole episode is recounted in gov't archives. I cn show you if you wish.

Posted by: drindl | September 14, 2006 3:48 PM | Report abuse

I thought a self-serving womanizer was your idea of the best Dem president. you know who I mean.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 14, 2006 3:42 PM | Report abuse

"I have an idea that Colin Powell is a man of honor and integrity."

I agree. But he will always have the UN event hanging over his head, and that is a liability of monumental proportions. No matter who he's running against, Democrat or Republican, he'll be vilified, as a partisan pawn by the rabid left, and as as a traitorous turncoat by the rabid right.

And those of us not suffering ideological rabies can only grimace at the exposure.

Also, I owe an apology on this blog to Harvey Kietel, I off-handedly mentioned him in a negative way because of his role in "The Trash to 9-11" debacle.

But he has publicly criticized the show's producers for their revisionist agenda, and he deserves respect for doing so.

However, I quit watching "Raymond" and won't watch again until "you-know-who" makes the same kind of statement.

Yes, Virginia, we DO adjust our TV viewing habits to avoid the likes of Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity, dropping a sit-com off my list is just another matter of principle. Curious, the only real losers in this fight are the advertisers.

Posted by: JEP | September 14, 2006 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Yes, that's Jordan. God I love him so much. He is such a wonderful and brave and good young man.

Posted by: MikeB | September 14, 2006 3:40 PM | Report abuse

He's a good looking boy, MikeB--and brave. Thank god he wasn't hit by the bomb. Oh god, you must worry so much.

Posted by: drindl | September 14, 2006 3:37 PM | Report abuse

God bless your son. They/we just buried a young Marine in Rhode Island that was an All-State Lacrosse player, and was actived from his sophomore year at UMass to the reserve unit that last week got blown up in Baghdad. 20 years old... And this is supposed to be part of the "war on terror"?

Posted by: L.Sterling. | September 14, 2006 3:36 PM | Report abuse

MikeB:

Do you mean this photo? (Link below).

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/meast/09/14/iraq.main/newt1.thurs.iraq.01.cnn.jpg

Much respect to your son. I was with the Army (mostly in the 25ID(L)) and still love the institution.

Posted by: Gaithersburg, MD | September 14, 2006 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Everyone, the medic helping the wounded soldier on the front page of CNN right now is my youngest son.

Posted by: MikeB | September 14, 2006 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Well if a General in the military does not know what he said is a lie I have no faith in him. The weapons inspectors knew there were no WMDs and Powell chose to disregard that and go on TV and lie to the American people. His career is forever tainted. Not presidential material anymore. As for Giuliani he is a self serving womanizer and an authoritarian. No good either. But I agree almost anyone is better than the criminal we have now.

Posted by: Larry | September 14, 2006 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Only tangentially related:

If you look at the metro pages of the WP, you'll see that there's some issue with White's Ferry (for you non-Washingtonians, it's a ferry that operates across the Potomac river) running into trouble with the Coast Guard b/c they didn't have a licensed operator on duty at all times.

I have a solution.

Condi can not only walk on water. But she's able to carry large passenger cars while doing so. She ought to merely station herself on one side of the river and give rides on her back to passengers and commuters seeking to cross the river.

Condi is God.

Posted by: Gaithersburg, MD | September 14, 2006 3:27 PM | Report abuse

I disagree that Obama is too young for the job. I think the baby-boomer generation of Democrats has been an utter political failure, with the exception of Clinton, who won by "triangulating" and, most of all, through the power of his unmatched personal charisma. I'm ready for a new generation of Democratic politicians.

Now for a little shop talk. Everyone loves to rip Tina for her devotion to Condi, and I admit there are times I see her spiel and say "Not Condi again!" and scroll past. However, I think that she is often dismissed unfairly, particularly today, when her comments are appropriate and apt. Not to mention the fact that the counter-argument always assumes widespread Republican racism, which doesn't hold up when you see the number of minority candidates the Republicans are putting up this fall.

I see a lot of liberals on this blog go off-topic with their GWB conspiracy theories and election-stealing accusations every single day, and nobody in the center calls them out or demands that they leave. When are mainstream Democrats going to realize that dismissing other people's beliefs with condescension and arrogance is costing our party election after election? So many things that frustrate me about the Democrats are evident here on this blog. (Same with the Republicans, but they're so outnumbered and outgunned, they don't need to hear it from me.)

Posted by: Venicemenace | September 14, 2006 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Larry, I may not sound like it lately, but I really am a moderate; a liberal moderate, but a moderate nonetheless. Mr. Powell did not intentionally lie. He merely presented the information he was provided because he was told they were the facts. When he discovered otherwise, he resigned. I have an idea that Colin Powell is a man oh honor and integrity. I may not agree with him on some, or even many, issues, but he is such a decent man, a true patriot, and a godly man, and a rational and thoughtful leader, that I could do nothing but vote for him. It is true, the Democraic Party has leaders like him, John Kerry immediately comes to mind. Oh what a dream that would be, two classy and really good leaders running for president! I would be a dream come true. I would settle for just one clear choice - Colin Powell, John Kerry, John Edwards, Chuck Nagel, Charles Rangel, Rudy Giuliana, and a very few other measure up to the standards I set for my leaders. Anyof them would be a breath of fresh air for the troglodytes that currently inhabit the Whitehouse.

Posted by: MikeB | September 14, 2006 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of Ann Richards, she was such a good soul. I have never understood how one of the most popular governors in Texas history got beat by Bush.

In my humble opinion (OK, so, maybe I have never had a "humble" opinion)... in my opinion, her gubernatorial loss to Bush is still one of the most suspicious events in Texas political history, and was a practice precursor for the election shenanigans we suffer today on a nationwide basis. And only the Republican stranglehold on the Texas statehouse keeps this truth from ever being public.

Ann had more real Texas class in one finger than Tom Delay, George Bush and Rick Perry together will ever be able to muster.

Posted by: JEP | September 14, 2006 3:21 PM | Report abuse

"The only thing they fear more than a government that refuses to hand out gravy to them, is a government that wants to know about the gravy they already got."

a hand for you, my friend.

Tinabot, I don't care that Eisenhower or Teddy or Lincoln were republicans -- your party today would be unrecognizable to them. You have moved so far to the right that Goldwater would be a liberal to you. Read some of his views and you'll see what I mean.

You are now a party which has no principles whatsoever, save greed and lust for power. Your base is composed of miscreants and the terribly, terribly misinformed and the mentally ill. You don't have a competent or honest person in all of Congress. You are a cancer on this country-- a proto-fascist regime which is destroying the Constituion and threatens our very lives.

Posted by: drindl | September 14, 2006 3:18 PM | Report abuse

I agree, a Gore/Obama ticket is a winner.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | September 14, 2006 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Bhoomes, I'm sorry that you have found teaching history to others to be taxing. Why, it seems to have even affected your understanding of the rules and usage of English grammar, spelling, and punctuation. As an editor, it is fascinating to me how many who share your views share also a seeming disdain for their clear and correct presentation in the English language, supported by clearly-explained logic. The citation of others' scholarship or analysis is also often lacking, although I'm sure there must be some logical basis for the views you hold, right?

Right?

Posted by: el jefe | September 14, 2006 3:03 PM | Report abuse

"The only thing they fear more than a government that refuses to hand out gravy to them, is a government that wants to know about the gravy they already got."

Had to repost this line, it stands alone, and is quite comprehensive in its scope.

Posted by: JEP | September 14, 2006 3:00 PM | Report abuse

To MikeB, thank you for mentioning Brown vs Board of Education, which was in 1952. (The Dems hate to admit it was a decision under a Republican president.)

Few people understand that Condi went to a totally black student school and never had a white student in her class until her parents moved from Birmingham, Alabama to Denver Colorado. (from book by Antonia Felix, called "Condi")

Also, someone mentioned Howard Kurtz mention of the Condi "romance" in Canada. So I found it, and it is interesting.

Howard Kurtz colum:
When I saw this Condi rumor headline on a Web site, I figured it must be from some gossip column and briefly wondered whether I should include it in this blog. Then I clicked and saw that it was from . . . the New York Times!

"Until now, Ms. Rice's rumored matches have been, shall we say, unlikely ever to appear on the cover of GQ magazine. In July, Italy's normally staid Corriere della Sera raised its eyebrows over a joint appearance in Rome between Italy's similarly staid foreign minister, Massimo D'Alema, and Ms. Rice. In April, a headline in The Boston Globe promised a tale of 'Jack and Condi: A Love Story,' after Ms. Rice gave the pullout bed aboard her plane to the former British foreign minister, Jack Straw, during a surprise trip to Baghdad from Blackpool, England, where she was visiting Mr. Straw's hometown.

"But it took a two-hour flight to Halifax, Nova Scotia, this week, followed by a 90-minute motorcade north up Highway 102 to Pictou County, for Ms. Rice to find herself linked to someone with similar star appeal: Peter MacKay of Canada, the single, sophisticated foreign minister, routinely named Canada's sexiest M.P. by The Hill Times in Ottawa, and the closest thing to eye candy on the diplomatic circuit. Tall, athletic, young, blond and recently dumped by his girlfriend, a fellow member of Parliament, Belinda Stronach, who parted with him when she switched parties, Mr. MacKay does not look like your usual foreign minister."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
cute story, no fouls no errors, but a nice little piece which inspired Jeannie Most on CNN yesterday to show lots of pictures of Condi and Peter. (Condi's real date has been Gene Washington of the NFL Commission and who is also a former STAR athlete from the San Franciso 49'ers. She was also engaged for a short time to a Denver Bronco's player)

Thanks Howard for giving readers a nice bit of news about CONDI.

Posted by: Tina | September 14, 2006 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Folks, let be serious here. If the democrats want to win, its not that difficult. Put Mark Warner on the ticket. He will win VA (http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-24168sy0sep12,1,3735165.story?ctrack=1&cset=true)
and put states in play that no other democrat can. The notion that John Edwards has the south locked up is ridiculous, all you need to do is look at '04 where he did ZERO for the ticket. Warner will win the states Kerry did, add a few states, notably VA (with a good amount undecided, he already has 56 percent of the state saying they would vote for him for President in '08) and WV and have a shot at NC as well as the midwest. He can't be attacked as liberal and the national security credentials question can be fixed by him beefing up on his knowledge, and putting a national security dem (clark) on the ticket. If the democrats want to get serious about winning, the strategy is right in front of them.

Posted by: GetSerious | September 14, 2006 2:58 PM | Report abuse

From the article:

"Obama's trip to Iowa comes just a few weeks after he undertook a lengthy tour of Africa, a trip that included a hero's welcome in his native Kenya."

Um, if he's really not a native-born US citizen, he can't run. I'm sure this was a miswrite. Anyone?

Posted by: B2O | September 14, 2006 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"How much percentage of American Indian blood do I need to get my student loans forgiven?"

Watch out, we have a macacan experience in the making here. Can we expect the word "trogladite" any moment now?

Drindl;
"It's always amusing to watch the 'conservatives' who wet their panties over having to pay taxes, recoil at the idea of keeping tabs on where our tax money is actually being spent.."

I would guess this is actually the biggest issue to the top end Republicans in the next couple election cycles.

Money IS a paper trail. One thing about our tax money, while we may not know how it get s spent day by day, we do know how much gets spent and we know typically who was responsible for spending it.

So the dangers of being scrutinized by any watchdog, after a corruption free-for-all like Iraq, is that when the can gets opened, it will be chock-full of worms.

And those worms don't want to get caught, so their desperation knows no limits. The only thinng they fear more than a government that refuses to hand out gravy to them is a government that wants to know about the gravy they already got.

Pigs at the trough. Not all Republicans, but predominantly so.

If the shake-up in the make-up of K-Street over the past five years is any kind of indication, it is safe to bet that not too many Democrats were on the receiving end of those No-Bid contracts that will inevitably come back to bite them, if there is ever anything resembling real oversight.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 14, 2006 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Just a moment to remember Ann Richards.

You may not have agreed with her politics, but she at least made it a lot more fun.

Maybe Kinky can carry on her tradition. "Why Not!"

Posted by: Nor'Easter | September 14, 2006 2:43 PM | Report abuse

How could you vote for Colin Powell after the lies he said on national TV? He is as responsible as Bush for getting us in this war over the nonexistant WMDs. Shameful!

Posted by: Larry | September 14, 2006 2:40 PM | Report abuse

'they are an inbred group of deranged fact-challenged hacks'

more projection from the troll.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 14, 2006 2:38 PM | Report abuse

"Edwards doesn't "win" the south. Mark Warner is developing a solid organization and will have loads of money to compete with him and he is definitely more conservative."

I think what the poster means is that, if Edwards wins the Democratic nomination, he wins the south in a way someone like Clark or a Biden could not.

Warner's conservatism and his gentrified upbringing are the very reasons he won't get the nomination. He's a good leader, no doubt, but he's got that "rich boy" feel to him, and after the Bush years, that will only be a liability.

Warner's trying very hard to connect with the netroots, but Edwards already has a big groundswell of support, especially in Iowa, and it comes from the roots up and not at the hands of highly financed party operatives.

I dare say, if Edwards had caught the populist wave my pal Howard(the patrician)Dean rode in 2004, we would have a South Carolinian in the Oval office this very day. Its not Dean's fault he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but again, after the Bush experience, that silver spoon only makes us suspicious.

Edwards has something most of the rich, Ivy League-educated Democrats do not have, no matter how popular they are. As far as the middle class goes, regardless of his current financial comforts, we know that Edwards climbed ladder from the bottom up. He wasn't born on one of the top rungs, but he made it there by REAL hard work and a big handful of talent, intelligence and good looks.

Not to mention his boy-next-door, wholesome kind of personal charm.

JRE is "one of us", not somewhere above us.

And at this point in our wild political process, that gives him more real populist power than any other Democrat in the game.

Posted by: JEP | September 14, 2006 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I am for Obama 2012. He is bringing fresh energy and actually has the public excited about politics. Not stumbling for an Aspirin every time a message from the President pops on the television.

I agree he is too "green" now but I don't want him too seasoned either, call it a fear of corruption. In 2012 he should be just right, a muddy green.

Posted by: Susie, Silver Spring | September 14, 2006 2:35 PM | Report abuse

"michael - you will not find civility on this website from any of the daily stalkers. they are an inbred group of deranged fact-challenged hacks."

Ummm, KOZ, you might want to examine your statement a bit more closely. The irony of it is about to drip off your computer screen.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 14, 2006 2:31 PM | Report abuse

I think it is a good thing that his race or creed or whatever you call it is lost on everybody. I don't care what he is except he is a Liberal. he could be green or blue or pink. but I am somewhat perplexed by the use of the term half-white. what is the other half? Can color be broken down into two sub-colors? Aren't we a little beyond this now? How much percentage of American Indian blood do I need to get my student loans forgiven? Seems a little silly after all we've been through.

michael - you will not find civility on this website from any of the daily stalkers. they are an inbred group of deranged fact-challenged hacks. don't expect any logic or intelligence for the most part either. Occasional interlopers can provide some relief.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 14, 2006 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Michael -- I agree with you in spirit, but politics brings out everyone's bare knuckles and the fact that chris runs a pretty fair site here [mostly no censorship] lets people let it rip. So don't take offense and fight back.

Posted by: drindl | September 14, 2006 2:19 PM | Report abuse

How bout everyone quit calling Obama "Osama" like two above posters did?

Posted by: Stephanie | September 14, 2006 2:17 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes - Actually, Eisenhauer was "a-political". In his biography, he indicated that he didn't much care for either party. The Republican's offered him a chance to run and the money and organization to do so...and he did. Let me add, and I believe it was because of his uncaring attitude about politics, he was one of, perhaps THE, greatest presidents this country has ever had. He may not have liked it, but once the Supreme Court decided on the Brown case, he did everything possible to integrate schools. He was responsible, almost single handedly, for the interstate high system, the final push for electrification of the country, and a lot more. Your conservative Colin Powell is another Eisenhauer. I normally could not fathom myself voting for a Republican right now, but if Powell ran, I'd not only vote for him, I'd campaign for him.

Posted by: MikeB | September 14, 2006 2:17 PM | Report abuse

First of all, it's OBAMA, not "Osama", unless you are all being cute... Next, he is the hot new Democratic hope, who don't want the (true) "weirdness" of Gore, "Stiffness" of Kerry, or misdirection of the other assorted party Characters including resident Diva,"Miss Hillary", and Howard the Dean. Thirdly, although it is lost on everbody, Obama is not "black", or "Kenyan", he is half white, and can be claimed by everyone, which resonates conciously with the working and middle classes. He is too inexperienced at this point in his career, but will be a comer in '12 or '16, depending upon the outcome of '08.

Posted by: L Sterling | September 14, 2006 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Eisenhower was one of the last true conservatives -- the one who gave us the warning about the dangers of the military inndustrial complex- and how it would eventually lead to a future of perpetual warfare. Becuase he could see all too well where his party was headed. A great man. He must be spinning in his grave.

'against their dark and desperate corruption and horror.' and of course here, i am talking about repugs.

Posted by: drindl | September 14, 2006 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I'm somewhat stunned (perhaps naively so) at such a harsh response to my earlier posting about a Clinton-Obama ticket. Regardless of whether or not we agree with one another, a little civility and decency goes a long way. Being American means we may hold and voice our opinions with great passion--indeed it is one of the things that makes America great. But those who are secure in their own opinions have no need nor desire to tear down others with different points of view, nor engage in infantile name calling.

Posted by: Michael | September 14, 2006 2:12 PM | Report abuse

How about a "Good Governors" ticket?

Vilsack/Sebelius? Or vice-versa?

That way we get a pair of experienced, powerful and progressive Democratic governors, real movers-and-shakers who have both dealt with a rogue Republican statehouse and still managed to govern quite graciously by all reasonable accounts and perspectives.

As VP material, either Vilsack or Sebelius would make a ticket stronger. And either one of them could handle the top job, if they were given the opportunity.

Posted by: JEP | September 14, 2006 2:11 PM | Report abuse

I'm somewhat stunned (perhaps naively so) at such a harsh response to my earlier posting about a Clinton-Obama ticket. Regardless of whether or not we agree with one another, a little civility and decency goes a long way. Being American means we may hold and voice our opinions with great passion--indeed it is one of the things that makes America great. But those who are secure in their own opinions have no need nor desire to tear down others with different points of view, nor engage in infantile name calling.

Posted by: Michael | September 14, 2006 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama? As much as I like him this is all just hyperventilating at this point. Please stop using up all the oxygen in DC, Chris, there's too little rational thought in that town as it is.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 14, 2006 2:10 PM | Report abuse

JEP-- it would be an interesting ticket. Young and forward looking--like Kennedy. Hopeful and optimistic and restoring us to greatness, against their dark and desperate corruption and horror.

Especially running against any of the corporate hoors the republicans intend to run. Also if Dems win the House and start looking into the cooked books to find out what happened to all the zillions of taxpayer money that was 'misplaced' in Iraq -- a lot of the repugs' potential candidates -especially rudy -- had their hands deep in the illegal cookie jar.

It's always amusing to watch the 'conservatives' who wet their panties over having to pay taxes, recoil at the idea of keeping tabs on where our tax money is actually being spent. Another example of their twisted thinking.

Posted by: drindl | September 14, 2006 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Yea, brevity is the key if you want you posting to be read by everyone. Eisenhower was a professional military officer who kept his politics to himself. Being very popular, the dems sought him out hoping he was one of them, but when he decided on public life, his republicansim became official. I getting tired of giving you dems history lessons, read some books for god sake.

Posted by: bhoomes | September 14, 2006 1:59 PM | Report abuse

"native Kenya"

No, he is not a native Kenyan, he just has Kenyan ancestry. I hope this "little" slip was because of deadline constraints, hopefully it is not a Freudian slip of Chris' journalistic pen.

I'm mostly Scottish, but my ancestors have been here in the states for a few hundred years (almost 400 to be accurate).

Now while I proudly claim Highlander blood, I am an American first and foremost.

And so is Barrack Obama, his father was a Kenyan but his mother was a Kansan.

Posted by: JEP | September 14, 2006 1:56 PM | Report abuse

anybody but Clinton and Bush, I want my president to be smarter than me.

Posted by: Fieldmouse | September 14, 2006 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Oh don't worry, clinton is way smarter than you.

Posted by: louisa | September 14, 2006 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Frist=Toast
Allen=Macaca
Rudy=Liberal
Condi=LOL
McCain=Poison

Who else you got?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 14, 2006 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, can you feel the desperation in these conservative posters, when they read the words "Edwards/Obama?"

I for one believe it is time for real down-home Americans, from the middle class majority and not the upper class minority, to get empowered so we can finally a handle on this runaway railroad train.

I know we have a lot of wealthy Democrats in our party, but I think most of them agree that letting the corporate book-cookers who manage our "upper-crust" on Wall Street, manage the government has been a failed social experiment, with world-shattering consequences.

What was once considered the greatest nation in the world, and the leader in the promise of peace, has become it biggest bully.

The book-cooking CEO's who created this classified society are to blame. Their "oil-profits at any cost" no-bid policy of pre-emptive war has tarnished our reputation as a world leader, both at home and abroad.

Posted by: JEP | September 14, 2006 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Correction, please. Obama is not a native of Kenya, his father was. He was born in Honolulu.

Posted by: MEDLan | September 14, 2006 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Note to Tina and Che.... I just scroll past your posts. Imagine others do too.
Usually off subject and much too long.

2008.... Hillary is too divisive, Obama too green, Edwards doesn't come across as a heavyweight. Biden or maybe Warner.... they would be better at the top.

A Biden/Clark ticket? Good security credentials.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | September 14, 2006 1:44 PM | Report abuse

'Edwards can't win--he's a trial lawyer--only the 35% of hard-core democrats will vote for him--'

what a truly odd comment. is this person somehow not aware that almost ALL of our politicos are lawyers?

Posted by: drindl | September 14, 2006 1:42 PM | Report abuse

No PopulistDemocrat.

Try Obama/Edwards.

Besides I already have my "Barack Obama, President 2008" bumper sticker on my car.

Posted by: zippy | September 14, 2006 1:34 PM | Report abuse

"I personally admire Osama--but he has no seasoning as a politician.."

Which makes me trust him even more.

Posted by: JEP | September 14, 2006 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Please, PLEASE, nominate Condescender Rice for the Republican ticket. She would be an easy political target for the pundits.

And if McCain and Giuiliani get the R nod, maybe she could run with Allen on the "macaca" ticket.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

Anyone who believes the Republican Party is going to gather their southern-state rebel-flag waving, testosterone laden redneck base together to nominate a BLACK WOMAN (that is not the term they use privately, I am quite sure) for President is living in lala land.

By the way, no offense meant to Ms. Rice, but why is it her personal escapades seem to escape serious scrutiny?

I don't like all this mudslinging, but the fact is, if any notable Democrat got caught making friendly with some lawmaker from, say, France, it would sure hit the headlines. But for some reason, PoorTina's glowing endorsement makes no mention of it.

Posted by: JEP | September 14, 2006 1:28 PM | Report abuse

With regards to Mr. Obama, too much is being made about lack of seasoning and experience.

As I recall, the Current Occupant's prior foreign relations experience may have been fishing on the opposite bank of the Rio Grande when he was a governor. (kind of shows in his foreign policy)

Before that he traded Sammy Sosa, has a stretch of time he probably doesn't remember much about, and may have occasionally protected the skies over Texas (when he wasn't campaigning for congressmen in Mississippi)

The 2006 election will set the tone for 2008 (one way or the other). In either direction, a new less divisive approach, with new ideas will be demanded. Obama may be it.

Gore: warmed over Demo-hash. Put a fork in it. His chances to be president are really done.

Hillary (who I liked a couple of years ago but not now): won't fly in Peoria metaphysically speaking. Much too divisive. If the Dems take one house...or even both...it will be by a slim majority. With Hillary as president, there will be another 8 years of congressional gridlock and sniping.

And btw. Colin Powell would be formidable despite the UN power point exercise. To the Rank and File middle, he is the last bona fide straight talker they remember.

Most of us have had to work for bosses and say things we wish we didn't. Sadly not with the outcomes in Iraq.

But as Dick and Dubya have both said. They would have done the same thing even if they knew there were no WMD's. Translation: They were goin'in No Matter What.

The times, they are a'changin.

Posted by: poor richard | September 14, 2006 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Frist is toast. His inability to do anything in the Senate will not be forgotten. consider some more realistic scenarios if you want to be considered.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 14, 2006 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Stewart,

But you cannot "assume" bad word here, that many "knew" what Chris meant. I did not know what Chris meant for the simple reason that I was not inside his head, nor did I have a conversation with him regarding what he was going to write or the facts he was going to use.
It is not vitriol as much as just simply asking people to get their stuff together.
I don't have an opinion about whether Obama is qualified to be president or not. One thing that can be said is that Obama is a smart guy, and his speech at the convention was something else!
It is in that context that I found Chris's comments stupid and ignorant. Let's hope he does write that he made a mistake.

Posted by: Ed | September 14, 2006 1:21 PM | Report abuse

I think he would be a great candidate. I saw him speak during his senate primary race and he talked about his faith so well. I think he could draw some people of faith over to vote. It is something that Democrats need to keep working on which is why i like faithfuldemocrats.com so much. Let's just wait to see what happens though.

Posted by: griffey24rox | September 14, 2006 1:21 PM | Report abuse

www.kurtnimmo.com

Senate Puts Another Nail in the Coffin of the 4th

The National Security Surveillance Act, currently working its way through the rubberstamp halls of Congress, is simply remarkable in its fascist depth and breadth. But what is nearly as remarkable is the lack of response and outrage to this bit of authoritarian legislation that effectively kills the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. "[Senator Arlen] Specter's bill concedes the government's right to wiretap Americans without warrants, and allows the U.S. Attorney General to authorize, on his own, dragnet surveillance of Americans so long as the stated purpose of the surveillance is to monitor suspected terrorists or spies," reports Wired.

Not only does the bill allow "the attorney general, or anyone he or she designates, to authorize widespread domestic spying, such as monitoring all instant-messaging systems in the country, so long as the government promises to delete anything not terrorism-related," it also allows "unfettered wiretapping and physical searches without warrants." If you believe the government deletes "anything not terrorism-related" and does not feed this data into its massive and long-standing matrix of snoop databases, I have a bridge to sell you. Our government, unchecked for decades, has kept a staggering pile of data on millions of citizens, particularly "terrorist" Americans opposed to the government.

As noted here on numerous occasions, the government has snooped in earnest on Americans for decades, beginning officially with the creation of the National Security state on November 4, 1952, and authorized earlier in a letter written by President Harry S. Truman in June of 1952. From the beginning, the NSA and the CIA have worked closely with telecoms, a fact highlighted recently with NSA snooping revelations. Now we are told Verizon executive vice president and general counsel William P. Barr began his career as a CIA "analyst" in the 1970s and went "on to become an assistant legislative counsel for the agency," according to Brian Beutler, writing for Raw Story. "He has also held a number of other public positions since then, including those of domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and even U.S. Attorney General under George Herbert Walker Bush."

When that position expired after Bill Clinton became President in 1993, Barr went to work as general counsel for GTE, the company that would later merge with Bell Atlantic to form Verizon Communications, where he now serves as executive vice president and general counsel. In those capacities, though, he has maintained ties with officials in Washington who have repeatedly called upon his testimony when crafting anti-terror legislation.

That testimony reveals a record of sympathy with the sorts of legally contentious activities the NSA is alleged to be conducting with its wiretapping and data mining programs.

After "everything changed" following nine eleven--that is to say, when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights became even more irrelevant than previously to our rulers--Barr "defended executive-branch war-time actions before the Senate Judiciary Committee, including controversial measures such as: the use of military tribunals to try suspected members of al Qaeda; suspension of criminal justice procedures which, he noted, 'will frustrate our fight against al Qaeda'; and the withholding of operational details by the Attorney General of ongoing criminal investigations. The USA PATRIOT Act ultimately codified powers that closely mirror his suggestions, and he has since gone on record in support of that legislation as well.... President Bush's chief rationale for ignoring FISA has been a contention, strikingly similar to Barr's, that the urgency of terror cases does not allow enough time for the acquisition of surveillance warrants," in other words the Fourth Amendment is a dead letter.

Arlen "Magic Bullet" Specter and the Senate Judiciary Committee are in the process of embalming the Fourth Amendment once and for all, as the point here is not to monitor "al-Qaeda," a documented intelligence contrivance, but snoop all opposition to the emergent fascist state.


Posted by: che | September 14, 2006 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Edwards/Obama...what a combination!!!!

Posted by: PopulistDemocrat | September 14, 2006 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Edwards can't win--he's a trial lawyer--only the 35% of hard-core democrats will vote for him--few independents or middle ground votes for him. I personally admire Osama--but he has no seasoning as a politician. At least one term under his belt please before he runs for anything else, preferably two. So, that leaves Hillary and Gore. Hillary raises a lot of money from rich liberals and actors but that isn't going to buy votes. I admire her too but she can't carry the country. Gore is just too weird. Sorry Dems but you better look deep in your bag of candidates for some other seasoned candidate otherwise the Republicans are going to eat your lunch again in 08. By the way--do you really think that America is going to let you make Nancy Pelosi speaker of the house? The people's republic of san francisco is more left-wing than Moscow is these days. Get a grip.

Posted by: Annandale, | September 14, 2006 1:15 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Tina is a robot?

Posted by: drindl | September 14, 2006 1:15 PM | Report abuse

I have been surprised how the reporting from afar on the Chaffee/Laffey race has been off the mark. It was never a close race. More importantly, Chaffee had it won easily WITHOUT any so-called Republican turnout assistance. In reporting Chaffee's victory as a result of some huge RNC turnout drive, Reporters are being played by Republicans who want to make it seem like Chaffee owes them something in return, on timely issues such as his hold on the Bolton nomination.

Chaffee's win had nothing to do with national assistance. I live in Rhode Island; the Chaffee name is gold here, and people have been turned off by Laffey for years.

Sometimes it's that simple.

Posted by: Chris | September 14, 2006 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Edwards/Obama has a very populist ring to it.

Edwards has been adamant that he regrets falling for the WH "mushroom cloud" scare, and has taken the road to peace. He deserves to be forgiven by those of us in the "Peace first" camp, even though he made a mistake.

Edwards is the only candidate on any of these tickets who knows what it is like to puch a broom to pay your way through college.

And as for Obama, inexperience is his best asset, it relieves him of culpability for what his more-experienced fellows have failed to protect us from.

The big-money, "upper-class," two-Americas neocons should be very concerned about such a populist ticket, because it lines up a couple of REAL, street level Americans for 16 years of progressive, truly compassionate government.

Edwards/Obama vs. Frist/Allen

...just the thought of it makes the ganglia twitch. That would be a real ideological battle for One America.

Posted by: JEP | September 14, 2006 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Rudy will win hands down against any the Dems put up against him. Seems like a foregone conclusion to me. who will his VP be? I would love to see Newt get in on this. He may be a blowhard but he is capable of well-thougth-out policy ideas that have wide appeal. and Rudy is without a doubt a skilled and exciting leader. and don't give me the old (hard right won't vote for him" schtick. they voted for Mr compassionate conservative didn't they? Or do you suppose they will vote for Hillary or some other class warfare Lib? Can you spell LANDSLIDE! Warner is a dud, Edwards is just too conflicted, Obama is really a leftie and Hillary, well, you know. good question about one single state that will switch?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 14, 2006 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Gaithersburg, MD, for bringing up Condi Rice and that Obama in not at her level (that is my view)

As Condi flew for a 2 day tour in Novia Scotia to thank Canadians for helping 247 planeloads of stranded people on Sept 11, her ability to speak to people while on the world stage makes her the 900 POUND ELEPHANT
to consider for the 2008 race. May I remind everyone that Condi's name can be included in the August Straw poll in 2007 without being offically announced? The Republican party of Iowa gives their voters a clear unfiltered chance to show their support for whichever candidate they deem as "viable" and "electable".

A former Iowa Republican state chair has also told me that Condi does not have to be offically announced as a candidate for the January 2008 caucus. Now if that is true, (Washington Post can investigate that claim for an interesting story-hint*hint)

Both of these events in Iowa will have the greatest impact on whether Condi will run for president. (Some think that no matter who wins the nomination for president, that she is at the top of the list for VP) But it has been stated time and time again, in the Washington Post Daily Question and Answer session, that she will have to run for president in order to be seen as a strong contender for VP.

Without spending time or money on her own 2008 campaign, poll after poll gives Condi a 20% support for running as president. This is the part that drives reporters CRAZY, and they keep arging "she said she is not running and I take her at her word" (quoted by Charlie Cook at the Memphis Tennessee event) and quoted by other political gurus. My only question to reporters is this: Since Newt Gingrich is on record as saying he will announce in October 2007 if there is NO CLEAR frontrunner, and Rudy will not announce until 2007 and McCain said he won't announce until after the November 2006, can we give Condi the same "wait and see" treatment? Even Hillary bypassed the "stay tuned" comment as being taken out of context in last week's Nightline story "On the Road with Hillary" puff piece.

So my eyes are on the polls which will blast off into HIGH GEAR after November 2006, and whether Marist, Quinnipiac, Gallup, and Strategic Visions will continue to include Condi in their lineup of contenders.

Finally, a person who lives in Crawford, and who is a friend of President Bush has told me that he had a BIG GRIN on his face when he saw the Crawford Texas "Condi 2008" billboard. (Washington Post reporter Mike Fletcher can verify it does exist on Hwy 84)

Cheer up, Democrats, you have your hands full deciding which Gore/Obama/Warner/Clinton/Edwards/Richardson
person gets your support. You will need to reorganize after the Nov. 2006 election and decide what your party stands for and that will be an interesting debate.

Posted by: Tina | September 14, 2006 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton has almost no weak spots"

Gotta disagree with that one. I know few male democrats in my small southern city who have anything to like about her. As far as we're concerned, she was as much a part of Bill's "problems" as Bill was. I guess that's just how conservative Democrats think sometimes. She's just not reminding us of "good times", you know?

Love the Obama. But he needs more political seasoning. I live in North Carolina and we HARDLY ever see the likable Mr. Edwards. He needed seasoning too. It was sad to see him debate the evil Jabba-like Cheney back in '04. I thought he was going to get devoured.

Gore should run--he has new creds and we likee the comeback. But how about with the same passion he has for promoting his movie. Any ideas who K Street (the GOP) is going to put up?

Posted by: Tony | September 14, 2006 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Interesting development today. Colin Powell had big split with the White House over Article 2.

--And a good way for him to start his redemption. Link please, if you have?

I just don't think I could vote for him. That speech at the UN about Saddam's weapons -- he knew every word of it was a lie, but he did it anyway. And he was the tipping point for a lot of Dems becuase they saw him as a straigh shooter. And he sold his soul, who knows why. And now, we are 500 billion dollars later, 3000 americans dead and god knows how many iraqis -- and in a far more dangerous world. How much can you forgive?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 14, 2006 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Ed - Such vitriol so soon after lunch. I think many knew what Chris meant about Obama's Kenya heritage - you certainly did. How about a nice, polite clarification instead of spewing such anger in your post.

Let's keep that blood pressure down so you will be around to vote for whomever you choose in 2008.

Posted by: Stuart | September 14, 2006 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Caped Composer,

Didn't mean to. But it was obvious that one has to wonder where Chris's head is at this morning.

Posted by: Ed | September 14, 2006 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama is running for Vice President. Not the top of the ticket. Obviously he has to keep his name out there and relevant if he wants to be at the top of the list and on the top of everyone's tongue as new stars rise and fall when the '08 primaries heat up. Pretending to flirt with a run of one's own is how one does that effectively. It's how he's been able to get a writer for the Washington Post to get his name out there today. See?

Poor Richard,

Colin Powell is so done with politics and government that the idea of him running is totally out of the question. He always disliked the partisan stuff even when he was always serving in a military role. As Secretary of State he became a political tool of the Bush Administration and hated it. Those 4 years turned him off of politics forever. There's no way that this guy would even consider putting himself through the grinder of a modern political campaign. It's not his style and it;s not what he wants. He will never run for office as either a Republican or a Democrat.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | September 14, 2006 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama?

Which red state did you think he might carry?

Edwards couldn't carry NC or SC last cycle, much less any of the rest of the South. Warner's lackluster persona isn't much better. If I wanted a CEO as president, I'd certainly hire one with a better personality. (Think Herb Kellaher from Southwest Airlines)

The Fix can focus on the horserace as much as it wants, but many of us are tired of the traditional pundits picking candidates for us.

Posted by: Red State Dem | September 14, 2006 12:58 PM | Report abuse

And furthermore, Chris, only people born in this country can be presidents.
So, if Obama is a "native of Kenya" as you put, how in the hell can he president, or even a candidate for president?
Have the rules changed since I woke up this morning?

Posted by: Ed | September 14, 2006 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Dems do not need a RED state to win. We just need the Reps to stop cheating to win.

Posted by: Larry | September 14, 2006 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Ed, you beat me to the punch-- thanks for pointing out the fact that Obama is not a native of Kenya. If he were, he would be ineligible to run for the presidency of the United States.

Obama is too inexperienced to make a credible run for the White House. The Democratic Party sees him as a great hope, but I think some people are getting ahead of themselves and wishing for an Obama presidency too soon. He's young; he has time to become governor of Illinois or hold a cabinet post before becoming president. Give him time!

Posted by: The Caped Composer | September 14, 2006 12:54 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes: What's wrong with Illinoisians? As long as your dream comes true with George Allen at the top of the repug tix in '08 we can run a cat and a dog against him and win in a landslide...

Posted by: TheIrishCurse | September 14, 2006 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Gore and Obama. Someone knows Maui Wowie on an intimate basis.

Mr. Obama is a great choice. But...

Interesting development today. Colin Powell had big split with the White House over Article 2.

Suppose, just suppose, a moderate wave of Democrats could get him to switch parties if the Republicans return to heavy reliance on the conservative right.

After all. Wasn't Eisenhower a Democrat before he decided to run?

Posted by: poor richard | September 14, 2006 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad its your gut Michael because it sure is not your brain. Get real, two Illinois liberals on the same ticket. Just what red state would they carry?

Posted by: bhoomes | September 14, 2006 12:50 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary Clinton is a "liberal", Pat Buchanan is a "moderate" and Dick Cheney is a "saint".

Posted by: Kevin | September 14, 2006 12:50 PM | Report abuse

One would hope that people who write for the public would get their facts correct and not be so damn stupid!
To wit: "Obama's trip to Iowa comes just a few weeks after he undertook a lengthy tour of Africa, a trip that included a hero's welcome in his native Kenya."

Chris, how stupidly ignorant can you be regarding where Obama comes from? He sure as hell doesn't come from Kenya. He ain't a native of Kenya. He was born in the U.S. His father was from Kenya. Does that make him a "native of Kenya?"
Man, get your act together. And publish an apology to your readers and to Obama.

Posted by: Ed | September 14, 2006 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Edwards doesn't "win" the south. Mark Warner is developing a solid organization and will have loads of money to compete with him and he is definitely more conservative.

I hope with all my heart Hillary doesn't run for president. I can't stand her. I also don't think Hillary wins anything in a landslide. She is SOOOOO hated by so many on the right and many moderates and independents. If anything, i think nominating hillary as a candidate makes it a closer race for the democrats.

For independents, usually policies aren't as important as character is. And deservedly or not, she is not viewed by many to have strong, trustworthy character. I tend to agree, not because of all the smear campaigns from the right, but more because I think she will do nearly anything to become president.

Posted by: Kevin | September 14, 2006 12:45 PM | Report abuse

I'd be curious to know what people think about a Clinton-Obama ticket in 08. My gut tells me they would win in a landslide...

Posted by: Michael | September 14, 2006 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Obama is not ready, he's had nothing but great, fawning press but once he throws his hat in, he will be quickly brought down to earth. I believe Gore is going to run, and will get the nomination if he does. So a Gore/Obama ticket is a real possibility but he will enjoy the same result as William Jennings Bryan, Tom Dewey and Adlai Stevenson.

Posted by: bhoomes | September 14, 2006 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Russ Feingold is a consistent and intelligent critic of the adminstration. He voted against the war. He tried to censure the liar in the oval office.

Feingold 08

Posted by: Kevin | September 14, 2006 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Gore will be history by 2008 and nobody will take him seriously.

My book says it will be Edwards and Obama in 2008 with Edwards at the top. Why? Edwards brings the south with him and Obama will energize the middle class vote throughout the country. (The only ones that will be lost are the bigots.) But, it will be Edwards at the top of the ticket because this country is probably still not ready for a black man in the White House but as the #2 on the ticket Obama will bring many back to the party and the result will be a perfect launching platform for the top in 2016. Also, Edwards is a smart, savy politician and will give Obama the kind of portfolio (responsibility) that will highlight how talented he is and the values and outlook he brings to the political arena.

IMO, the tired old Republlicans won't be able to field anyone that can compete with a Edwards/Obama ticket in 2008.

Posted by: Tom - San Jose | September 14, 2006 12:22 PM | Report abuse

LOL, Gaithersburg -- now, where's Tina? She would just love all the gossip about condi and that Canandian Parliament member. Howie Kurtz wrote about it today. I think she's got a thing going with bushie tho...that's the talk in DC.

I'm not totally sold on Obama either. He's got great possibilities because he has real presence and is an excellent speaker. But he's young and it's two loooooong years of the bush prsidency away from the electons. ANYTHING could happen between now and then.

Posted by: drindl | September 14, 2006 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama may be a nice guy, but he's certainly NO Condi.

;-)

Posted by: Gaithersburg, MD | September 14, 2006 12:11 PM | Report abuse

In the last presidential election where Harkin backed Dean, I can still see Harkin standing behind Dean with a "deer caught in the headlights" look when Dean unleashed his scream.

Memories of elections past aside.... Obama would make a good VP candidate in 2008, but the top of the ticket is still problematic.

The Iowa State Fair this year nudged the gate open a bit, the Harkin Steak Fry a little further, but it's still too early for the horse race. Harkin's 2007 Fry is the one to watch.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | September 14, 2006 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Barack just likes fried steak...

Posted by: TheIrishCurse | September 14, 2006 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Sorry. I'm not a big Obama fan. It's not that I have anything against him, but I'm really turned off by the fawning manner in which so many in our party deify him. Clearly, there is something going on here besides a bunch of people approving of his policies. People think he's good looking. People buy his story about a difficult upbrining (I don't particularly). These are all "style" points in my book. And I don't think we should elect leaders of the free world based on style.

Posted by: John | September 14, 2006 11:57 AM | Report abuse

This is for Chris and his fellow journalists, from Simon Jenkins of the Guardian:

'Were I to take my life in my hands this weekend and visit Osama bin Laden's hideout in Wherever-istan, the interview would go something like this. I would ask how things have been for him since 9/11. His reply would be that he had worried at first that America would capitalise on the global revulsion, even among Muslims, and isolate him as a lone fanatic. He was already an "unwelcome guest" among the Afghans, and the Tajiks were out to kill him for the murder of their beloved leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud (which they may yet do). A little western cunning and he would have been in big trouble.

In the event Bin Laden need not have worried. He would agree, as did the CIA's al-Qaida analyst in Peter Taylor's recent documentary, that the Americans have done his job for him. They panicked. They drove the Taliban back into the mountains, restoring the latter's credibility in the Arab street and turning al-Qaida into heroes. They persecuted Muslims across America. They occupied Iraq and declared Iran a sworn enemy. They backed an Israeli war against Lebanon's Shias. Soon every tinpot Muslim malcontent was citing al-Qaida as his inspiration. Bin Laden's tiny organisation, which might have been starved of funds and friends in 2001, had become a worldwide jihadist phenomenon.

I would ask Bin Laden whether he had something special up his sleeve for the fifth anniversary. Why waste money, he would reply. The western media were obligingly re-enacting the destruction and the screaming, turning the base metal of violence into the gold of terror. They would replay the tapes and rerun the footage ad nauseam, and thus remind the world of his awesome power. Americans are more afraid of jihadists this year than last. In a Transatlantic Trends survey, the number of them describing international terrorism as an "extremely important threat" went up from 72% to 79%. As for European support for America's world leadership, that has plummeted from 64% in 2002 to 37% this year.

Bin Laden might boast that he had achieved terrorism's equivalent of an atomic chain reaction: a self-regenerating cycle of outrage and foreign-policy overkill, aided by anniversary journalism and fuelled by the grim scenarios of security lobbyists. He now had only to drop an occasional CD into the offices of al-Jazeera, and Washington and London quaked with fear. The authorities could be reduced to million-dollar hysterics by a phial of nail varnish, a copy of the Qur'an, or a dark-skinned person displaying a watch and a mobile phone.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1867405,00.html

Posted by: drindl | September 14, 2006 11:56 AM | Report abuse

I thought that 2008 topics were going to be shelved until after the 2006 General Election.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | September 14, 2006 11:54 AM | Report abuse

GORE AND OBAMA IN '08! go for it!

Posted by: drindl | September 14, 2006 11:43 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company