Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Who's Who at Team Clinton

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) presidential campaign may be less than 48 hours old, but she already has a full stable of senior staffers in place. Here is a look at the people who will guide Clinton's White House bid.

Patti Solis Doyle: Unquestionably a first among equals in Clinton's inner circle, Solis Doyle will manage the campaign. She has been with Clinton since her days as the first lady of Arkansas.

Mike Henry: A newcomer to the Clinton circle, Henry will be deputy campaign manager. He made a name for himself by leading Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) to victory in 2005 and then overseeing Senate Democrats' national ad campaign in 2006.

Howard Wolfson: Wolfson will oversee the communications operation for Clinton, reprising the role he played in her 2000 Senate race. Wolfson has deep roots in New York Democratic Party politics, having worked for Sen. Charles E. Schumer and Rep. Nita M. Lowey.

Evelyn S. Lieberman: Lieberman, a former undersecretary of state and senior aide in President Bill Clinton's White House, will be chief operating officer of the campaign.

Jonathan Mantz: As finance director, Mantz has the Herculean task of raising the millions Clinton will need to compete in the four early voting states and beyond. Before joining Clinton, Mantz oversaw fundraising for New Jersey Gov. Jon S. Corzine (D).

Neera Tanden: Tanden served as policy adviser to President Bill Clinton and went on to work as the legislative director in Hillary Clinton's Senate office. She will be the campaign's policy director.

Kim Molstre: Fresh off a stint in the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Molstre will serve as director of scheduling and long-term planning. In 2004, Molstre worked on the presidential efforts of former congressman Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.).

Mandy Grunwald: A veteran of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, Grunwald designed the ads for Hillary Clinton's 2000 and 2006 Senate races. She will be the lead media consultant in 2008.

Mark Penn: The pollster of choice during President Bill Clinton's second term, Penn, like Grunwald, has been with Hillary Clinton since her run in 2000.

Phil Singer: Singer, the deputy communications director, is extremely close to Schumer, for whom he worked at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in the 2006 election. He also has experience in past presidential politics as a member of Kerry's rapid-response operation.

Leecia Eve: Eve, a Buffalo native, will be a senior policy adviser to the campaign. She worked as counsel to Clinton in her Senate office, leaving to make an abbreviated bid for lieutenant governor in New York in 2006.

Minyon Moore: Moore served a stint as political director in the Clinton White House and will be a senior adviser in the campaign. Moore, an African American, oversaw minority outreach for Kerry's 2004 campaign.

Ann Lewis: Lewis is a longtime Clinton loyalist. She was deputy campaign manager for President Bill Clinton's 1996 reelection race and handled communications during Hillary Clinton's 2006 reelection contest. She will be a senior adviser to the '08 campaign.

Clinton on the Web

* Campaign Web site
* post.com's Candidate Profile
* Official Senate Web site
* Clinton's Senate Voting Record

Inner Circle Archive

* Sam Brownback (R)
* Chris Dodd (D)
* John Edwards (D)
* Rudy Giuliani (R)
* Barack Obama (D)

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 22, 2007; 4:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008 , Inner Circle  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Post-ABC Poll: Clinton, Giuliani Lead Primary Fields
Next: A Democratic Cattle Call

Comments

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

Posted by: anonymous | January 31, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

"easy target" tips are all so SHORT-TERM... that's why it's not only impolite but also imprudent to wage a nasty attack campaign.

The point is not who can win, it's who will be a great president AFTER THEY HAVE WON.

Somebody's going to win. Personally I hope it is someone who is a decent president. The best chance for that is if we refrain from cluttering airwaves or blog entries with attacks, and let all the candidates' positive actions through.

Anyone who's not personally benefiting from a campaign, but is just a political junkie who wants the best from America -- like most people on this blog -- is best served by avoiding easy "tank" tips like hillary is an easy target suggests.

Posted by: Golgi | January 22, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

I am wondering when the MSM is going to "leak" the Rezko dealings (though slight in my opinion). I am assuming conveniently awaiting confirmation that Obama is running for the Presidency.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0611030337nov03,1,4420666.story

Posted by: Chicagoan | January 22, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I am wondering when the MSM is going to "leak" the Rezko dealings (though slight in my opinion). I am assuming conveniently awaiting confirmation that Obama is running for the Presidency.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0611030337nov03,1,4420666.story

Posted by: Chicagoan | January 22, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will be rather easy to tank:

1. Attack her head-on;
2. Use negative ads to up/maintain her negatives
3. Since she wants to hold the center, attack her substantively from the far left and the far right
4. Explain away everything she says as proof of her ruthless ambition, political calculation, emotional detachment, and lack of ethics.
5. Since she'd prefer to talk about domestic issues to younger women and African-Americans, attack her on foreign policy issues that married couples, older males, and middle-class whites care about

Thing is, probably no one will do this, because it will seem impolite.

Posted by: hillary is an easy target | January 22, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

By the way, I strongly believe none of this is going to be an issue for Obama.

For one thing, anything he has previously disclosed and discussed simply lacks the "scandal" factor. For another, I strongly doubt most people will think attending a Muslim school while living in Muslim country means Obama is some sort of Muslim Manchurian Candidate.

Posted by: DTM | January 22, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Well, it is hard to know now whether Obama's father's religious heritage is really an issue for Obama, or not. ProudtobeGOP, you say "The fact remains that it's an issue" but I would say that It all depends on how voters feel about it.

So far, I have only heard news stories and people who weren't going to vote for Obama anyway say that it's an issue. So it doesn't really seem like an issue.

The Romney-Mormon analogy isn't really accurate, because Romney is Mormon himself. Romney is not mainstream-Christian with half of his religious heritage Mormon; he's just Mormon. Obama, on the other hand, is mainstream Christian, with half of his religious heritage Muslim and the other half Christian.

We will just have to see how voters really feel about Obama's religious heritage. It is an interesting question, because we haven't had an interracial Christian candidate of multiple religious heritages, including some recent openly atheist "heritage" from his mother, running for president before.

Just because some other people say "the fact is" it's an issue for potential voters doesn't necessarily mean it will be an issue. Calling something a fact doesn't turn it into a fact...

This is a very interesting discussion, by the way. I'm glad you brought it up, PTBGOP.

Posted by: Golgi | January 22, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes "The fact remains that it's an issue for him, like it or not... Romney's Mormonism is a factor in the same way; there's no need for him to get defensive about it, but it is an issue for voters."

The lesson to be learned is taught by George Allen, with reference to his Jewishness.

Posted by: bsimon | January 22, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

drindl,

The problem is that if you attack the individual, you are in practice eliminating that person as a potential convert to your views, and perhaps also anyone witnessing the exchange who sympathizes with that person.

More broadly, we are all struggling to sort through a multitude of sources of conflicting and often biased information (and yes, sometimes outright lies). So, I'm just not of a mind to blame people for echoing misinformation--I'd rather help them find better information.

Posted by: DTM | January 22, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Proud,
The difference is that Senator Obama isn't a Muslim, he is a christian who talks very openly about his faith. Also again I point out that Barack has talked about his issue in his book, and in shows that I have seen. Now I personally see nothing wrong with parents giving thier child a broad view of what the belief systems of other people are.
Now in the Case of Mitt. I am not voting for him because I have seen how he has totally screwed Massachusetts in his relentless climb to the top. Not because he is a Mormon.

Posted by: Andy R | January 22, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

golgi,
MSM stands for Main Stream Media. The ABC, CBS's of the world.

Posted by: Andy R | January 22, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

The fact remains that it's an issue for him, like it or not. Even liberals think so...doesn't really matter who started the discussion. Romney's Mormonism is a factor in the same way; there's no need for him to get defensive about it, but it is an issue for voters.
to wit: "Juan Williams was asked his opinion on the state of race/sex relations as the impact they have on presidential campaigns. "My sense," he opined, "is that I think a white woman has a better chance . . . When you talk about things like experience, she's had a term in the senate, now starting her second, but I don't think it's that much greater in terms of foreign policy experience. In terms of Obama and race, don't forget the idea that he comes from a father who's a Muslim and all that."

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 22, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

The word MSM has come up a few times on this board. Would someone tell me what MSM is, please? The context suggests it seems to be some sort of a right-wing news outlet (??) It has always been mentioned in context that suggests it is a smear-dispensing outlet, but would someone just explain what it is more specifically, and what the letters stand for, and perhaps with a specific example to illustrate why some posters here don't like it. Thanks!

Posted by: Golgi | January 22, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

golgi, I posted Kurtz'scolumn, because I wanted to show how this was a rightwing meme that has been circulating.. it seems to have started with unsubstantiated 'sources' at the Moonie, uh, Washington Times... which is like fox, a rumor mill. The whole rightwing media now operates like drudge.. they just make stuff up.

Isn't it odd that Bush and Moon [who is a total whackjob who think's he's the messiah] are such good friends? Moon and his cult have made a huge amount of money off this administration and its funnel 'o taxpayer cash to 'faith-based' institutions, so it's no wonder the moonies are happy to spread repulican lies.

Posted by: drindl | January 22, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to whoever pasted the on-topic Washington Post article. I also share DTM's feeling that the real source of the story was Fox or one of its compatriots, and that the story was designed to take Clinton and Obama down together. Kind of like "smear laundering."

The silver lining is that at least Fox now feels that smears require laundering. That is a step up from last election when Fox had no problem being the proud author of smears.

It was also a very refreshing sign that the Washington Post covered the ins and outs of the whole "Clinton-dirt-school" story just a week after the story surfaced.

Could it be that Fox's national reputation (not just its reputation among the left) is heading along the same path as the National Enquirer? Perhaps not even smear laundering can save Fox now.

Posted by: Golgi | January 22, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Watch for the two Warners in Va. Just a hunch on this but should John retire that would leave Byah of Indiana as Hillarys running mate and Mark could take the Senate seat.

Posted by: lylepink | January 22, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

That's very reasonable, but the individual person is the one who is echoing that line, who is spreading the lie, who knows it is a lie.

If someone doesn't want to be attacked personally, they shouldn't slime others.

Posted by: drindl | January 22, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

drindl,

If you feel a candidate is being "swiftboated" (and I personally feel that Fox is indeed trying to take simultaneous swipes at both Obama and Clinton), then you can make that argument. But I don't think that means you have to attack the individual person who is echoing that line. Rather, you can try to point out what Fox is trying to do and why it should be ignored.

In fact, again in my experience, individual Republicans can often conclude that they don't like the tactics of certain Republican politicians or institutions. But they are more likely to come to that conclusion if the argument is not personalized, because no one likes being attacked personally.

And incidentally, all this applies to Democrats too.

Posted by: DTM | January 22, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

'But I also think it is unwise for Democrats to discourage an open dialogue with Republicans about potential candidates. '

I agree with that. But calling people when they are engaging in a disingenious smear campaign [which they know is a blatant lie] is a different matter.

How was this Barack and Hillary business different from swiftboating? Answer: it wasn't.

Posted by: drindl | January 22, 2007 11:54 AM | Report abuse


'On Friday afternoon, John Gibson, host of Fox's "The Big Story," began a segment this way: "Hillary Clinton reported to be already digging up the dirt on Barack Obama. The New York senator has reportedly outed Obama's madrassah past. That's right, the Clinton team reported to have pulled out all the stops to reveal something Obama would rather you didn't know -- that he was educated in a Muslim madrassah."

Reportedly?

Gibson's guest, Republican strategist Terry Holt, a former Bush campaign spokesman, said that the effort could be "a despicable act by an absolutely ruthless Clinton political machine. We know that they are capable of doing this." But if the information wasn't linked to Clinton, Holt said, she should "disavow" it. There was no Democratic strategist on the segment.'

Posted by: Anonymous | January 22, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Maybe it is because I am not a Democrat, or maybe it is because I have a lot of Republican relatives and friends, but I also think it is unwise for Democrats to discourage an open dialogue with Republicans about potential candidates. Even if they end up committing to voting for the GOP candidate, they may have interesting insights. Moreover, a large number of crossover voters in presidential elections is actually the historic norm, not the exception, even though the last couple elections have been more sharply polarized. So, I personally wouldn't rule out a large number of Republicans voting for a Democrat in 2008, or vice-versa for that matter.

Posted by: DTM | January 22, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

'Days after Barack Obama jumped into the presidential sweepstakes, he was hit with a thinly sourced story from his past--39 years in his past, to be exact.

The allegation, by a conservative magazine, raised questions about whether the Illinois senator had been schooled in Islamic radicalism when he was all of 6 years old.

Insight, a magazine owned by the Washington Times, cited unnamed sources in saying that young Barack attended a madrassah, or Muslim religious school, in Indonesia. In his 1995 autobiography, Obama said his Indonesian stepfather had sent him to a "predominantly Muslim school" in Jakarta, after two years in a Catholic school -- but Insight goes further in saying it was a madrassah and that Obama was raised as a Muslim.

Fox News picked up the Insight charge on two of its programs, playing up an angle involving Hillary Clinton. The magazine, citing only unnamed sources, said that researchers "connected" to the New York senator were allegedly spreading the information about her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The New York Post, which, like Fox, is owned by Rupert Murdoch, also picked up the article, with the headline: " 'OSAMA' MUD FLIES AT OBAMA."

Thus, in the first media controversy of the 2008 campaign, two of the leading candidates find themselves forced to respond to allegations lacking a single named source.

"The allegations are completely false," says Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs. "To publish this sort of trash without any documentation is surprising, but for Fox to repeat something so false, not once, but many times is appallingly irresponsible. This is exactly the type of slash-and-burn politics the American people are sick and tired of." Obama, aides note, is a Christian and belongs to a Chicago church.

Clinton campaign officials were relieved that what they regard as an absurd allegation was not picked up more widely. "It's an obvious right-wing hit job by a Moonie publication that was designed to attack Senator Clinton and Senator Obama at the same time," says Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson. Insight, like the Washington Times, is owned by a company controlled by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. No one answered the phone at Insight's office yesterday and its editor did not respond to an e-mail request for comment.'

Posted by: what the wapo says... | January 22, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Andy R writes
"I am curious of what early State HRC is going to win."


You just outlined why HRC doesn't need to win any early states. If she takes 2nd place in NH, Iowa, NV & SC, who's the frontrunner - a candidate that can win one state, or a candidate who places 2nd consistently?

Personally, I find the whole primary process a bit disappointing, it seems to deliver flawed candidates. Kerry wasn't the best Dem candidate in 2004 & Bush wasn't the best Rep in 2000.

Posted by: bsimon | January 22, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse


'If you missed this early morning yahoo story please read it again and try and let it sink in: we are slowly but steadily moving towards a plain vanilla banana republic - complete with visits to our homes from Saddam's, er sorry, Bush's security forces, in the dark of night.

The yahoo story in question is this:

Pa. man's letter brings Secret Service

http://news.yahoo.com/...

BETHLEHEM, Pa. - An elderly man who wrote in a letter to the editor about Saddam Hussein's execution that "they hanged the wrong man" got a visit from Secret Service agents concerned he was threatening President Bush.

The letter by Dan Tilli, 81, was published in Monday's edition of The Express-Times of Easton, Pa. It ended with the line, "I still believe they hanged the wrong man."

Tilli said the statement was not a threat. "I didn't even say who -- I could've meant (Osama) bin Laden," he said Friday.

Two Secret Service agents questioned Tilli at his Bethlehem apartment Thursday, briefly searching the place and taking pictures of him, he said.'

Posted by: Anonymous | January 22, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

IF THE GWOT ACTUALLY EXISTED...

we wouldn't have let this happen, would we?

' The Taliban said they will open their own schools in areas of southern Afghanistan under the group's control, an apparent effort to win support among local residents and undermine the Western-backed government's efforts to expand education.

The announcement follows a violent campaign by the fundamentalist Islamic group against state schools in the five years since its ouster by U.S.-led forces. The Taliban destroyed 200 schools and killed 20 teachers last year, and President Hamid Karzai said Sunday that 200,000 children had been driven from the classroom.

The Taliban's announcement that they will open schools "is like putting salt into the wound," said Mohammad Hanif Atmar, Afghanistan's education minister.

Abdul Hai Muthmahien, the purported chief spokesman for the militants, said the group will begin providing Islamic education to students in March in at least six southern provinces, funded by $1 million allotted by the Taliban's ruling council. He said textbooks would be the same ones used during Taliban rule.'

We abondoned Afghanistan to chase oil in Iraq, and this is the result. Soon the Taliban will run the entire country again.

thank you GW bush. what a colossal fraud and failure you are.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 22, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Golgi I second your comments on 'proud'.

I also agree that I am not writing off Richardson either, nor do I think most people here have. His resume makes him a serious candidate and his appeal in the West is huge. I am interested to see what happens with his negociated peace plan in Darfur. If it holds up decently well then I will give him serious consideration for my vote.
One thing that troubles me about him is that the NRA gave him an A rating. Anyone that the NRA likes gives me pause. But then again Dean had an A rating too, so you never know.

Posted by: Andy R | January 22, 2007 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Thanks golgi, for that small moment of sanity and polite discourse. poor drindl is still hoping that Al Gore will run in '08 so you must forgive her vitriol.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 22, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

'like the inconvenient truth that he was schooled in a Muslim seminary or madrasa for years as a child, which Clinton insiders discovered and quickly leaked. Let's have a talk, a chat, let's start a dialogue...about Obama's Muslim heritage.'

That's a complete parroting of Fox talking points, golgi. It was intended to be a smear.

I've had plenty of discussion with moderate R's, but mostly what we get are simply out to disseminate righwing talking points, like the above.

Why don't you ask her if she thinks it's okay for muslims to hold elected office in this country? How about it, 'proud'? What do you actually think about muslims?

Posted by: drindl | January 22, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse

oh please, golgi, do you really think 'proud' wants to have a rational conversation/ i sincerely doubt it. i think she's just trying to slime him. what else do they do?

and why dems are attracted to 'has-beens'? well, one of them got more votes, and hence, was the people's choice, in 2000. also, experience and intelligence.

and what is mccain but a has been loser? a man who's willing to kiss the butt of bush, who slimed his family. not only a has-bben but a craven toady.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 22, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

We've become a nation of special interest power-pockets and king-makers.... so Clinton's handlers sprinkle the requisite stardust on the hapless and stampeded electorate and takes the lead (for the moment).

Jokes like Romney (just ask someone from Massachusetts) raise enough money, and hire enough enablers, to rise to the top like curdling cream.

In the meanwhile.... as their country slides into a corporate fascist third-world status.... Americans salivate over the latest ridiculing episode of American Idol.

I must avert my eyes from the arena....

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | January 22, 2007 11:04 AM | Report abuse

BTW, I don't have the impression of proudtobeGOP from either today's post or posts in the past that s/he is a tool of the right, or that s/he is a particularly hateful person. Just thought I would throw that out there. This board could actually use more regular Republican posters (I'm saying this as a moderate Democrat who sees the value in lively debate as a generator of new ideas...) so I just don't see why it is healthful to insult and attack the few patient Repubs (not "repugs") who do post here.

Posted by: Golgi | January 22, 2007 11:02 AM | Report abuse

'...New details also emerged about clashes on Saturday in the Shiite holy city of Karbala, which left five Americans dead. Lt. Col. Scott R. Bleichwehl, an American military spokesman, said the gunmen who stormed the provincial governor's office during a meeting between American and local officials were wearing what appeared to be American military uniforms in an effort to impersonate United States soldiers.

The sophisticated attack hinted at what could be a new threat for American troops as they start a fresh security plan centered on small bases in Baghdad's bloodiest neighborhoods, where troops will live and work with Iraqi forces. One of the American military's greatest concerns, military officials have said, is that troops will be vulnerable to attack from killers who appear to be colleagues.

It is not uncommon for gunmen to impersonate Iraqi security forces, but this appears to be the first time that attackers have portrayed themselves as Americans. ...

More from the Post:
After arriving at the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala, 60 miles southwest of Baghdad, the attackers detonated sound bombs, Iraqi officials said. "They wanted to create a panic situation," said an aide to Karbala Gov. Akeel al-Khazaali, who described the events with the governor's permission but on condition of anonymity because he fears reprisals.

The men then stormed into a room where Americans and Iraqis were making plans to ensure the safety of thousands of people expected to visit the holy city for an upcoming holiday.

"They didn't target anyone but the American soldiers," the governor's aide said.

After the attack, the assailants returned to their vehicles and drove away.

So the attackers killed the Americans but spared the Iraqi Security Forces in the room meeting with them? Who would have had the capability to mount such an operation, and have such intel on who was meeting where and when, down to the room?''

--this is just a preview of the even graver dangers that this new bush 'plan' for chaos is going to subject our soldiers to.

Posted by: the worst yet | January 22, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

'...New details also emerged about clashes on Saturday in the Shiite holy city of Karbala, which left five Americans dead. Lt. Col. Scott R. Bleichwehl, an American military spokesman, said the gunmen who stormed the provincial governor's office during a meeting between American and local officials were wearing what appeared to be American military uniforms in an effort to impersonate United States soldiers.

The sophisticated attack hinted at what could be a new threat for American troops as they start a fresh security plan centered on small bases in Baghdad's bloodiest neighborhoods, where troops will live and work with Iraqi forces. One of the American military's greatest concerns, military officials have said, is that troops will be vulnerable to attack from killers who appear to be colleagues.

It is not uncommon for gunmen to impersonate Iraqi security forces, but this appears to be the first time that attackers have portrayed themselves as Americans. ...

More from the Post:
After arriving at the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala, 60 miles southwest of Baghdad, the attackers detonated sound bombs, Iraqi officials said. "They wanted to create a panic situation," said an aide to Karbala Gov. Akeel al-Khazaali, who described the events with the governor's permission but on condition of anonymity because he fears reprisals.

The men then stormed into a room where Americans and Iraqis were making plans to ensure the safety of thousands of people expected to visit the holy city for an upcoming holiday.

"They didn't target anyone but the American soldiers," the governor's aide said.

After the attack, the assailants returned to their vehicles and drove away.

So the attackers killed the Americans but spared the Iraqi Security Forces in the room meeting with them? Who would have had the capability to mount such an operation, and have such intel on who was meeting where and when, down to the room?''

--this is just a preview of the even graver dangers that this new bush 'plan' for chaos is going to subject our soldiers to.

Posted by: the worst yet | January 22, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Hi Proud,

I have no idea why we Dems are swept away with has-beens (in my opinion, that includes H. Clinton and A. Gore). Wish I could answer you, but honestly I haven't a clue.

Re media stars, the idea that a lot of Dems have about Obama is that his qualities are the cause of the media following him, that he isn't media-created at all but instead that the media is following him because a lot of real people care about what he is saying.

Why don't we support a solid candidate like Richardson. Well, I am interested to hear what Richardson has to say, so I haven't written him off at all. Let's hear the case for Richardson!

"Muslim heritage," sure, why not open a dialogue? My own understanding is that Obama grew up being introduced to a lot of different religious backgrounds, including Muslim, but wasn't made to participate in any of them as a regular practicer himself. That's the difference between going to Catholic school as a non-Catholic because it's the best school around, versus going to a Catholic school in order to learn to be a good Catholic. Obama went to a local Catholic school to learn the three R's, and also to a local Muslim school for the same reason, to learn the three R's. It sounds like he didn't receive much focused religious instruction from his atheist (Christian heritage) mother at all. Then as an adult, he learned more about Christianity, found that Christianity spoke to him, and joined that faith. So, that's my take. But I don't think it would hurt to open it up more for further conversation. Why not?

Posted by: Golgi | January 22, 2007 10:52 AM | Report abuse

'With as many as 27 candidates in the field -- and we don't have any doubt that a few more will emerge between now and then -- it's way too early to be picking any winners. Newsweek is trying anyway.

In a new poll, the magazine finds that a generic Democratic candidate enjoys a 21-point advantage over a generic Republican candidate for the White House. But once you start replacing generic candidates with real ones, things get a whose lot closer. Newsweek didn't try a head-on-head matchup with all 27, but it did test voter preferences among five perceived front-runners. The only outside-the-margin-of-error result: Edwards beats McCain, 48-43. Within the margin of error: Edwards beats Giuliani.'

Posted by: Anonymous | January 22, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Well andy, the wingers are racists and bigots. They hate mexicans, they hate blacks, they hate muslims,they hate strong women, in fact they hate anyone who isn't just like them. They enjoy hating so much they believe that everyone feels the same way, so they think spreading this information will make everyone hate both hillary and obama as much as they do.

see?

Posted by: drindl | January 22, 2007 10:41 AM | Report abuse

I don't see how this is news about Obama. I have heard him talk about how his mother took him to all types of different religious institutions when he was a child. I have heard him say that he had attended a Mosque for a short time when he was younger and what he learned from that experience. Also it doesn't matter if Hillary or the GOP dug it up better that it comes out now then in one year.

Posted by: Andy R | January 22, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

'PESHAWAR, Pakistan (Reuters) - A rare suicide car bomb attack in North Waziristan killed four Pakistani soldiers and a woman passer-by on Monday, raising fears that government peace deals in the pro-Taliban region were disintegrating.

In addition to the deaths, a military spokesman said nine soldiers had been wounded, some critically, when the car rammed an army convoy at Khajori checkpost, near the town of Mir Ali, where Taliban and al Qaeda fighters have been active in the past.'

Posted by: chaos widening, deepening | January 22, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

You'll see now, all over the chat rooms committed liars like 'proud to be a tool' already starting the spin and lies.

Didn't take long, did it? They do love to hate so much. It's like a deep hunger for hatred.

Posted by: drindl | January 22, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Fox News is pushing the Obama madrassah story on several of their programs. How do you figure that Hillary Clinton is to blame?

Posted by: Blarg | January 22, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

proud to be gullible... yeah, folks like you are part of the problem, alright, the incredible orwellian twistedness. It wasn't Clinton who started that dirt -- we saw it all over the airwaves last week - by rush limbaugh, by sean hannity, by Fox, by a host of winger bloggers - the spin machine in action. It was all about this 'madrassa' business, about obama being a muslim, which he is NOT. he has been a christian since the 80's.

But you're not interested in the truth.

Posted by: drindl | January 22, 2007 10:28 AM | Report abuse

so far Richardson and Obama are the two that have impressed me the most. my ideal ticket would be Obama-Richardson, but unfortunately, that probably won't happen.

Posted by: meuphys | January 22, 2007 10:25 AM | Report abuse

"That's why I'm afraid for Hillary and Obama"
Give me a break! Obama only has to fear the Clinton machine which is fully engaged in uncovering dirt about him already, like the inconvenient truth that he was schooled in a Muslim seminary or madrasa for years as a child, which Clinton insiders discovered and quickly leaked. Let's have a talk, a chat, let's start a dialogue...about Obama's Muslim heritage.
Why don't the dems support a solid candidate like Richardson, rather than getting swept away with media-stars and has-beens?

Posted by: proutobeGOP | January 22, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Gore Gore Gore...
He is not going to run.
If you want to know why (can hardly believe I am about to say this) watch the most irritating episode of South Park ever, "ManBearPig." That episode irritates me because it hints global warming isn't real, and I think the scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that global warming IS real.

But even though the episode irritates me, it perfectly captures America's attitude toward Gore: Gentle pity. That's not what makes a presidential candidate win.

Gore has no wish to put himself through this process again only to lose definitively. At least now he is an almost-was-President. If he runs again he will just be an obvious couldn't-win candidate.

Wager: If Gore runs, I will personally write an homage to JEP/MikeB as an honorable blogger and retire permanently from this board, because Gore running will teach me that my hunches aren't worth cr*p.

Posted by: Golgi | January 22, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, you should give the democrats more credit then that. I think that Hillary Clinton has more then enough backbone to stand up to any criticism thrown at her from Rove and his cronies. Also it wasn't the swiftboat thing that killed Kerry (although it didn't help) it was the flip-flop tag they through on him. Then when he said "I voted for it before I voted against it" That just sealed the deal. In a time of war like 2004 the american public wanted steadfast determination, and Kerry just didn't project that.

Posted by: Andy R | January 22, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse

'At least 78 people are dead today after bomb attacks in a commercial area of Baghdad, reports say. Elsewhere, the U.S. military reports the deaths of two Marines.

"The first blast, a parked car bomb, tore through stalls of vendors peddling DVDs and secondhand clothes shortly after noon in the Bab al-Sharqi market between Tayaran and Tahrir squares -- one of the busiest parts of Baghdad," the Associated Press reports. "Seconds later a suicide car bomber drove into the crowd. Police estimated that each car was loaded with nearly 220 pounds of explosives."

The area is known as a Shiite area, the AP says. According to the BBC, the market is popular with low income Baghdadis and often packed with traffic.

Reuters has more from the scene: "Reuters reporters heard the two blasts, which sent thick clouds of black smoke into the air. In the aftermath of the explosions, bodies lay charred on the ground in front of market stalls that were mangled and blackened. Minibuses and other cars ferried the wounded away as firemen put out the flames."

Posted by: oh for christs sake | January 22, 2007 9:56 AM | Report abuse

I am curious of what early State HRC is going to win.
In Iowa she is fighting an uphill battle on two fronts. First, Edwards has her in the few polls that have come out. Second, I just don't see her as the downhome type who can sit in a room with 30 farmers and talk about farm-subsidies without blaming it all on President Bush.

In Nevada, Richardson will be a formidable challenger with his regional appeal and his connection to the hispanic community. Not to mention the fact that Edwards has such strong ties to the labor movement that is alive and strong in Nevada.

Now in New Hampshire you run into the Obama juggernaut. The folks of the granite state love thier politics and it seems that Senator Obama has won the hearts and minds of the folks there. NH is one of the those places where everyone who votes in the primaries meets the candidates and I don't see HRC beating out Obama or Edwards in a face to face comparison. She just doesn't have the personality.

Then South Carolina is Edwards to lose. HRC knows she can't win the south and she won't even try. You might see some effort in Arkansas but that is it.

So in essence although she is way up in the national polls (remeber Dean in 03) she has an uphill battle in the four states that will determine the election.

Posted by: Andy R | January 22, 2007 9:52 AM | Report abuse

I would love to see Gore run. But the question is, does he have the stomach to deal with the filth that the wingers will dump on him?

This will be the worst election yet -- the repugs are desperate, desperate, to hang on to the presidency. They will do anything. That's why I'm afraid for Hillary and Obama. I'm just not sure it's possible for anyone with any sort of ideals to win in America anymore. The cynical are too good at manipulating the simple. Hillary and Obama are easier targets.

Once the inevitable swiftboating begins, the right echo chambers of fox and talk radio start spinning for real, and the MSM starts jumping on the bandwagon and trashing the Dem nominee [as they have done for several elections now] will whom we choose have the strength to stand up to all that?

It's a lot easier for the repugs -- they never have to deal with media scrutiny. Look how they let bushie skate, and the mess we're in because of it.

Posted by: drindl | January 22, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Gore could not be positioned more perfectly--expect him to announce in May and the blogosphere and grassroots to explode in support.
www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

Posted by: Minor Ripper | January 22, 2007 9:36 AM | Report abuse

'This is precious. Apparently Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is going to go after outgoing Iraq commander Gen. George Casey in his nomination hearings to become the next Chief of Staff of the Army.

Said Sen. McCain: ""I have very serious concerns about General Casey's nomination. I'm concerned about failed leadership, the message that sends to the rest of the military."

'Failed leadership' here, of course, is code for toeing the Bush line for the last two years and then resisting the new effort to dig the US even deeper into the mess of Iraq. In other words, Casey becomes the lamb in whose blood the sins of the Iraq War dead-enders (Bush, McCain, et al.) are washed clean.

Comic, Orwellian, so many possible descriptions.'

Posted by: coward | January 22, 2007 9:07 AM | Report abuse


For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

Do new Ohio recount prosecutions indicate unraveling of 2004 election theft cover-up?

By Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman

Three criminal prosecutions in Ohio's biggest county have opened with strong indications that the cover-up of the theft of the 2004 presidential election is starting to unravel. Prosecutors say these cases involve "rigging" the recount in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), where tens of thousands of votes were shifted from John Kerry to George W. Bush, or else never counted.

Meanwhile, corroborating evidence continues to surface throughout Ohio, illuminating the GOP's theft of the presidency.

According to the Associated Press (AP), County Prosecutor Kevin Baxter opened the Cuyahoga trial by charging that "the evidence will show that this recount was rigged, maybe not for political reasons, but rigged nonetheless." Baxter said the three election workers "did this so they could spend a day rather than weeks or months" on the recount.

Jacqueline Maiden, the county election board's third-ranking employee, faces six counts of misconduct involving ballot review. Rosie Grier, the board's ballot department manager, and Kathleen Dreamer, an assistant manager, are also charged. All three are on paid administrative leave, and are being supported by the county board of elections.

The county prosecutors do not allege vote fraud. No do they say mishandling the recount affected the election's outcome.

But Cleveland, which usually gives Democrats an extremely heavy margin, was crucial to Bush's alleged victory of roughly 118,000 votes out of 5.5 million counted. Some 600,000 votes were cast or counted in Cuyahoga County. But official turnout and vote counts varied wildly and improbably from precinct to precinct. Overall the county reported about a 60 percent turnout. But several predominantly black precincts, where voters went more than 80 percent for Kerry, reported turnouts of 30 percent or less. In one ward, only a 7 percent turnout was reported, while surrounding precincts were nearly 10 times as high. Independent studies indicate thousands of votes in Cuyahoga County that rightfully should have been counted in Kerry's column.

In the Cuyahoga case, the poll workers are charged with circumventing state recount laws that require a random sampling of at least 3 percent of the votes cast in a given precinct to be recounted by hand and by machine. The prosecution charges that the workers instead hand-picked sample precincts to recount that they knew did not have questionable results. Once they were able to match those recounts with official results, they could then do the rest of the recount by machine, in effect rendering the entire process meaningless. "This was a very hush operation," said prosecutor Baxter.

Similar allegations have been made in other counties. Indeed, such illegal non-random recounting procedures appear to have been common throughout the state, carried out by board of election employees with the tacit consent of then Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell. Blackwell was officially charged with administering the election that gave Bush a second term while simultaneously serving as the Ohio co-chair of his Bush's re-election campaign. Blackwell has just been overwhelmingly defeated in his own attempt to become governor of Ohio.

Defense attorney Roger Synenberg, who represents Dreamer, told the jury that the recount was an open process, and that his client and the others "were just doing it the way they were always doing it."

The Ohio recount was forced by the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, which raised over $100,000 to cover costs. They charge the recount was fraudulent due largely to the kinds of irregularities with which the Cuyahoga poll workers are now charged. Those charges carry sentences of up to 18 months in prison each, and include failure to perform duties imposed by law; misconduct; knowingly disobeying elections law; unlawfully obtaining possession of ballots/ballot boxes or pollbooks; and unlawfully opening or permitting the opening of a sealed package containing ballots.

But the trial in Cleveland represents just a small sampling of what happened during the Ohio recount. At a public hearing sponsored by the Free Press in Toledo in December 2004, sworn testimony claimed that Diebold technicians were party to picking the "random" precincts to be recounted. At least one of the precincts lacked a memory card for the recount using the Opti-Scan machine.

In Miami County, election officials admit that they did not recount to verify the official vote total, but merely ran the Opti-Scan ballots through the ES 550 counter, and then counted them to see if they matched the machine count. In essence, what they did was a test of the counting machine, not a recount to the actual reported votes. Miami's procedures were thus as illegal as those in Cuyahoga.

Indeed, when the Free Press audited all the recounted ballots from Miami County, we found the so-called recount results differed noticeably from the official results. If these differences in results were discovered at the recount in 2004, Ohio law should have triggered a hand recount of all ballots in the county. That was never done.

In Fairfield County, when the recount totals wouldn't match, Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell recommended Sam Hogsett, an ES&S employee, to assist with the process. Despite complaints from a Democratic election officer, Hogsettt worked the central tabulator and counter. Hogsett somehow managed to make the recount match, thus avoiding a full manual recount.

Hogsettt is on record in a local newspaper saying that he would like to shoot a "liberal" so the liberal would learn that it wasn't the gun that killed him, but the shooter, Hogsett. Green Party recount coordinator Paddy Shaffer complained to Delaware County election officials about

For the rest of this article please go to:

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1661.shtml

Posted by: che | January 22, 2007 9:03 AM | Report abuse

I meant, for Hillary to win. Look at what a flipflopping lying scum McCain is:

'In October 2006, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called for "another 20,000 troops in Iraq." In January 2007, President Bush accepted the idea and announced he would send 21,500 more soldiers into the middle of Iraq's civil war. McCain quickly endorsed the strategy.

Since that time, McCain has been slowly back-pedaling from the escalation plan, offering numerous reasons for why the strategy will not succeed. He has argued the Pentagon was "dragging its feet" in implementing the strategy. Now, he is arguing that the escalation is too small.

On NBC's Meet the Press, McCain said, "I would have liked to have seen more" troops sent to Iraq. He added, "If it had been up to me," more U.S. troops would be on their way into Baghdad. '

He knows it won't work. He always knew it wouldn't work. He just didn't think bush would go for it. Then he could have said, 'if only he'd done it my way, we would have 'won'. But they both know it will fail. Bush doesn't care about anything except extending the war until after his term is over, so he won't be embarrassed by the chaos that will result when we leave -- whether it's now or five years from now.

Now McCain has to up the ante, saying we should send in more troops --because he knows we don't have anymore -- and that it's impossible. Both of them are playing politics with the lives of soldiers and it's sickening to watch. How cynical they are, how brutally cynical.

Posted by: lark | January 22, 2007 9:03 AM | Report abuse

If you looked at the comments from the last posting, you'll see why I believe it will be nearly impossible to win. The country is still full of righwing cretins who have learned nothing from the last six years. The dittoheads and drudgers are still a large voting block.

It is interesting, and revealing about the nature of the hypocritical 'family values' republican party today, that all of their front runners are men who dumped their wives and children. Some family values, hmm? That was a lie, just like everything else they do and say.

Posted by: lark | January 22, 2007 8:56 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company