Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

PostTalk: Bob Shrum on the '08 Contenders

No political consultant is more revered or reviled in Democratic Party politics than Bob Shrum. To some, Shrum is a visionary -- helping to guide the party's agenda through election after election. To others he is a blight, the man more responsible than anyone other than the candidates themselves for a series of devastating White House losses.

Love him or hate him, it's hard to dispute Shrum's claim that he has stood at the center of Democratic politics for the better part of the last 30 years. He was a member of the inner circle of the party's last two presidential nominees -- Al Gore and John Kerry -- and a trusted aide to a series of other White House aspirants, including John Edwards, Dick Gephardt and Ted Kennedy.

And now, Shrum is taking us into the smoke-filled rooms in his memoir: "No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner." He sat for an interview with Post columnist Ruth Marcus and The Fix last week as part of washingtonpost.com's "PostTalk" series. (The last "PostTalk" -- an interview with Mitt Romney -- can be seen here.)

Click the screen below to watch the full interview with Shrum. Highlights from the interview are after the jump.

VIDEO | PostTalk: Veteran Democratic consultant Bob Shrum discusses the 2008 Democratic Presidential hopefuls, responds to criticism from John and Elizabeth Edwards, and talks about past Democratic presidential nominees Al Gore and John Kerry. (Edited by Brie Hall, washingtonpost.com)

Here are Shrum's thoughts on the current Democratic and Republican fields:

DEMOCRATS

* Shrum called Hillary Rodham Clinton the "most qualified candidate to be president" among the current field but said her path to the nomination and the White House is not without hurdles. "Her great strength is her sense of experience, her command in debates, the expectation people have that she could show up the first day and do the job," said Shrum. "Her great problem is she is an establishment candidate in a year of change."

* Barack Obama, on the other hand, "embodies change," according to Shrum. Shrum said Obama's fundraising capacity and ability to attract massive crowds shows people are incredibly energized by him, but he must find a way to turn that excitement into votes in Iowa, New Hampshire and beyond. "I think the question Obama [voters] are going to ask on January 1 is does he have the depth, the substance and the seriousness to go with that excitement," said Shrum.

* Although Shrum was once close to John Edwards, he said that he has not spoken with either the candidate or his wife since a few weeks after the 2004 campaign. As to the charges leveled by the Edwardses that Shrum's recollections about John's views about gays are simply inaccurate, the former consultant stood his ground. "I was surprised that the reaction was so strong, especially since the initial comment from his pollster was that the line was taken out of context," Shrum said. "When people say the line is taken out of context, it usually means the line is essentially true." Despite the animosity that now exists between himself and the former North Carolina Senator, Shrum insisted that Edwards is a "first tier" candidate who has made a "genuine mark" on the primary with his proposal for universal health care.

* Asked about Gore, Shrum praised him for currently running "the greatest non-campaign campaign I have ever seen." He sounded a skeptical note about a Gore entry into the presidential race, noting that "he would have to give up his status as a global prophet on a really big issue." He also pointed out that while Gore would enjoy a nice run from the media at the start of his candidacy, it would not likely last. "I can just see the first column from someone saying: 'You know all that stuff we didn't like in 2000? Some of it's still there.'"

REPUBLICANS

* Of the GOP field, Shrum is most familiar with Romney, having worked to defeat him in his 1994 challenge to Sen. Ted Kennedy. "He's like a zip drive into which you can put any disk," said Shrum of his former nemesis. "He may have an authenticity problem that in the end is going to hurt him."

* Shrum offered a bit of counter-conventional wisdom on John McCain's chances at the GOP nomination, telling the story of Ed Flynn, longtime Democratic boss in the Bronx. Flynn was being criticized by some of his underlings for his backing a particular candidate when he turned to them and asked, "Who else you got?" Said Shrum: "I think John McCain may win the Republican nomination on the 'who else you got' principle."

* Fred Thompson has risen so quickly because he is a "blank slate" and a "testament to the fact that Republicans are so unhappy with the field that they have and so much want to get away from Bush," said Shrum. He added that Thompson is making a mistake by allowing himself to be cast as the second coming of former President Ronald Reagan. "Don't compare yourself to Lincoln ... don't compare yourself to John Kennedy, don't compare yourself to Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan," Shrum warned. "You're not going to get there and the truth is none of them were what they were until they were president."

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 18, 2007; 7:45 AM ET
Categories:  Democratic Party , Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Line: Senate Map Is Messy for GOP
Next: Obama's Higher Standard?

Comments

The Freemoney Family Organization, thru Freemoney Family Political Party, plans to educated all of its official members about the world we live in. The Freemoney Family Organization believes that an educated individual, who is sincerely concerned and involved in the growth and dvelopment of his or her community(community service must be legislatively mandated)does not need a person of Mr. Shrum abilities!!

obama--hillary---who will really work?--how will one or the other get things done?-----what skills can either one hang their hat on in an honest conversation, with harding working--somewhat honest Americans?

For more information about the Freemoney Family Organization-please visit:
www.freemoneyfamilytax.com
www.freemoneyfamilyrealty.com
www.freemoneyfamilymagazine.com


FREE FOOD FOR EVERYONE!
Every 2nd -Wedsnesday--of--each Month!
(Thru December-07)-
Aug-8-07
SEPT-12-07
OCT-10-07
NOV-14-07
DEC-12-07
CALL TO RESERVE YOUR PLACE!

The Freemoney Family Organization would like to invite you or a representive of your Pastorial staff!!

FREE FOOD FOR EVERYONE!
Every 2nd -Wedsnesday--of--each Month!
(Thru December-07)-
Aug-8-07
SEPT-12-07
OCT-10-07
NOV-14-07
DEC-12-07
CALL TO RESERVE YOUR PLACE!
TOPICS DISCUSSED:
----The Freemoney Family Organization
-------Freemoney Family Tax Service-www.freemoneyfamilytax.com
--------Freemoney Family Realty---www.freemoneyfamilyrealty.com
-----------FREEMONEY FAMILY BARTER PROGRAM!!

------Benefits of Membership!
---------$50,000 Freemoney Family Lifetime Membership Guarantee Certificate!
---FREE--Membership in the following Freemoney Family Organization sponsored Investment Clubs:
-----------FREEMONEY FAMILY BUSINESS INVESTMENT CLUB!
-----------FREEMONEY FAMILY REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT CLUB!
-----------FREEMONEY FAMILY SECURITIES INVESTMENT CLUB!

----------------tax preparer classes(free to official members)---$60.00 -to the public!---RECEIVE $20.00 for each FAMILY OR FRIEND WHO SIGNS UP!

---6 WORKSHOPS-(free to official members)--REFERRAL BONUS FOR REFERING YOUR FRIENDS/FAMILY!
-------------FREE -Membership in the following Freemoney Family Investment Clubs:
---------------Freemoney Family Business Investment Club!
---------------Freemoney Family Real Estate Investment Club!
---------------Freemoney Family Securities Investment Club!
---FREE--Lifetime Subscription to Freemoney Family Magazine!www.freemoneyfamilymagazine.com
--------FREE---Membership in the --Freemoney Family Book Club!--(new)
---FREE-Professional General Listing in the Freemoney Family Business Guide!

--PLEASE CALL RESERVE YOUR PLACE AT THIS HISTORY-MAKING EVENT!-------512-350-4210---cell
512-535-5884---office#
1-866-730-6293----outside austin,txtxphil@prodigy.net

---OTHER INVITEE'S/ POSSIBLE ATTENDEE'S:
---All/Any OF the-Presidential Hopefuls---Including
Barack Obama,
Senator Hillary Clinton,
Lloyd Dogget
CITY COUNCIL OFFICIALS,
DWANNA DUKES
OTHER INVITED STATE & NATIONAL ELECTED OFFICIALS!

--Also, Local PRINT/Visual MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES will be invited!



If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me!
512-535-5884---OFFICE#
512-350-4210---CELL
EMAIL:txphil@prodigy.net

Averitt Freemoney Phillips, Jr.--Founder-
-----UNITED STATES PRESIDENT--2016!

Posted by: Averitt freemoney phillips, jr. | July 12, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

A: Base on the fact that the Clintons will provide millions of dollars to Mr. Shrum if he is successful in promoting her.

The lobbyists will open the coffers to anyone that sells their soul for the Billary campaign.

Don't trust me... look into who has been heading up Billary's campaign. One of DC's most notorious lobbyists!

Posted by: ooeat0meoo | June 21, 2007 10:43 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is "most qualified candidate to be president" according to Shrum.

Based on what? I love these sorts of statements. What qualifies someone to be President? A term in the Senate? Not since Kennedy has one made it back in (bad omen for the tier 1 across the board). Being married to the ex-President? I wouldn't want Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan running the place. Maybe someone can explain the qualifications that set her apart from Obama or Edwards to me.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 19, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is "most qualified candidate to be president" according to Shrum.

Based on what? I love these sorts of statements. What qualifies someone to be President? A term in the Senate? Not since Kennedy has one made it back in (bad omen for the tier 1 across the board). Being married to the ex-President? I wouldn't want Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan running the place. Maybe someone can explain the qualifications that set her apart from Obama or Edwards.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 19, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: I predicted Hillary to win in 08 a long time ago. Since 1948, I have predicted the winner, and in most cases it was before they had won their primary. My record is 100% accurate so far and, believe me, this is the one I think is the most important.

Posted by: lylepink | June 19, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

lylepink writes
"All of you that think Hillary will not win in 2008, Oh! what a time I will have, that is if you are brave enough to stick around and eat a whole bunch of crow."

I don't know if she'll win or not. I'd prefer that she were not the Dem nominee. As far as crow-eating goes, predicting an 08 win for her before she even gets the nomination is a bold position to take.

Posted by: bsimon | June 19, 2007 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Sandy - good to see you're still around and still don't think much of Kerry, just in case we had any doubts...

Posted by: Aussie view | June 19, 2007 3:42 AM | Report abuse

This guy strikes me as kind of a buffoon. I mean, here he is lecturing everyone about what is takes to win a presidential race, when he has never won one. And plus he worked for Kerry. Anyone delusional enough to think that Kerry could connect with people in Middle America by insulting them and speaking to them condescendingly really should just hang it up. The only reason that Kerry almost won is because Bush is so incompetent. If the Democratic Party had nominated a normal person, they would have defeated Bush in a landslide.

Posted by: Sandy | June 18, 2007 11:21 PM | Report abuse

bsimon says: "We'll all be better off if the Senator from New York remains a Senator from New York."

Amen!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2007 7:55 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: Please don't try and distort something I said to suit your dislike for Hillary, who, BTW, IMO, will be the next POTUS. Hillary is very capable of doing the job as POTUS, and she will. All of you that think Hillary will not win in 2008, Oh! what a time I will have, that is if you are brave enough to stick around and eat a whole bunch of crow.

Posted by: lylepink | June 18, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

"Drindle is a woman???? No way."

way.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 18, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

lylepink writes
"Re 2000, I have always thought Gore lost by turning his back on Bubba and picking Liebermann as his VP."

I agree, on both counts. Regarding the former, it was tough call & didn't properly establish who he was, beyond, 'not Clinton'. Regarding the latter, what was he thinking?

lylepink also says
"Bubba will go down in history as one of the best. Hillary has that working for her, and a lot of folks will vote for Hillary knowing he will have a great deal of influnce and be with her all the way."

One of the best? I think you overstate the case. I suppose his presidency, historically, will benefit from contrast with his successor. Regarding the Hillary candidacy, Bill as husband is about the stupidest reason I can think of to vote for her. Imagine Bill's ticker goes out on him - given his predilictions for junk food and young women not an unthinkable - then we're stuck with Hillary without Bill. No thanks. I'll take a President that can do the job independant of their spouse.

Posted by: bsimon | June 18, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

lylepink writes " a lot of folks will vote for Hillary knowing [Bill] will have a great deal of influnce and be with her all the way"

Many more people will cast their vote for anyone BUT Hillary because of the reason you suggest. Can you imagine the suite of offices Bill would set up in the West Wing? Complete with his own flock of interns.

Talk about a shadow presidency. He'd make Cheney look weak.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 18, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Drindle is a woman???? No way.

Posted by: Kevin | June 18, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Re 2000, I have always thought Gore lost by turning his back on Bubba and picking Liebermann as his VP. Bubba will go down in history as one of the best. Hillary has that working for her, and a lot of folks will vote for Hillary knowing he will have a great deal of influnce and be with her all the way. Re 2004, Kerry lost by not responding to the Swift Boat smear quick enough and fully.

Posted by: lylepink | June 18, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

As the saying goes, 2008 is the Dems to lose.... Shrum could probably help them do that.

He would then be able to boast a nearly perfect loss record, and write another book.

Sit down Shrum.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | June 18, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

People who criticize Shrum are showing sour grapes? What? The guy has never won anything. How could we be showing sour grapes? Shrum has presided over the most embarrassing political failures in American history. The democratic party (which claims to be the party of the people) has not won 50% of the popular vote in a presidential election since 1964 (43 years ago folks) and has lost 7 out of the last 10 presidential elections.
The only reason why they will probably win in '08' is due to the colossal blunders of the Bush administration.

Posted by: jrnolan531@tx.rr.com | June 18, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

soonerthought dot com writes
"Biden for president. Think about it. He's the guy we need. Hillary can be his Veep."

Perhaps Biden is the guy we need. If he were to win the nomination, he would best serve himself - and the country - by selecting a different running mate than you suggest. We'll all be better off if the Senator from New York remains a Senator from New York.

Posted by: bsimon | June 18, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Shrum is like a lot of others, trying to cash in on their mistakes by blaming everyone but themselves in the books they put out. The people they work for sets the agenda and if they are fool enough to take the advice of folks they hire, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Posted by: lylepink | June 18, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

"The "corporate crony" charges from the left bother me not a whit."

JimD - why don't they bother you? I mean, say the allegations are true, does that not bother you? If not, why not?

People who say that Clinton only won in 92 because Perot was there forget that in the period from when Perot withdrew until he re-entered the race, Clinton held a healthy lead over Bush in the polls.

And Clinton would definitely have won in 96 without a shadow of a doubt, with or without Perot in the race.

Posted by: Aussie view | June 18, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

I meant Kerry in 2004....

Posted by: Truth Hunter | June 18, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Biden for president. Think about it. He's the guy we need. Hillary can be his Veep.

Posted by: Soonerthought dot com | June 18, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Shrum ran Gore's 2000 campaign and decided on the amazingly lame "people versus the power" theme to sell Gore. Shrum was also the one who decided that Kerry's story in 2004 was that of war hero.

They call it the "Shrum Curse" for a reason. People also say that the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. One reason that I am hopeful about Democratic prospects in '08 is that Shrum has finally been retired from managing any actual campaigns.

Posted by: yh132 | June 18, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

bsimon

Churchill was a lone voice in the British Parliament for years in the 1930's warning about Hitler. He was right and eventually, in a dire crisis, he became Prime Minister and was an inspiring war leader. Sometimes, a true leader must persevere with few followers.

Posted by: JimD in FL | June 18, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Cillizza -- are you joking?
Try naming one person who reveres him.

Posted by: Nick | June 18, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

JD: I like your comment "When, not if" Hillary is in The White House. I am glad to see some folks, like you, coming around. Hillary had a good week by her negatives going a little lower. With her opponents throwing so much at her it is a little bit of a suprise, although I think a lot more folks are taking a closer look at her. I have not read the latest books, and don't intend to, but in a strange way they appear to be helping her. The constant trashing of someone in public life, based mostly on speculation, and not FACT, is getting tiresome to folk like me that has followed politics for many years are aware of the process, and the awareness of so many younger voters that are becoming more involved.

Posted by: lylepink | June 18, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Still want to know what Biden's position on the Kurds and the Turks is.

Otherwise, his solution is no better than any of the others.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Schrum has backed nothing but losers for many years. Why would anyone pay any attention to anything he has to say?

Posted by: john | June 18, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

dave!:thanks for responding back. i have to respectfully disagree with clinton not winning in 92.with a faltering economy and the perception of being unconcerned with everyday americans, just left bush 41 with a opening for a 3rd party canidate.it didnt help when he had his own party baying for blood at the gop convention,and not being able to captialize on the success of the first gulf war.

i also have to agree with you on the dems using iraq in the short term, but there has to be something they can offer to the people in the long term.sure they can win back congress, but with out strong majorites in both chambers,its just a lot of wheel spinning in the face of obstuctionism(yes i said it)

also on the point of national healthcare, why not let the states take up the banner, with a federal agency overseeing general aspects of it?

Posted by: spartan | June 18, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Schrum has backed nothing but losers for many years. Enough said!

Posted by: john | June 18, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Schrum has backed nothing but losers for many years. Enough said!

Posted by: john | June 18, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin: I'll speak only for the Iowa caucus I attended in 2000.... Kerry had the best organizers and it is true votes swung to him because he seemed at the time the most electable.

At a caucus, organizers speak for their candidate, and second and third tier candidates many times aren't represented.

Without individual candidate organization, when the participants in the caucus are broken into groups depending on who they support, the supporters of the unrepresented candidates join another candidate group, usually the one perceived as the "most electable."

I'm wondering how this will work for Hillary.... she seems so unstoppable in the primaries, but she isn't necessarily viewed as electable in the general. It'll be interesting.

BTW, even if you are an Independent(me), you must register as a Dem or Repub to participate in the respective caucus.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | June 18, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

spartan,
I don't think that Clinton would have won without Perot. I don't know what to tell you about the message. It seems that, for the most part, Americans don't seem to want to elect presidents that are true liberals and repubs are well versed at how to paint that picture to the public. Alternatively, when the message is basically "we're Republican Lite", most people vote for the full flavored beverage - but the margins appear better for Dems when they do this. The Democrats near term hope it to capitalize on Iraq - something i think they can and will do. That is this generations Watergate and ticket to the Whitehouse. I've got no good suggestions long term, however. Because of Bush and his non-fiscal conservatism, there might be the ability to propose some big new government program (Nationalize healthcare?) where funding it won't be as problematic as in the past.

Posted by: Dave! | June 18, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

... altho he still won. But he would have won by enough to keep bush from stealing it if he hadn't listened to his awful consultants.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

'Let's be honest, had Kerry one - you all would be extoling shrums virtues'

No. There's a great many dems who are tired of business as usual in DC, the same old corporate lobbyists who are in bed with the same old consultants. Shrum makes a lot of money giving very bad advice -- what's to liike?

'Also - to cassandra - what exactly does winning the popular vote mean?'

I'm sorry, my bad. I was referring to Gore, who won more votes than bush in 2000. He also had horrible consultants like the DLCer Donna Brazile.

Posted by: Cassandra | June 18, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Bob Shrum is an incompetent boob who's never won a major race in his entire career. Who cares what he thinks?

Posted by: Mark F. | June 18, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

JimD in FL writes
"I think Biden is the only candidate of either party who has a sensible approach to the Iraq mess."

That's becoming a common observation. Here's a question, about the Biden plan. He's been promoting a different approach in Iraq for literally years in the Senate. Why don't the rest of the Senators - or at least the Dem Senators - or at least SOME of the Dem Senators follow his lead? Is there a failure of leadership - on his part - to bring others to his point of view? Are all the others just too wishy-washy, stuck in a 'follow the polls' mentality? When other Senators talk about him, they seem to respect him, but has he actually convinced any others to work with him to find a real solution to Iraq that is neither 'stay the course' nor 'cut and run'?

Posted by: bsimon | June 18, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

TG writes
"Wow, the shrum hating looms large on the site here today. Sounds like sour grapes to me... Let's be honest, had Kerry one - you all would be extoling shrums virtues."

Well, of course. But, Shrum didn't deliver a Dem victory in 2000 or 2004 - so the virtues of Karl 'boy genius/turd blossom' Rove are extolled instead. Or were, until Nov 2006. Point being, if you want to claim to be a top-notch campaign strategist, you have to deliver. Shrum doesn't.

Posted by: bsimon | June 18, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Biden has "an" approach that sounds different from the the other Democrats. Whether or not it's the right one has yet to be determined. Different does not equate to right... There' a lot that Joe Biden has to be modest about, including the modest proposal to split Iraq into three tribal areas...

Posted by: Bill DelGrosso | June 18, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the shrum hating looms large on the site here today. Sounds like sour grapes to me.I mean prior to two years ago, Phil Mickelson had never one the big one but I don't think we would say he wasn't a good golfer. Let's be honest, had Kerry one - you all would be extoling shrums virtues.

Posted by: TG | June 18, 2007 12:11 PM

no, not really, 1 win out of 7 or 8 campaigns, if he was a coach or a general manager of a major sports team, with that record he would be fired,demonized by sports talk radio and the fans. if he was a republican(and probably is) the dems would be laughing their asses off to yet another win to the white house.

dave!:your post is partially spot on. yes dems need a message to put out to the people. but the message over the last few years was"hey look at us, we can be bi partisan,we agree with the gop" look what that got us now. just out of curiousity, do you think clinton would have won in 92 with out perot? my memory may be off but didnt he get 19%of the vote?

Posted by: spartan | June 18, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Mark,

I am an independent, but I think Biden is the only candidate of either party who has a sensible approach to the Iraq mess. I agree that he has weaknesses as a candidate. The "corporate crony" charges from the left bother me not a whit.

Posted by: JimD in FL | June 18, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

EPA Administrator: Controversy Over CO2 Regulation, Calif. Waivers

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not necessarily need to regulate carbon dioxide to control global warming, according to the agency chief, offering his own interpretation of the April ruling by the Supreme Court that found CO2 to be a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

Also, Administrator Stephen Johnson says his decision to grant California a waiver to more strictly control vehicle emissions may be deferred to 2008.

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/epa-administrator-controversy-over-co2.html

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Since I posted: thank you, Judge and spartan - in the first instance, I promise never again to confuse Judge with a committed D; and in the second, I meant no sleight to spartan. Both of you raise my only substantial worry about JB - the hip shot blather.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 18, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Also - to cassandra - what exactly does winning the popular vote mean? Gore received more votes than any other candidate correct? But by the same token, more people voted for somebody else than voted for him. So didn't he also lose the popular vote?

Posted by: TG | June 18, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the shrum hating looms large on the site here today. Sounds like sour grapes to me. I mean prior to two years ago, Phil Mickelson had never one the big one but I don't think we would say he wasn't a good golfer. Let's be honest, had Kerry one - you all would be extoling shrums virtues.

Posted by: TG | June 18, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

drindl, thank you for responding - that was a thoughtful criticism of Biden.

bsimon, you have underscored Shrum's prdicating his views as to who are the credible candidates based on the same polls he decries as having no meaning, this early.

Truth Hunter, you are in IA, are you not? I agree that Shrum is a legend in his own mind, but I thought John Kerry was a weak candidate for the one third of us who are swing voters. My guess is that Gephardt, a blue dog, was in fact the strongest D candidate, in 2004, and IA did him in. I think IA went for its perception of the strongest candidate who also loudly opposed Iraq involvement, and if that is what the limiting factor is again, will it not be true that Ds in IA will reject Biden? Even if you and I think he is way more qualified than the 3 front runners?

JD, please do not assume inevitability in advance of the facts [loosely adapted from Sherlock Holmes]. Maintain hope.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 18, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic party needs to listen to somebody since they have not won the presidency without the help of a third party candidate (Perot) or extraordinary circumstance (Watergate/the Kennedy effect) since JFK some 47 years ago. I don't know if that somebody is Shrum or not but it does not appear that the Democrats are getting their money's worth out of any of their consultants. Of course, it could be the consultants are doing a great job and its just a problem with the message.

Posted by: Dave! | June 18, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

You mean the so-called Scream? You know, to be fair, Judge -- Dean didn't do anyhhing. That was deliberate media sabotage. I know lots of people who were there, I have heard their original tapes [I was a volunteer.] Everyone was screaming, it was late, they were tired, trying to rally -- just like a football game or something. But what got played over and over was a doctored 'edited' version of the tape -- with other voices screened out, so you only heard Dean.

The Beltway Elite will do anything to keep things from changing in DC, to maintain the status quo -- it works very well for them and they don't intend to allow the rabble [re: voters] to have any say in it. They will choose your canddiates for you, as they always do.

Posted by: drindl | June 18, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"Shrum called Hillary Rodham Clinton the "most qualified candidate to be president" among the current field."


ok end the election, hillary is the winner!
god cc no wonder your all over bob shrum today.

mark in austin: im suprised you didnt mention me, but i havent been on too much(new job,unlike some of the posters on here who post every 2 minutes)

sen biden is a truely interesting canidate, my only problem with him is that he shoots off his mouth sometimes. once he gets that under control he could easily be in the upper tier. or better yet a vast improvement at the state department over condi"we didnt see it coming" rice.

Posted by: spartan | June 18, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin: I'm a committed D? The current crop of R candidates makes it look that way. Gawd, the GOP looks totally tone-deaf given the current polling data.

Anyway, Biden is a great guy, long list of accomplishments and experience and all that. HOWEVER, he has a tendency to suffer from verbal diarrhea that I believe would get him in serious trouble in the context of a general election campaign. HRC won't (iron discipline); I don't think Obama will (with decent sleep and air conditioning); Edwards won't (trial lawyer). I don't want to back someone who might pull a Dean on us.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | June 18, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Anon 11:17am.... AMEN!

Posted by: Truth Hunter | June 18, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

'However if you look at the likes of the candidates he's worked for it becomes easier to understand his failures.'

hardly. he managed to lose against bush for chrissake. anybody should have been able to beat that obvious moron.

of course, there is the legions of flying monkeys that listen to the likes of sean hannity and rush limbaugh and fox to figure into the equation.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

The postings above by 'christians' and 'culture of life' should be all the motivation ANYONE needs to work AGAINST the election of any candidate who promises to legislate/impose his/her moral beliefs on others.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Schrum is a legend in his own mind, and hopefully his 15 seconds of 2008 campaign recognition are over.

While I was discouraged early on with Biden missteps, he has trimmed his long-winded sails, and is by far the best qualified to tackle the problems in Iraq.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | June 18, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Chris writes
"Shrum called Hillary Rodham Clinton the "most qualified candidate to be president" among the current field."

With analysis like that, its no wonder he's never yet been on a winning Presidential campaign.

Posted by: bsimon | June 18, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Look Shrum is a loser. How could anyone lose every major campaign they've ever been involved in? However if you look at the likes of the candidates he's worked for it becomes easier to understand his failures.

Posted by: jrnolan531@tx.rr.com | June 18, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Obama Closes In On Hillary, Poll Finds

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has narrowed the gap between him and Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York for frontrunner status for the Democratic nomination for president, according to a new Harris poll.

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/obama-closes-in-on-hillary-poll-finds.html

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Nice stuff, but Bob's just trying to sell a book...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: paul | June 18, 2007 11:09 AM | Report abuse

it is really time for a positive change.
the old stuff should be put in storage.
we need a view more in tune with optimism and vision. stop the looking back and start a view to the next generation of"outside the box thinking"

Posted by: yosh naka | June 18, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

it is really time for a positive change.
the old stuff should be put in storage.
we need a view more in tune with optimism and vision. stop the looking back and start a view to the next generation of"outside the box thinking"

Posted by: yosh naka | June 18, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

George W. Bush gave twenty interviews in 1999 to Mickey Herskowitz, a friend of the Bush family contracted at the time to ghostwrite his autobiography. Bush was thinking about invading Iraq at that time, saying "'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander‑in‑chief.

My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

Herskowitz said that Bush's beliefs on Iraq were shaped by Dick Cheney's ideas, based on the power and glory Margaret Thatcher earned from her Falklands War: "Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade." Herskowitz also reports this interesting note from his interviews with Bush: "He told me that as a leader, you can never admit to a mistake. That was one of the keys to being a leader."

During the presidential campaign of 2000, candidate Bush said very little about Iraq, and certainly never suggested the need for urgent action. Somehow, though, in just two years time - during which, if anything, Iraq actually got weaker, not stronger - Saddam and his country became a perilous and imminent threat that had to be addressed immediately.

Former members of his own cabinet have revealed that Bush planned to invade Iraq from the very beginning of his administration, well before 9/11. All discussions were about the how of doing it, never about the why, the justification, the costs or the wisdom.

Bush claims he is fighting a war on terror in response to 9/11. But in the first eight months of his administration, his own top terrorism advisor, Richard Clarke, could not get a meeting of cabinet-level security officials to discuss terrorism. They finally met, one week before 9/11, and then the meeting was 'hijacked' into discussing Iraq instead.

In 2004, Clarke said "Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re‑election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11." Clarke is a Republican who voted for Bush in 2000, and also served in the administrations of Bush's father, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

How can we explain the continuing coverage of Bob Shrum? In any other field of endeavor, the record of failure he's had would eliminate him from the senior advisor role some still allow him. It's time for him to retire fully. The Democratic Party needs winners, not losers, in positions of influence. I agree with the previous poster, scott, that it's the media who gives most credence to his words.

I also think its somewhat sick that these old white men are so reluctant to move aside before they become known more for their failures than successes.

Posted by: Cate | June 18, 2007 10:31 AM | Report abuse

It should be noted that George L. Wilson, the proprietor of Children Needs Heroes, recognizes two other heroes he believes America's children should learn about: Shelly Shannon, who was convicted of the attempted assasination of Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas, among other serious crimes, including a series of arsons; and of course, James Kopp, who was convicted in the sniper assasination of Dr. Barnett Slepian at his home in Amherst, New York. Kopp is also the chief suspect in several other shootings.

Posted by: 'culture of life' | June 18, 2007 10:31 AM | Report abuse

'On July 29, 1994 Paul Hill, who sought to set a good example for Christian theocratic revolutionaries, assasinated abortion provider Dr. John Britton and James Barrett one of his escorts, and seriously wounding another, June Barrett, outside an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Florida.

George L. Wilson of Children Need Heroes and Drew Heiss of Street Preach are planning to honor Paul Hill in a series of events called "Paul Hill Days" in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, July 26th - 29th -- "to honor him as God's man and our hero."

Why Milwaukee? Why not? There are people here who recognize Paul Hill as a hero, and we would love to welcome others from around the country who share our belief. Hopefully, in the future, others will host events in their cities.

Planned events include:

Literature distribution

Ministry at the Federal Courthouse'

Posted by: 'christians' | June 18, 2007 10:29 AM | Report abuse

My son called me last night to wish me happy Father's Day, and after we exchanged the usual pleasantries, one of the first things he said was how everyone seems to be very discouraged about the country, and especially let down about the direction we're heading in Iraq. I've been feeling exactly the same way, and I don't think this was a concidence or genetically driven consensus. You see the signs everywhere, and the national polls indicate that less than 20 percent of the public believes the country is headed in the right direction, while nearly 80 percent believe we're headed in the wrong direction. Those are astonishing, unprecedented numbers.

The candidates from both parties had better understand that the people will not tolerate more of the same business as usual.

Posted by: Frank | June 18, 2007 10:26 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON -- An aide to GOP presidential candidate Sam Brownback has been reprimanded for sending e-mail to Iowa Republican leaders in an apparent attempt to draw unfavorable scrutiny to rival Mitt Romney's Mormonism.

Emma Nemecek, the southeastern Iowa field director for Brownback's presidential campaign and a former state representative candidate, violated campaign policy when she forwarded the June 6 e-mail from an interest group raising the questions, the Brownback campaign said Sunday.

The e-mail requested help in fact-checking a series of statements about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Among the statements: "Theologically, the only thing Christianity and the LDS church has in common is the name of Jesus Christ, and the LDS Jesus is not the same Jesus of the Christian faith" and "The LDS church has never been accepted by the Christian Council of Churches."

Posted by: bad boy brwnback | June 18, 2007 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Shrum 'revered'? Really? Could you name even one person who 'reveres' him? Oh, you DC bubbleheads.

Posted by: Rhonda | June 18, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Just dawned on me....Shrum has put exactly as many people in the White House as I have!

Posted by: squibs | June 18, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

I thought Shrum was 0/8 in his last 8 tries. Why does anyone give this guy credance? His tell-all about HRC is interesting though; if what he says is true, we're in for some very interesting times when (not if) she's elected president.

Posted by: JD | June 18, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

"The younger Bush, George W., never asked his father for advice on Iraq. Instead, he said: "You know he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to." Bush has also stated, "I'm driven with a mission from God. ...God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq...' And I did."

God told him, you see. God spoke to him directly. more than once... 'God would tell me'... as they were chatting in the Oval Office? 'Go and end the tyranny.'

Do you think he got that on tape? Because I'd sure like to hear it myself. Also, I wonder if God tells him other stuff, like to take out the garbage or anything. Also, I wonder if he has any other voices in his head, or just God?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2007 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Hey trippi -- I know it's you. We've met. And you're right -- we need to stick with the Dean Strategy and stay away from the DLC parasites like Shrum and Carville, whose only interest is steering more 'money' to worthless 'consultants' like themselves.

Posted by: drindl | June 18, 2007 10:11 AM | Report abuse


Mesopotamia has long been a playground for great powers. The British invaded the area in 1917, causing a widespread revolt of the Iraqi people. Britain later ruled under a League of Nations mandate that produced the artificial creation of the country Iraq (and Kuwait), and continued to control oil production in the region. Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour said at the time, "I do not care under what system we keep this oil, but I am quite clear it is all-important for us that this oil should be available".

Saddam Hussein started his career as a political thug, on the payroll of the CIA during the 1950s and 1960s, torturing and murdering Iraqi leftists whose names were provided by American intelligence, and participating in an armed coup against the Iraqi government.

In 1972, the United States conspired with Iran and Israel to support a revolt of the Kurdish people within Iraq against their government.

In 1980, the United States provided encouragement, weapons, intelligence, satellite data and funding for Saddam's Iraq to invade Iran, launching an eight year war - the longest and probably the bloodiest of the post-WWII era.

During this war, Ronald Reagan dispatched Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to improve relations with Saddam. The United States then restored full diplomatic relations with Iraq, despite the administration's clear awareness that Saddam was using chemical weapons at the time.

The Reagan administration also knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds rising up again against Baghdad (this was the incident George W. Bush would later repeatedly invoke, saying of Saddam, "He gassed his own people"), but nevertheless authorized expanded sales to Iraq of highly sophisticated equipment that could be used to manufacture weapons, only two months after the Halabja incident.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2007 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Weeble
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the Flash animated series, see Weebl and Bob.

Weebles is a trademark for several lines of children's toys originating in Hasbro's Playskool division on July 23, 1971. Shaped like eggs with a weight at the fat, or bottom end, they wobble when pushed, but never fall completely over, hence the name. Some Weebles were designed to look like humans. The "Weebleville" series of 2004 and 2005 looked more like anthropomorphic animals, but the "Storybook World" series of 2006 has returned to more humanlike faces for the figures.

The popular catchphrase, "Weebles wobble but they don't fall down", was used in advertising during their rise in popularity in the 1970s and during the relaunch in the 2000s.

A wide range of accessories were available for the Weebles including vehicles, buildings and furniture. Some sets had a theme to them, such as the Weebles circus set.


List of playsets
This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.

Weebleville (2004-2005)

* Weebleville Town Center
* Weeschool
* Wegetable Stand
* Weebles Barn Dance
* Weehicles (four sets)
* Weemobile
* Wescue Wagon
* Weegoaway Camper
* Weebly Wobbly Tree House
* Figures
* Mini Weebles Pals (larger figures)

Storybook World (2006)

* Hansel and Gretel's Wobbly Adventure
* Jack and Jill's Wobbly Adventure
* Goldilocks' Adventure Cottage
* Cinderella Carriage
* Weebly Knight & Ogre Adventure
* Weebalot Castle
* Figures

See also

* Weebl and Bob
* Okiagari-koboshi

References

1. WEEBLES - browse on Playskool web site

External links

* Playskool's Weebles site
* Weebles Wobble But They Don't Fall Down - A history of the Weeble
* Weebles memories and memorabilia
* Boston artist Jason Chase's Weeble Painting Series

Posted by: che | June 18, 2007 10:03 AM | Report abuse

'Since introducing the first funding bill for the DP-2 in 1988, Hunter, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, has received $36,000 from Tony duPont, head of the aerospace company. Cox, who sat on the House Science and Technology Committee, received $18,000.'

Posted by: your typical R candidate | June 18, 2007 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Shrum and other consultants push hard for their rich candidates to put out more commercials. One big reason is that the more commercials, the more money goes to the consultants in the form of fees.

Posted by: Bob | June 18, 2007 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Four months after Randy "Duke" Cunningham entered Congress in 1991, he joined with Rep. Duncan Hunter to urge the Pentagon to buy an aircraft that became the focus of a congressional investigation this week.

The DP-2 Vectored Thrust Aircraft, developed by duPont Aerospace in La Jolla, received $63 million in congressional funding despite repeated Pentagon studies that criticized the vehicle as being unsafe and unworkable.

After 20 years of testing, the aircraft has never flown and has never received a positive review from the military, prompting an investigation by the House Science and Technology Committee.

Funding for the aircraft was spearheaded by Hunter, R-Alpine, and former Rep. Christopher Cox, who now leads the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In 1990, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, issued a scathing report on the DP-2. DARPA found that the jet had poor stability and serious safety issues. Among other things, the jet's engines created dust storms that could erode visibility; its long-range fueling system was "unadvisable"; and its stealth capabilities - which Hunter cited as a major reason for supporting the project - made it only "marginally more survivable" than other aircraft.

As a result, DARPA decided to stop testing the aircraft, declining to use the $15 million that Congress had allocated at the time. But Hunter told The San Diego Union-Tribune yesterday that he disagreed with DARPA's rationale.

In order to pressure DARPA into continuing to test the project, Hunter went to the top of the Pentagon, writing a letter May 15, 1991, to then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney that Cunningham also signed.

Hunter and Cunningham wrote Cheney that they were "frustrated" that DARPA had declined to spend the money that Congress had allocated for the program.

"Mr. Secretary, the Congress has spoken on the DP-2," the two congressmen wrote. "We respectfully request that you advise DARPA to put an immediate halt to bureaucratic delays and get on with the DP-2 testing. . . . The military have a clear need for this aircraft and we have to stop a few bureaucrats from standing in the way."

Hunter and Cunningham asked to meet privately with Cheney to discuss the DP-2.

"I can't remember whether I talked to Dick Cheney or not," Hunter said yesterday.

A notation on the letter shows that Cheney personally reviewed it July 30, 1991. Two weeks later, DARPA officials sent a memo to Cheney's office, saying that "the DP-2 has been proposed several times to the Navy. Each time, the concept was rejected due to serious technical issues."

Nevertheless, the military was prodded to conduct more testing - and continued to report that there were serious flaws with the aircraft.

Cunningham is now serving just over eight years in jail for steering Pentagon contracts to businessmen who gave him hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions as well as at least $2.5 million in illegal gifts.

Posted by: your taxpayer dollars | June 18, 2007 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Are we allowing Shrum to tell us who we can legitimately discuss? I would like to hear more from all of the underrepresented candidates, especially Richardson, Ron Paul, Al Gore, Chuck Hagel, and Mike Bloomberg (OK, the last 3 aren't candidates yet, and may never be.) I don't need to hear any more from Hillary, Romney, and the GOP field horses.

Posted by: Bokonon | June 18, 2007 9:59 AM | Report abuse

"To some, Shrum is a visionary -- helping to guide the party's agenda through election after election."

To some? To who, the DLC?

No one is more singlehandedly responsible for losing elections that Bob Shrum. But being a hard core Republican in Democrat clothing -- a seminal DLC CEO boot licker -- he has allies all the way up to the Clintons.

I'm with Dean and the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. His 50 state strategy was a tremendous victory despite the exhortations of Emanuel and the other corporatists.

Shrum is living proof that the DLC approach of selling the party to the highest bidder is a losing strategy.

Posted by: trippin | June 18, 2007 9:56 AM | Report abuse

"I want to carry the big stick."
- Mitt Romney

Spoken like a man with a small stick.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2007 9:54 AM | Report abuse

again, no ron paul mention...

Posted by: C | June 18, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

The amazing thing here isn't the irony of a fat loser like Shrum trying to make a buck off of his craptacular record but that lazy legacy media outlets like this one continue to give this guy coverage. It's everything that's wrong not only with the insular DC Consultancy Class but the Washington Press Corpse, aka the Gang of 500 Wankers.

Posted by: scott | June 18, 2007 9:43 AM | Report abuse

The amazing thing here isn't the irony of a fat loser like Shrum trying to make a buck off of his craptacular record but that lazy legacy media outlikes like this one continue to give this guy coverage. It's everything that's wrong not only with the insular DC Consultancy Class but the Washington Press Corpse, aka the Gang of 500 Wankers.

Posted by: scott | June 18, 2007 9:42 AM | Report abuse

A different kind of amnesty: Republicans want to impose harsh mandatory-minimum sentences, except when it comes to Scooter - The AP reports (h/t Hilzoy) that Republicans will soon be pushing for mandatory minimum sentences for nearly all federal crimes.... The inability (or unwillingness) of Republicans to see the inherent contradictions between what they are saying in one context and what they are saying in another never ceases to amaze me.

When Scooter Libby is sentenced in accordance with existing sentencing guidelines, Republicans respond, almost universally, by decrying the injustice of this supposedly excessive sentence. But they respond legislatively by seeking to increase mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes, further tying the hands of federal judges and limiting their ability to be lenient when circumstances warrant leniency. In other words, not only are they unconcerned that the "injustice" that befell Scooter Libby might be repeated (or has already been repeated elsewhere), they are taking affirmative measures to ensure that thousands of additional unjust and excessive sentences will be handed down every year.

Posted by: Sadie | June 18, 2007 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin -- funny you should say that -- I just read the post anon put up, about what Biden said in response to Lieberman's irresponsible comment re Iran. 'Conservative' is really the wrong way to frame the issue. I'm a middle-aged suburban mother, really pretty conservative in a lot of ways, in the traditional sense of conservative, not the R party's hijacking of the word.

To me the problem with Biden was that he was too CORPORATE. He voted for bills like the wretched bankruptcy legislation, which was a giveaway to the financial lobby which enabled them to basically rape poor and indebted people by raising rates on past due accounts to incrediblly usurious highs and and a whole slew of other cruelly punitive provisions on people who can't fight back. Just the worst public policy imaginable.

He's been wrong on quite a few of these things. A lot I know is due to the awful campaign system we have, where our politicians are basically held hostage by transnational corporations, because how else are they going to raise the millions it takes to run?

In any case, Biden has been saying the right things lately, the only one saying sensible things. Nobody is saying that there might not come a time when we mgith have to attack any country who threatens us... but what the reppublicans and many dems have been doing with their belligerance is practially ensuring that we get into several other wars at once, a guaranteed lose-lose situation.

Mitty says he wants to 'carry the big stick' but he's conveniently leaving out the equally important first part of Rosevelt's motto, which is "SPEAK SOFTLY'...

Posted by: drindl | June 18, 2007 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Tell all books are always interesting to some people and I believe Shrum will make some money on his.

But how much respect can you have for a person who is hired and well paid by candidates and then uses information from the closed door meetings to further enrich himself. We now know that not only can't we talk to Bob Shrum at a dinner party but you shouldn't be talking to his wife, Mary Louise Oats either, as your conversation will appear in another book.

Guess their dinner invitations really should dry up quite substantially.And if they don't guests should be told- speak to them at your own risk!.

Bob Shrum is best known for being on the inside and advising on the most losing Presidential races in history. That could be a good header for his tombstone. "The Biggest Loser".

Posted by: peter | June 18, 2007 9:16 AM | Report abuse

'At a campaign stop in Iowa yesterday, Mitt Romney praised President Bush's performance in office, saying that Americans need to "get our mind-set out of just Iraq" and also look at the president in terms of the economy, judicial appointments and other issues. Romney also invoked the words of Theodore Roosevelt. "I want to carry the big stick," Romney said of his proposal to increase the size of the military. '

' i want to carry the big stick'. jeezus christ, what a moron.

and oh yes, don't think about iraq... look over there, it's an evillllll terist...

Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2007 9:09 AM | Report abuse

'Joe Biden lashed out at Joe Lieberman this morning on ABC's This Week, over Lieberman's talk of attacking Iran in retaliation for their government's alleged involvement in sending weapons to militias in Iraq. "Now if Joe could come up with me and tell me how he's going to, not even being able to quell things in Iraq, how he's going to go into a country of 72 million people, attack and not have our problems metastasize well beyond what they are now, I'd like to know what that is." Biden said defiantly.'

I'm beginning to like Biden better and better. He's the only saying this. Do we think that we can just go in and bomb Iran, kill maybe a million people with a nuke, and the other 71 million aren't going to do anything? This is a modern, well-off country. People can afford plane tickets, train tickets, bribing officials, weapons, etc. And of course there are millions of Iranians who are citizens here. Do you think they will mind if we start nuking their families back home?

And where will we get the troops to 'pacify' them? Iran is 5 times bigger than Iraq and look how well that's going. We would need over a million troops for that. I hope all you military age men are ready to go, becuase their will HAVE to be a draft.

Is there anyone foollish enough to think there won't be massive retaliation over here? You think 9/11 was bad? Expect that 10 or 100 or 1000 times over. Snipers in every shopping mall in every major city... car bombs, truck bombs, nukes in cargo, bombs in train stations, subways, airports. You want to see terrorism? Go ahead, bring it on yourself. I have never seen a country so intent on self destruction.

Posted by: the bellicose stupidity of it all | June 18, 2007 9:05 AM | Report abuse

I watched the video clip and what strikes me is that Shrum has written off every D but three, while in almost the same breath he criticized early polls.

To you committed Ds out there [Judge, Cassandra, lyle, drindl, etc.], is Biden too "conservative" for D voters?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 18, 2007 8:59 AM | Report abuse

'Petraeus then went on to endorse the "Korea model" for Iraq, which envisions keeping troops in the country for decades. "[T]ypically, I think historically, counterinsurgency operations have gone at least ten or twenty years or longer," said Petraeus. "I think in general that that's probably a fairly realistic assessment," Petraeus said of the Korea comparison.'

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki other ideas...

'Actually, we completely reject the word "pressure." We always tell them that there are two things you should avoid: That word [pressure], because the Iraqi government is a sovereign government. When the U.S. defense secretary said, "We want to stay for 50 years in Iraq," this had unpleasant consequences because this issue is the Iraqi government's business.'

..and after all we've done for them.

Posted by: $500 billion and counting... | June 18, 2007 8:55 AM | Report abuse

The Democratic party needs to back away as fast and far as possible from hacks like Shrum.

Posted by: Maria | June 18, 2007 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Shrum has been humping his book and his expertise to any media outlet/political talk show that will have him. He is positioning HIMSELF for "Carville Status" with the next Democratic nominee. He blew it the last (2) times by staying in the background and trying to manage his end of the candidates and the campaigns, from the boiler room. Now he's front and center and wants to be with the winner on January 20, '09. I don't have a lot of faith in his abilities or what he has to offer at this point in the game. Candidates should be very wary of him and his ilk. He's two steps away from being branded the next Dick Morris.

Posted by: L.Sterling | June 18, 2007 8:42 AM | Report abuse

On Gore: 'You know all that stuff we didn't like in 2000? Some of it's still there.'"

Yeah, except Gore got more votes than the other guy. He won the popular vote.

Nobody should listen to Shrum. He's a wanker and a sore loser. He did say one thing right, which is that Mitt has no principes and Fred Thompson is a blank slate. But then that's so obvious a child could see it.

Posted by: Cassandra | June 18, 2007 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Do people really listen to what this guy has to say? After he's screwed up more "can't be lost" campaigns than anyone else in U.S. history and then tried to profit off his failures by publishing a tell-all book about the candidates he helped lose?

What a joke.

Posted by: Kate | June 18, 2007 8:17 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company