Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Edwards Inner Circle

Ever since John Kerry came up short in his 2004 challenge to President Bush, his running mate -- John Edwards -- has been preparing for a second bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a decision he formalized Thursday in New Orleans and Des Moines.

With a second run never really in doubt, Edwards has kept a small group of senior advisers close to him over the intervening years, and those individuals will once again form the core of the Edwards inner circle. Not everyone is back -- spokeswoman Kim Rubey has decided to head into the consulting world. But by and large those who advised Edwards in his surprisingly strong 2004 campaign for president are back for a second shot at the highest office in the land.

Here's a look at Edwards's Inner Circle:

* David Bonior: Bonior is a former congressman from Michigan who served stints as House majority and minority whip. Bonior, who enjoys strong ties with liberals in the party as well as organized labor, will serve as campaign manager.

* Julius Chambers: A former chancellor at North Carolina Central University, Chambers served as treasurer of Edwards's 2004 effort and will do so again in 2008. Chambers, who is black, is a well-known civil rights attorney.

* Harrison Hickman: Hickman has been Edwards's pollster since 1997, helping to guide the candidate to a win over Sen. Lauch Faircloth (R) in 1998 and playing a critical role in Edwards's 2004 presidential run. Hickman polled for Rep. Ben Cardin's (D-Md.) successful candidacy for Senate in 2006.

* Jennifer Swanson: Swanson has been the chief fundraiser for Edwards since 2004. She served in that position at his One America Committee and she'll do the same in 2008.

* Nick Baldick: A longtime party operative who ran New Hampshire for Al Gore in 2000, Baldick was Edwards's campaign manager in 2004. This time around he'll be focused almost exclusively on the four early voting states: Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. It's a role similar to the one Michael Whouley played for Kerry during the 2004 nomination fight.

* Jonathan Prince: Prince, too, is back for Edwards's second run and will again be tasked with moving the candidate's message, serving in a senior communications role. Prince was one of several Edwards insiders who helped organize and raise money for Citizens for a Strong Senate, an independent group that spent millions to influence the 2004 elections.

* David Ginsberg: Like Prince, Ginsberg will playing a senior communications/messaging role, though for the first six months (or so) of the campaign he will be based in D.C., not Raleigh. Ginsberg currently works at Penn Schoen & Berland Associates, a Democratic polling firm.

* Jennifer Palmieri: Palmieri will be working with Prince and Ginsburg on the communications front and also will be involved with the group charged with handling Elizabeth Edwards, the candidate's wife, who is expected to play a prominent role in the campaign. Palmieri is a past press secretary at the Democratic National Committee and now works as a spokeswoman for the liberal Center for American Progress.

* Miles Lackey: A North Carolina native, Lackey served as Edwards's chief of staff in the Senate and as a senior adviser to the candidate in 2004, a role he will reprise in 2008.

* Matthew Gross: Gross made his name in 2004 as Internet Director in former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's upstart presidential bid, which relied heavily on the Web for grassroots organizing and fundraising. Gross has been working for Edwards's One America Committee.

* David Madina: Madina will be political director for the presidential effort, a position he has held for the last two years at One America.

* Christina Reynolds: Reynolds is an extremely well-regarded research operative. She handled that critical task for Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D) in 2002 and then joined Edwards's 2004 campaign in a similar capacity. After serving as research director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006, she's agreed to rejoin Edwards for 2008.

* Peter Scher: Scher ran Edwards's vice presidential campaign in 2004 and has stayed actively involved in the planning for a second bid.

* Ed Turlington: The chairman of the 2004 campaign, Turlington will be back in an as yet unspecified role. A lawyer from Raleigh, Turlington served on the Democratic Party's Commission on Presidential Timing and Scheduling -- the panel that recommended the addition of Nevada and Michigan to the early voting process.

* John Moylan: Another lawyer, Moylan is based in Columbia, S.C., and headed up Edwards's successful effort in that state's 2004 primary. Expect him to play a similar role with duties expanding outside of the Palmetto State this time around.

Inner Circle Archive

Our first installment of the series was GOP Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 29, 2006; 11:02 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: John Edwards's Bad Timing?
Next: New Census Numbers a Bright Spot for GOP

Comments

download hip hop music site Mr. Ed Jumps The Gun song lyrics garth brooks make you feel my love music , track listings on music cd [url=http://newmusics.org/artist27610/ar-rahman-and-andrew-lloyd-webber/]AR Rahman and Andrew Lloyd Webber song lyrics[/url] free music god save the queen

Posted by: YuqqqkveWtqCC | August 17, 2008 8:32 AM | Report abuse

scissor sisters pop music Alexandre Pires song lyrics different types of music what are , movies television and music in the 1950s Download full album Max Walder in mp3 willis music school of rock

Posted by: YuqhhoveWtqCC | August 16, 2008 5:52 AM | Report abuse

favorite music of malcolm muggeridge The Average White Band trombone and alternative music and panic at the disco , how to create background music for a flash game Dies Natalis most distinguished faculty school of music

Posted by: YuqczoveWtqCC | August 15, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Great work!
My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: Mike | January 18, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Well done!
[url=http://obvvwwbd.com/fwvg/wcts.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://nphjijnw.com/ythq/boyd.html]Cool site[/url]

Posted by: Felix | January 18, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Naomi | January 17, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Thank you!
My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: Joy | January 17, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Really nice interesting site. thank you for it.
buy viagra online
http://gente.chueca.com/toniow/main4.htm?buy-viagra-online
[url=http://gente.chueca.com/toniow/main4.htm?buy-viagra-online]buy viagra online[/url]

Posted by: Viagra | January 17, 2007 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Thank you very much, for this site!
viagra
http://gente.chueca.com/toniow/main3.htm?viagra
[url=http://gente.chueca.com/toniow/main3.htm?viagra]viagra[/url]

Posted by: Viagra | January 17, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Nice good site,dont let it go away.
viagra sale
http://gente.chueca.com/toniow/main2.htm?viagra-sale
[url=http://gente.chueca.com/toniow/main2.htm?viagra-sale]viagra sale[/url]

Posted by: Viagra | January 17, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Take care of it and keep it on the road!
viagra online
http://gente.chueca.com/toniow/main5.htm?viagra-online
[url=http://gente.chueca.com/toniow/main5.htm?viagra-online]viagra online[/url]

Posted by: Viagra | January 17, 2007 4:56 AM | Report abuse

To the person who said Senator Hillary Clinton comes across as condescending when you meet her, I wish to submit that you haven't met her. I have met and spoken with her; and I have met and spoken with Bill and Chelsea as well. Last week, I met John Edwards, although very briefly (a handshake and a few words); and I have met Senator Edward Kennedy, as well as Maria Shriver (Arnold's wife). I get around. :)

Consider all of the above people and guess who blew me away with her warmth and genuine interest? Hillary. Followed closely by Chelsea. I had no idea I would be treated so warmly or asked such wonderful questions by Senator Clinton. I will never forget it. I have never met a politician who held both of my hands the entire time she was talking with me; and she did the same thing with many other people that evening. Once she announces and starts actively campaigning, something that Bill will also be doing on her behalf, I expect her polling numbers to go through the roof.
Her resume is impressive too - not one that Edwards or Obama can match, either in domestic policy or foreign policy experience.

Posted by: Margaret Benson | January 6, 2007 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Robert, you wrote:

"I have an even stronger negative view of Mark Warner, b/c he repealed his state's progressive income tax and replaced it with a regressive sales tax."

Do us all a favor -- please don't comment on Virginia politics if you don't know what the heck you're talking about! Warner did no such thing. We still have an income tax in Virginia. It was left unchanged by Warner. We still have a sales tax, too. But he did reduce the sales tax on food from 5.5% to 2.5%.

http://commenterry.blogs.com

Posted by: Terry Mitchell | January 3, 2007 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Robert,

I agree that whoever is the blue candidate is massively likely to win the POTUS, given Bush's impact over the last 6 years. Unless the Dem congress stuffs up big time, or the POTUS candidate spectacularly collapses, its theirs for the taking.

Which makes it more important that the candidate is a good one. I can't go past Gore. Highly qualified, been proven correct on major issues in recent times (global warming, Iraq), and not desparately pandering to $$$/media, etc. I very much hope that he goes and gets it. But I'm not sure he will.

Richardson would be my second pick. Good CV, a mix of foreign policy experience and executive experience is just what is needed.

I'm not terribly impressed with the top 3. Edwards and Obama strike me as excellent style with some substance but not experienced in the school of hard knocks. One senate campaign doth not a President make.

Hillary is divisive, as curious as that is given her moderate record. I do wonder though whether her ambition is all consuming. Did she build a moderate record for 2008?

Of the rest, Vilsack seems nice but harmless. Biden is a windbag. Dodd is delusioned, and Kerry... well lets stop there.

Oh, if Clark could sort out his views on the domestic front he may be quite appealing. Little political experience (school of hard knocks) may be a problem.

Thats my view. But I don't think the electorate will go along with that.

Posted by: JayPe | January 3, 2007 1:07 AM | Report abuse

French physicist Ampere (1775-1836) had two cats, one big and a one small, and he loved them very much. But when the door was closed cats couldn't enter or exit the room. So Ampere ordered two holes to be made in his door: one big for the big cat, and one small for the small cat. ciales impotence drug eli lilly co [URL=http://admin.albright.edu/spiritawards/inc/Ciales-Impotence-Drug-Eli-Lilly-Co.html] ciales impotence drug eli lilly co[/URL] http://admin.albright.edu/spiritawards/inc/Ciales-Impotence-Drug-Eli-Lilly-Co.html

Posted by: ciales impotence drug eli lilly co | January 2, 2007 9:57 PM | Report abuse

In Indiana a person who dyes, stains, or otherwise alters the natural coloring of a bird or rabbit commits a Class B misdemeanor interest only [URL=http://interactive.cens.ucla.edu/nims/docs/PW-Morgage-Rates.html] interest only[/URL] http://interactive.cens.ucla.edu/nims/docs/PW-Morgage-Rates.html

Posted by: interest only | January 2, 2007 9:40 PM | Report abuse

In Indiana men are prohibited from standing in a bar. Drinks on the house are illegal. Drinking from your own bottle in a bar can lead to your arrest calculate morgage payment [URL=http://www.albright.edu/dcp/reg/American-Mortgage.html] calculate morgage payment[/URL] http://www.albright.edu/dcp/reg/American-Mortgage.html

Posted by: calculate morgage payment | January 2, 2007 9:21 PM | Report abuse

In Florida it is illegal to fish while driving across a bridge refinancing [URL=http://ishi.arp.harvard.edu/atmobs/docs/Refinancing.html] refinancing[/URL] http://ishi.arp.harvard.edu/atmobs/docs/Refinancing.html

Posted by: refinancing | January 2, 2007 9:00 PM | Report abuse

In Seattle it is illegal to carry a fishbowl or aquarium onto a bus because the sound of the water sloshing may disturb other passengers aisne [URL=http://ishi.arp.harvard.edu/atmobs/docs/Mortgage-Calculator.html] aisne[/URL] http://ishi.arp.harvard.edu/atmobs/docs/Mortgage-Calculator.html

Posted by: aisne | January 2, 2007 8:38 PM | Report abuse

IMHO, Edwards is making a huge mistake running to the left of Obama and Clinton. It helps him stand out in the primaries, but he'll get crushed in the general election by trying to run left of Dennis Kucinich; that only makes sense if he's really running for VP, b/c it will draw votes and attention in the primaries. His entire focus seems to be following up on LBJ's War on Poverty without any plan to pay for it. While I share Edwards' political views, he should be focusing on the middle class as well. This is the America that recently enacted the Welfar Reform Act. Adopting Dennis Kucinich's political platform, and then some, is not going to win Edwards any independent votes in a general election.

Posted by: Robert* | January 2, 2007 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Tina,

If I were a Republican, I'd be afraid of Obama because he excites Democrats, independents, and even some moderate Republicans. Blacks make up a huge percentage of the vote in key swing states. If Obama heads the blue ticket, Blacks will vote in record numbers in key swing states.

I started subscribing to the Washington Post when I was maybe 13 years old, using my allowance. I've heard Obama speak live twice, and I've never experienced another politician of the same level. There was always a real electricity in the air, in the audiences that came to hear Obama. Obama has a huge donor base that I believe strongly believes in him. I've donated to his campaign multiple times, and will do so again if he runs. As long as Obama doesn't make any novice mistakes, I think the sky's the limit for Obama. Why? Because we live in the age of Google, where brilliant prodigies are hired and rapidly promoted with little or no experience if they're considered exceptionally gifted in their field. I believe Obama is a once in a generation political leader.

Hispanics also make up a huge percentage of Southern voters. I think an Obama/Richardson ticket would be unbeatable.

Republicans already have a lock on the racist/xenophobic vote, so they're not going to pick up more votes b/c of Obama's skin color or "funny name."

Posted by: Robert* | January 2, 2007 6:25 PM | Report abuse

JayPe,

Thank you for writing. I think Gore is waiting for Clinton, Obama, Edwards to falter, or at least fail to inspire. I think Gore definitely wants to get in, but he is waiting to be drafted. If Gore gets in, I think he wins the Dems nomination. He probably picks Obama or Richardson for VP.

No matter who the blues nominate this time, I think we win - as long as our candidates don't screw it up with yet another slip of the tongue. McCain is experienced, but also too tied to the unpopular Iraq War. He's also a lot more conservative than people think, and that will come out in a general election, as may his explosive temper. Guiliani has no experience that qualifies him to be president. Romney is now too conservative for me, but I also don't see him getting past the primaries with his formerly liberal views on social issues.

I don't know enough about Richardson to have a strong opinion about him. He looks good on paper though, with both national and state government experience. I heard him give an interview on NPR a few years ago, and he seemed intelligent and sincere. The Hispanic vote is going to be huge in the next 20 years, so it's important that we get Hispanics accustom to voting blue. If he runs, sounds thoughtful, intelligent and charismatic, then I'd say he definitely has a real chance.

I think Obama and Edwards come in first and second, or second and first, in all four of the first primaries. I think Obama does well in S Carolina's: 95% of the Black vote, and a large fraction of the white vote. I think Edwards basically gets the rest of S Carolina's vote.

I think Hillary would be a good president. But I don't think she wins any of the early primaries. In fact, my guess is she drops to third place in all four early states.

I'm a little suspicious of Bayh b/c I'm always suspicious of political nepotism. His father was prominent in statewide politics, which is how he got his start. His politics are also somewhat to the right of primary going Democrats.

I have an even stronger negative view of Mark Warner, b/c he repealed his state's progressive income tax and replaced it with a regressive sales tax. I'm always suspicious of a Democratic politician who boasts of being popular in a red state; they're popular in a red state for a reason.

In any event, I'll support whichever of the current Democratic candidates wins the nomination.

What impresses you most about Edwards? In what ways do you think he'd make a better candidate and president than Obama?

Who do you like after Edwards?

Posted by: Robert* | January 2, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

While coming in to view opinions about the 2008 race, it was surprising to read that Robert thinks the Republican party is afraid of Obama. May I ask why?

Robert, the Republican party has not been badmouthing Madam Secretary Condi Rice or Colin Powell. With their Rock Star status in our nation, I believe Condi and Colin are examples of the Party of Abraham Lincoln for the 21st Century. Both of these African-American leaders has support in our party. Now the only people who seem to badmouth either of these people are the Democrats and liberals. So may I say it seems they are more afraid of Condi Rice?
Look at the Discussion blog today, January 2, by Michael Abramowitz regarding Condi as a possible VP choice:

From Fort Wayne, Ind..: Michael, who is the most likely VP, in either party, right now, without knowing who the nominee will be?

Thanks!

Michael Abramowitz: OK, here are some possibilities: On the Democratic side: Vilsack of Ohio, Bayh of Indiana and Sebelius of Kansas. Maybe Obama if his presidential chances falter.

On the Republican side: Pawlenty of Minnesota, Jeb Bush, maybe Condi Rice if she is interested in elective office.


_______________sounds like a few people at the Washington Post might be paying attention to the real possible impact of Condi in the 2008 cycle. With her high support to RUN in national polls, she can delay making up her mind until later in 2007. If she is still highly regarded to RUN by the national polls in September 2007, she will TOSS the 2008 race upside-down and create a whole new chessboard to play upon before the first primary ballot is cast.

Posted by: Tina | January 2, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

That's an impressive entourage he's been able to round up. Of course, having a good campaign staff is great, but it's overrated. Candidates, not their campaign personnel, win or lose elections.

Also, there seems to be far too much focus on the top three candidates or potential candidates in each party (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards for the Democrats; McCain, Giuliani, and Romney for the GOP). Let's not forget that there are still 11 potential candidates on the Democratic side and 13 of them on the Republican side.

At this early point, it's still anyone's game to win. Even a candidate who raises little cash and ends up with mostly unknowns on his campaign payroll at the end of 2007 could still jump to the front of the line with a surprisingly strong performance in Iowa and/or New Hampshire.

Remember George H.W. Bush in 1980 and Gary Hart is 1984? Both were considered also-rans coming out of the previous year. However, victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively, changed their fortunes rather quickly and both were nearly propelled to their party's presidential nomination out of nowhere.

http://commenterry.blogs.com

Posted by: Terry Mitchell | January 2, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Don't forget to put Dick Gephardt up on that list. Here in NYC I have first hand knowledge of him introducing Edwards to a big money donor a few weeks back...Perhaps Dick wants to be in the VP mix?? www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

Posted by: MinorRipper | January 2, 2007 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Robert, back to Obama Vs Edwards...

Without question Clinton is the front runner at this stage, particularly from the money angle. However I'm sure many candidates will think that as long as they stay on the ballot, if they do well in Iowa then the sky (WH) is the limit. Dean had lots of money, but momentum counts for a lot.

Obama appears to be able to raise masses, owing to his star appeal. However if he does run it will be intersting to see if people actually donate heavily to him. Or will they start to worry about his inexperience? So, he may compete with Hillary, but he may not do as well as everyone expects.

Edwards will not be able to raise as much as Hillary, but given his supurb numbers in Iowa he doesn't need to. If he can stay competitive and win Iowa well, people may swing behind him much like they did with Kerry. He's gaurenteed to do well in Nevada and SC as well.

I agree, if Gore runs, he will compete financially with Hillary. Will he run? Time will tell, he certainly doesn't need to start campaigning until much later this year - he hardly needs to boost name recognition..

Do you think any other candidates have a shot? Personally, I think if Gore stays out and the big 3 suck up all the remaining attention, there is room for one more. They would have to be well qualified and experienced, play on concerns of the big 3's inexperience (particularly if McCain locks in the Repub nomination) and run late. I was picking Bayh, now I'm picking Richardson. He's got a great CV.

Your thoughts?

Posted by: JayPe | January 2, 2007 12:58 AM | Report abuse

grumpy and disillusioned.

Posted by: there is a difference between | January 2, 2007 12:05 AM | Report abuse

MikeB, step away from the computer for a few days and then reread some of your posts. You need a vacation. However, unlike you, I'm not going to make assumptions about all Edwards supporters, and about Edwards himself, based on your abusive behavior towards Amy. Barack Obama would be by far the best candidate and president in 2008.

Posted by: Robert* | January 1, 2007 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Amy, one thing you ARE NOT, is a liberal. You are a leftist. In that, you are as unthinking and trollish as any right right nuts on this board. When I challenged you are your immature and senseless claim of racism as my reason for supporting Edwards over Obama, you never answered. When I pointed out what sort of hate filled monsters Naderites were, wishing death for my son, you justifed it as mere over exuberance for "their position". You, and all leftists like you, are a boil on the Democratic Party and I, for one, would be delighted if you went away. That you support Obama is reason enought for me or any genuine liberal to oppose him out of hand. Your sort never has had any sense of deceny or morality and I am sick of you leftist twits.

Posted by: MikeB | January 1, 2007 11:15 PM | Report abuse

believe Kerry threw the election.

a. monster

Posted by: I personally | January 1, 2007 10:33 PM | Report abuse

support bullies be they of jewish descent or of the Jesus of Nazareth process...

I suggest you reel it in richard...


Israel is being supported now , only because they make a good smoke screen to hide behind.

when the oil is gone , with the attitude Israel is displaying it will be like the red guard children going into rich peoples houses with hammers , once the Americans leave .....


why?


no one likes a bully,


want to stop that? ask Israel to stop acting like everyone but them is a nazi...

its called projection and acting out, Israel is mentally ill.

Posted by: I do not | January 1, 2007 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Chris said, "John Kerry came up short in his 2004 challenge to President Bush."

That was by choice, he and Edwards could have gone all the way. Millions of people pleaded with them to stay and fight, but to everyones dismay, they both gave up prematurely and walked away from another obviously stolen election.

Plus, Edwards could have helped out with numerous election fraud law suits in Ohio and other states, but instead, he went into hiding.

How can anyone vote for a man who gave up on himself and the Democratic Party when it counted the most? For this reason alone, Edwards as well as Kerry are both unelectable no matter what kind of talent they have working for them on their campaigns, no matter how much money they have in their war chests, and no matter how much propaganda the MSM manufactures for them.

Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA | January 1, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

" In a pre-emptive strike against anti-gun leaders in the new Congress, the National Rifle Association is planning to distribute a graphic brochure that drafts its Second Amendment mission in alarmist terms.

"Freedom in Peril," a rough copy of which was leaked onto the Internet last Friday, takes aim at the enemies of gun rights: from New Orleans policemen who confiscated weapons during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to "one-world extremists" of the United Nations, animal-rights "terrorists," and illegal alien gangs.

It also takes shots, with unflattering caricatures and descriptions, at personalities like Katie Couric, Rosie O'Donnell and Michael Moore and politicians such as Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi and Sens. John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

"Second Amendment freedom today stands naked in the path of a marching axis of adversaries far darker and more dangerous than gun owners have ever known," reads the foreword to the brochure. "Acting alone and in shadowy coalitions, these enemies of freedom are preparing for a profound and foreboding confrontation in which they will not make the mistakes of their predecessors. We'd better be ready."

Posted by: the revolting face of fascism and evil ...the NRA | January 1, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

' The latest video of Saddam's execution, with a soundtrack that shows that his guards were taunting him up to the last moment before the lever was pulled and he fell to his death, has been burning through cyberspace in Iraq and across the Middle East.

It is not only the bad taste of mocking a man about to die that has been getting angry reactions here: The worst aspect is the sectarian nature of the insults.

The guards shout "Moqtada, Moqtada," as Saddam is reciting a prayer with the noose around his neck: They are referring to Moqtada al Sadr, the extremist Shiite cleric whose Mahdi Army is the most feared militia in Iraq, widely thought to operate death squads targeting Sunnis.

When Saddam responds angrily to them, saying that such behavior "has torn Iraq apart," he is voicing an opinion that most Sunnis -- but also many moderate Shiites -- would agree with.

Saddam is dead and buried now, but the sectarian divide in Iraq yawns ever wider. For months, the United States has been leaning on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to do more to crack down on the abuses of the Mahdi army and other militias. By allowing their representatives to seemingly turn the execution of a former president -- however reviled -- into a crude exercise in sectarian vengeance, Maliki's government may only further alienate Sunnis.'

Posted by: everything they do makes it worse | January 1, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

"Dear son, Charles wrote on the last page of the journal, "I hope this book is somewhat helpful to you. Please forgive me for the poor handwriting and grammar. I tried to finish this book before I was deployed to Iraq. It has to be something special to you. I've been writing it in the states, Kuwait and Iraq.

The journal will have to speak for Charles now. He was killed Oct. 14 when an improvised explosive device detonated near his armored vehicle in Baghdad. Charles, 48, had been assigned to the Army's First Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment, Fourth Infantry Division, based in Fort Hood, Tex. He was a month from completing his tour of duty.

For our son's first Christmas, Charles had hoped to take him on a carriage ride through Central Park. Instead, Jordan, now 9 months old, and I snuggled under a blanket in a horse-drawn buggy. The driver seemed puzzled about why I was riding alone with a baby and crying on Christmas Day. I told him.''

Posted by: they are not numbers | January 1, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"The US military death toll in Iraq has topped 3,000 and this morning I am asking myself how long the Bush Administration and the McCain/Lieberman doctrinal supporters of escalation will be allowed to continue their folly without being asked how they do so in the absence of public support. Are they elected to serve the wants of the American public as a whole, or only to foist the tyrranny of the minority of fervent, self-deluded neocons on the rest of the nation? From the Time article:

Others, not least the White House and the Pentagon, say, all too blithely, that numbers like these are arbitrary and unimportant. But that only highlights the non-numerical false milestones and would-be watersheds they have set up in the past. It is not just statistics that can lie. When Saddam was captured, it was going to break the back of the insurgency. Same when a democratic government was elected, a constitution drafted, a coalition government formed. The latest false milestone is the death of Saddam, another momentous event in the history of Iraq that is unlikely to change a single thing for American forces or those who are fighting them.

In Plato's Apology, Socrates declares that "the unexamined life is not worth living," refusing to accept a penalty of silence and/or the cessation of public discussion and search for the truth as the price for remaining alive. One of the more troubling aspects of the Bush Presidency for me (aside from the disregard for the rule of law and the attempted perversion and warping of the Constitution for their own unilateral Presidential purposes) has been that feeling that the only things which are examined are those which uphold or sustain the truth that they want to have us all believe -- and not the actual truth of the matters at hand. This morning, Arthur Schlesinger has an insightful op-ed in the NYTimes on this very point:

We are the world's dominant military power, and I believe a consciousness of history is a moral necessity for a nation possessed of overweening power. History verifies John F. Kennedy's proposition, stated in the first year of his thousand days: "We must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient -- that we are only 6 percent of the world's population; that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind; that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity; and therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem."

Posted by: Anonymous | January 1, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Is it just me?.... I somehow view Edwards as a lightweight.

I've listened to him, even met and talked with him, and there is just something too perfect, and a little robotic about him. No Biden punch to his statements.

Anyone else view him this way?

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | January 1, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Chris -- do you still think McCain is the front runner? I think he's sinking fast--his own party doesn't seem to buy his bushist proposal for an endless troop commitment:

'Sen. John McCain, leading a blue-ribbon congressional delegation to Baghdad before Christmas, collected evidence that a "surge" of more U.S. troops is needed in Iraq. But not all his colleagues who accompanied him were convinced. What's more, he will find himself among a dwindling minority inside the Senate Republican caucus when Congress reconvenes this week.

President Bush and McCain, the front-runner for the party's 2008 presidential nomination, will have trouble finding support from more than 12 of the 49 Republican senators when pressing for a surge of 30,000 troops. "It's Alice in Wonderland," Sen. Chuck Hagel, second-ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, told me in describing the proposal. "I'm absolutely opposed to sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly."

What to do about Iraq poses not only a national policy crisis but profound political problems for the Republican Party. Disenchantment with George W. Bush within the GOP runs deep. Republican leaders around the country, anticipating that the 2006 election disaster would prompt an orderly disengagement from Iraq, are shocked that the president now appears ready to add troops.'

Posted by: drindl | January 1, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are scared to death of Obama, which is why they are already going after him hard. Republicans would much rather have Hillary Clinton or Edwards as an opponent.

But the keys to winning are bringing out more Democrats and swing voters. How would random Republicans know which Democrat will best do this, when Democrats aren't sure of the answer themselves.

Posted by: Robert* | January 1, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

In 2005, almost 47 million Americans -- including more than 8 million children -- were uninsured, and many more had inadequate insurance.

Apologists for our system try to minimize the significance of these numbers. Many of the uninsured, asserted the 2004 Economic Report of the President, "remain uninsured as a matter of choice."

And then you wake up. A scathing article in yesterday's Los Angeles Times described how insurers refuse to cover anyone with even the slightest hint of a pre-existing condition. People have been denied insurance for reasons that range from childhood asthma to a "past bout of jock itch."

Some say that we can't afford universal health care, even though every year lack of insurance plunges millions of Americans into severe financial distress and sends thousands to an early grave. But every other advanced country somehow manages to provide all its citizens with essential care. The only reason universal coverage seems hard to achieve here is the spectacular inefficiency of the U.S. health care system.

Americans spend more on health care per person than anyone else -- almost twice as much as the French, whose medical care is among the best in the world. Yet we have the highest infant mortality and close to the lowest life expectancy of any wealthy nation. How do we do it?

Part of the answer is that our fragmented system has much higher administrative costs than the straightforward government insurance systems prevalent in the rest of the advanced world. As Anna Bernasek pointed out in yesterday's New York Times, besides the overhead of private insurance companies, "there's an enormous amount of paperwork required of American doctors and hospitals that simply doesn't exist in countries like Canada or Britain."

In addition, insurers often refuse to pay for preventive care, even though such care saves a lot of money in the long run, because those long-run savings won't necessarily redound to their benefit. And the fragmentation of the American system explains why we lag far behind other nations in the use of electronic medical records, which both reduce costs and save lives by preventing many medical errors.

The truth is that we can afford to cover the uninsured. What we can't afford is to keep going without a universal health care system.

If it were up to me, we'd have a Medicare-like system for everyone, paid for by a dedicated tax that for most people would be less than they or their employers currently pay in insurance premiums. This would, at a stroke, cover the uninsured, greatly reduce administrative costs and make it much easier to work on preventive care.

Such a system would leave people with the right to choose their own doctors, and with other choices as well: Medicare currently lets people apply their benefits to H.M.O.'s run by private insurance companies, and there's no reason why similar options shouldn't be available in a system of Medicare for all. But everyone would be in the system, one way or another.

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

'The New York Times reports that the last 1,000 American deaths--the body count had reached 2,000 in October 2005--resulted from an increased success rate for roadside bombs (despite improvements in body armor) and largely affected the regular military services, because many National Guard and reserve units have been rotated out. The article also points out that 93 American soldiers have committed suicide in Iraq and that more than 20,000 have been wounded. The Washington Post notes that casualty rates will stay steady unless there is a major change in strategy, and finds that many congressional Republicans such as Kansas Sen. (and potential 2008 presidential candidate) Sam Brownback are skeptical of President George W. Bush's expected plan to send more troops to Iraq. Only the Los Angeles Times points out that at least 5,900 Iraqi soldiers and police have died in the same time period.'

Posted by: oh look we're winning! | January 1, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

The comments over the past few days are indeed convincing me more and more that Hillary is the best the dems have to offer for 08. IMHO, Edwards and Obama both look good to a lot of folk now and I have not posted much in the past days and am trying to get a better read of just what is going on. Several repub friends are getting info that they want to get out the false impression that the dems will support Obama, when in fact they will not. They are scared to death of Hillary and I have mentioned this several times and am wondering why some of the dems are trying to futher this idea that Hillary is cold, polorizing, un-electable, negatives to high, to name a few. The ticket of Clinton/Warner is a winner in 08.

Posted by: lylepink | January 1, 2007 3:25 AM | Report abuse

I should correct something from my last post. There are two clear front runners for the Democratic nomination: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

These are the only two candidates who can without question raise $100 million to run for president.

It was Barack Obama - not Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, or second tier presidential candidates - who was the most sought after campaigner and fundraiser for Democratic candidates in 2006.

Posted by: Robert* | January 1, 2007 2:11 AM | Report abuse

I think Obama has a great shot. I think clearly Hillary is the front-runner. "Edwards" will almost certainly flame out after people really consider whether they want someone with hardly no experience what-so-ever in the White House. He may not even run [after he loses in Iowa] in the end. My big question is: can Obama actually raise the money necessary to compete with Hillary in the high dollar markets in some states? [Obviously, yes.] I mean, Hillary will be able to raise the money to flood the airwaves in every state and my question is can Edwards do that? If Gore runs, he will be able to. I'm just not sure anyone else other than Gore [and Obama] will be able to compete with Hillary in fundraising and advertising.

Posted by: Robert* | January 1, 2007 1:56 AM | Report abuse

I think Edwards has a great shot. I think clearly Hillary is the front-runner. "Obamamania" will almost certainly flame out after people really consider whether they want someone with hardly no experience what-so-ever in the White House. He may not even run in the end. My big question is: can Edwards actually raise the money necessary to compete with Hillary in the high dollar markets in some states? I mean, Hillary will be able to raise the money to flood the airwaves in every state and my question is can Edwards do that? If Kerry runs, he will be able to. I'm just not sure anyone else other than Kerry will be able to compete with Hillary in fundraising and advertising.

Posted by: reason | December 31, 2006 6:34 PM | Report abuse

There are plenty of people who are liberal or moderate in terms of social issues and foreign policy in general, but feel strongly about Israel. The Jewish vote is largely Democratic. So don't assume that Richard is an extreme right-winger just because of his position on this one issue.

And maybe your criticism of the posting styles of others would be more credible if you followed the blog rules and signed your posts.

Posted by: Blarg | December 31, 2006 5:13 PM | Report abuse

In a followup to a recent story about Hillary as the most admired woman in the US, when it comes to Condi Rice vs Hillary Clinton, there seems to be a GENDER GAP.
The Gallup poll details show that when men were asked which woman they most admired,
Hillary was at 11% and Condi was at 10%. That is a virtual tie, sitting up the question of which woman is preferred as presidential quality?
With women selected which women they most admired, they chose Hillary by 14% and Condi at only 5%. Does that mean if Condi tried to run for president that she would not be favored as the choice by most women?
Therefore, the Gallup poll is only a small test of the potential race of 2008 if ANY woman decided to run in 2008.
NOW THAT IS NEWSWORTHY FOR DISCUSSION.
WHICH WOMAN HAS THE MOST SUPPORT TO BECOME OUR NEXT PRESIDENT?

Posted by: Condi VS Hillary | December 31, 2006 5:07 PM | Report abuse

BAGHDAD, Iraq The Pentagon announced the death of a Texas soldier today, raising the number of US military deaths in Iraq to at least three (t) thousand since the war began.

--and more than 22,000 gravely injured.

happy new year, mr. bush. i'm sure you're having a real nice party...

Posted by: Anonymous | December 31, 2006 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Richard, shouting in the house is rude. I note that you are echoing the habits and sentimeents of some extreme right wingers, who seem to have more loyalty to the neocons who currently are running Israel into the ground than the United States. I care about Israel too, my family is Jewish, but I am first of all an American and I have to put the intersts of my own country first. Israel has a tremendous number of spies in this country, trying to steal military information, and they have no problem putting their own interests first. Do you ever see any Israelis worrying about whether their actions will harm Americans? No.

In any case, you would never vote for a Dem anyway... you will vote for whomever Rush tells you to.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 31, 2006 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Richard, shouting in the house is rude. I note that you are echoing the habits and sentimeents of some extreme right wingers, who seem to have more loyalty to the neocons who currently are running Israel into the ground than the United States. I care about Israel too, my family is Jewish, but I am first of all an American and I have to put the intersts of my own country first. Israel has a tremendous number of spies in this country, trying to steal military information, and they have no problem putting their own interests first. Do you ever see any Israelis worrying about whether their actions will harm Americans? No.

In any case, you would never vote for a Dem anyway... you will vote for whomever Rush tells you to.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 31, 2006 2:47 PM | Report abuse

BY HIS APPOINTMENT OF DAVID BONOIR AS CAMPAIGN MANAGER SEN. EDWARDS HAS DECIDED TO WRITE OFF A LARGE PART OF THE JEWISH VOTE. MR. BONOIR HAD ONE OF THE MOST ANTI-ISRAEL RECORD IN CONGRESS. MR. EDWARDS DECISION TO PICK MR. BONOIR CALLS INTO QUESTION HIS WHOLE MINSET. I FOR ONE WILL NO LONGER CONSIDER HIM A VIABLE CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT.

Posted by: RICHARD WALD | December 31, 2006 2:00 PM | Report abuse

The US Interior Department's Mineral Management Service under scrutiny for alleged kickbacks scheme:

The Justice Department is investigating whether the director of a multibillion-dollar oil-trading program at the Interior Department has been paid as a consultant for oil companies hoping for contracts.

The director of the program and three subordinates, all based in Denver, have been transferred to different jobs and have been ordered to cease all contacts with the oil industry until the investigation is completed some time next spring, according to officials involved.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation had not been announced publicly, said investigators were worried that senior government officials had been steering huge oil-trading contracts to favored companies.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 31, 2006 1:20 PM | Report abuse

'A certain color of stone worn a certain way is just one of the dozens of superficial clues - like dialect, style of beard, how you pin a veil - that indicate whether you're Sunni or Shiite. These little signs increasingly mean the difference between life and death at the terrifying illegal checkpoints that surround the districts of Baghdad. In a surprise reversal, Shiite militiamen have usurped Sunni insurgents as the most feared force on the streets.

When I was last here in 2005, it took guts and guards, but you could still travel to most anywhere in the capital. Now, there are few true neighborhoods left. They're mostly just cordoned-off enclaves in various stages of deadly sectarian cleansing. Moving trucks piled high with furniture weave through traffic, evidence of an unfolding humanitarian crisis involving hundreds of thousands of forcibly displaced Iraqis.

The Sunni-Shiite segregation is the starkest change of all, but nowadays it seems like everything in Baghdad hinges on separation. There's the Green Zone to guard the unpopular government from its suffering people, U.S. military bases where Iraqis aren't allowed to work, armored sedans to shield VIPs from the explosions that kill workaday civilians, different TV channels and newspapers for each political party, an unwritten citywide dress code to keep women from the eyes of men.

Attempts to bring people together have failed miserably. I attended a symposium called "How to Solve Iraq's Militia Problem," but the main militia representatives never showed up and those of us who did were stuck inside for hours while a robot disabled a car bomb in the parking lot. '

Posted by: Anonymous | December 31, 2006 1:17 PM | Report abuse


'As the president contemplates sending even more U.S. forces into the Iraqi sinkhole, he should consider not only the thousands of fatalities, the tens of thousands of casualties and the hundreds of billions of dollars already lost. He must also weigh the opportunity cost of taking his national security barons off all the other critical problems they should be addressing -- problems whose windows of opportunity are slamming shut, unheard over the wail of Baghdad sirens.

Clarke lays out a number of issues that he feels are pressing ones in need of attention by this Administration. I think he misses a few -- China, repairing our diplomatic ties, and several others, but it's a good list for contemplation this morning -- and an issue we would do well to think about in terms of the opportunity costs of the Bush Administration's continued delay on any real decisionmaking and the chaos that rushes in to fill that void in the absence of leadership.

Over the last few weeks, William Arkin has talked quite a bit about the tensions between the overextension of the military, the decisions made (or not made as yet) by the Bush Administration, and the ways in which so many other balls have been dropped. From his December 20th post:

...And America needs a larger non-military. Whether it's Iraq, drugs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa, hurricane Katrina, or the increase in domestic crime it is so clear only Washington can't see that our tendency to see a military solution to everything is not only wrong but has had profound negative effects.

Indeed we do. But creating yet another "Study Group" of intellectual generals isn't going to reset Iraq. As I've said many times here, the Iraqis themselves have got to want the victory there as much as we do. And right now, the majority doesn't seem to want anything close to what we want.

So we'll have a "surge," we'll have a plan to increase end strength -- we'll have new leadership at the Pentagon and in Iraq. We'll have everything except the clarity to see that what we have and want isn't enough. The Pentagon will be left holding the bag, the people of Baghdad and New Orleans will equally suffer.

Please also take some time to go through two of Arkin's other columns -- from Dec. 21st and from Dec. 22nd -- talking about the hands of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney on the crafting of the public relations messaging for the Administration and the heavy hand of Dick Cheney, still. The neocons, including George Bush, refuse to look their missteps in the eye -- and it is other people's children who must pay the price for their cowardice.'

Posted by: Anonymous | December 31, 2006 1:13 PM | Report abuse

'The Military Times poll finds that only 35 percent of respondents approve of Bush's handling of the war -- down from 63 percent two years ago -- while 42% disapprove of it. From the Army Times' article today on the poll:
The American military -- once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war -- has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president's handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war.

When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war -- in 2004 -- 83 percent of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.

Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president's approval rating among the military is only slightly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush's handling of the war. While approval of the president's war leadership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.

Just as telling, in this year's poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003.'

Posted by: Anonymous | December 31, 2006 1:09 PM | Report abuse

should have been...

It may very well mean the difference to them between getting out alive and in one piece, or NOT making it home AT ALL.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 31, 2006 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"As much as the social conservatives might not like to hear it, there will be a time when your grandchildren say: 'What was the argument with gay marriage? Who cares?'"

-- Outgoing openly gay GOP Rep. Jim Kolbe, quoted in the Tuscon Citizen blasting the GOP for what he sees as its politically disastrous focus on issues like abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 31, 2006 1:03 PM | Report abuse

SO HOW ABOUT IT, CHRIS? WAPO GONNA COVER THIS?

'As reported below, the Military Times has just released its annual poll of active duty troops, and its findings are striking. Among other things, it finds that only 38 percent think there should be more troops in Iraq than there already are. So here's the question. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates held a sit-down with a dozen troops who all just happened to favor bringing more troops in Iraq. The opinions of this handful of troops earned extensive coverage from CNN, The New York Times, the Associated Press, and Reuters. And yet, as best as I can determine, none of these same news orgs today mentioned the Military Times poll, even though it came out yesterday. Why not? Now that we have poll of the actual attitudes of thousands of troops towards a "surge," when will the media cover it?'

And you know why they don't support it? For one thing, it won't do anything--it's just a way to postpone admitting defeat. For another -- the troops know it won't be new people sent in, because there aren't any. It will be THEM -- held there against their will, far after they were scheduled to go home, stop-lossed and called back and extended. It may very well mean the difference to them between getting out alive and in one piece or making it home safe.

All of these young lives wasted just so bush won't be embarrassed. The man is a perfect example of the banality of evil.

Posted by: drindl | December 31, 2006 1:02 PM | Report abuse

'He wasn't funny at all, it actually gave me a chill to think that elements like him in the Republican Party may actually get into positions of power and continue to poison our politics.'

Well have to agree with you there, duh! my friend. But you know people like him already ARE in power--and that's why the US is sinking in debt and unable or unwilling to address any of the major challenges we face today.

And frankly, as far as Naderites are concerned -- I used to support him too. But I stopped when he became nothing but a spoiler. In the end he was far more angry at Dems than Repugs and pretty much turned the Green Party into a useful tool for rightwingers. Sad.

I canvassed in 2000 for Gore and was really surprised by the level of hostility I encountered from Naderites. So don't be too surprised if they don't seem logical to you--they'r not.

Posted by: drindl | December 31, 2006 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Quoting Amy: "You guys - where is your sense of humor... Here is why William was funny.

In some posts, William said things that sounded practically illiterate, like "We will SMEEAAR Barack HUSSEIN Obama." (And who, actually planning a smear, would ever flag it in advance in the WashPo blog???...
William was funny because he was having fun himself."

Amy - Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein probably had funny moments and
were able to construct logical arguments. "Does that excuse their other actions?" shouldn't even have to be said. But, your rationalizing make us have to say that.

As to "Barack HUSSEIN Obama. (And who, actually planning a smear, would ever flag it in advance in the WashPo blog?"

William wasn't doing a comedy schtick. He was simply parroting Fox News and other wingnuts already trying to effect the subtle smear. And he actualy admitted to that, stating that he believed it was acceptable. But, you missed that somehow.

The sad part is that he actually believes that crap.

Lady, you need to learn how to read for content. Your reaction to William and the subesquent rationalizing only enable racists and bigots like him.

Racism and bigotry are never excusable.

He wasn't funny at all, it actually gave me a chill to think that elements like him in the Republican Party may actually get into positions of power and continue to poison our politics.

Posted by: Duh! | December 31, 2006 11:42 AM | Report abuse

US PRESIDENT TIM KALEMKARIAN, US SENATE TIM KALEMKARIAN, US HOUSE TIM KALEMKARIAN: BEST MAJOR CANDIDATE.

Posted by: anonymous | December 31, 2006 10:21 AM | Report abuse

US PRESIDENT TIM KALEMKARIAN, US SENATE TIM KALEMKARIAN, US HOUSE TIM KALEMKARIAN: BEST MAJOR CANDIDATE.

Posted by: anonymous | December 31, 2006 10:20 AM | Report abuse

JOHN EDWARDS HAS THE RIGHT STUFF (AND ALSO THE RIGHT $TUFF) TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY IN 2008. HAVING LIVED IN LOS ANGELES FOR 25 YEARS, I'VE LEARNED THAT IT'S ALWAYS IMAGE OVER SUBSTANCE IN POLITICS... AND THAT EVERYTHING EVENTUALLY BOILS DOWN TO POLITICS. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WITH RELIGION, THE ULTIMATE AND MOST RADICAL FORM OF POLITICS.

BEING EVER SO BLUNT AND FORTHRIGHT, EDWARDS HAS THE RIGHT IMAGE. ASIDE FROM BEING AN INTELLIGENT AND WELL EDUCATED FELLOW, MR. EDWARDS IS YOUNG AND WHITE AND RICH. A LOT OF FOLKS WANT TO BE HIM (HAVE HIS IMAGE).

EDWARDS ALSO CARRIES THE "WHOLE-SUM" IMAGE OF "FAMILY MAN"... AND HE'S A SOUTHERNER. NOT ONLY CAN HE WIN A PLURALITY OF VOTERS IN THE NORTH AND THE WEST... BUT ALSO DOWN IN DIXIE, THE LAND OF SIMPLISTIC, MYOPIC AND MEAN-ESPIRITED SHEEP (THE EWE FOLKS). SORRY, BUTT OLD COYOTE KNOSE... THERE'S NOTHING QUITE AS VICIOUS AS SOUTHERN KKKULTURE... OR AS MEAN-ESPIRITED AS SOUTHERN HOSPITALITY. YEAH... BEEN THERE; SUFFERED THAT.

$ENATOR HILLARY CLINTON CAN'T WIN IN A NATIONAL "$ELL-ECKTION." SHE'S BIG IN NEW YORK AND IN A FEW OTHER SMALL DEMOGRAPHIC AREAS, BUT SHE CARRIES TOO MUCH BUBB-AHH BAGGAGE TO CARRY HER CROSS ACROSS A NATIONAL $TAGE. FORGET OBAMA; HIS MIDDLE NAME (HUSSEIN) WILL SINK HIS $HIP, HOWEVER HE'D BE A BIG DRAW IF HE WAS ON THE EDWARDS TICKET.

FINALLY... GORE COULD WIN IN 2008. HE KNOWS THE ROPES AND HE'S PAID HIS DUES.

Posted by: GUY FOX | December 31, 2006 8:05 AM | Report abuse

JOHN EDWARDS HAS THE RIGHT STUFF (AND ALSO THE RIGHT $TUFF) TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY IN 2008. HAVING LIVED IN LOS ANGELES FOR 25 YEARS, I'VE LEARNED THAT IT'S ALWAYS IMAGE OVER SUBSTANCE IN POLITICS... AND THAT EVERYTHING EVENTUALLY BOILS DOWN TO POLITICS. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WITH RELIGION, THE ULTIMATE AND MOST RADICAL FORM OF POLITICS.

BEING EVER SO BLUNT AND FORTHRIGHT, EDWARDS HAS THE RIGHT IMAGE. ASIDE FROM BEING AN INTELLIGENT AND WELL EDUCATED FELLOW, MR. EDWARDS IS YOUNG AND WHITE AND RICH. A LOT OF FOLKS WANT TO BE HIM (HAVE HIS IMAGE).

EDWARDS ALSO CARRIES THE "WHOLE-SUM" IMAGE OF "FAMILY MAN"... AND HE'S A SOUTHERNER. NOT ONLY CAN HE WIN A PLURALITY OF VOTERS IN THE NORTH AND THE WEST... BUT ALSO DOWN IN DIXIE, THE LAND OF SIMPLISTIC, MYOPIC AND MEAN-ESPIRITED SHEEP (THE EWE FOLKS). SORRY, BUTT OLD COYOTE KNOSE... THERE'S NOTHING QUITE AS VICIOUS AS SOUTHERN KKKULTURE... OR AS MEAN-ESPIRITED AS SOUTHERN HOSPITALITY. YEAH... BEEN THERE; SUFFERED THAT.

$ENATOR HILLARY CLINTON CAN'T WIN IN A NATIONAL "$ELL-ECKTION." SHE'S BIG IN NEW YORK AND IN A FEW OTHER SMALL DEMOGRAPHIC AREAS, BUT SHE CARRIES TOO MUCH BUBB-AHH BAGGAGE TO CARRY HER CROSS ACROSS A NATIONAL $TAGE. FORGET OBAMA; HIS MIDDLE NAME (HUSSEIN) WILL SINK HIS $HIP, HOWEVER HE'D BE A BIG DRAW IF HE WAS ON THE EDWARDS TICKET.

FINALLY... GORE COULD WIN IN 2008. HE KNOWS THE ROPES AND HE'S PAID HIS DUES.

Posted by: GUY FOX | December 31, 2006 8:04 AM | Report abuse

I can't resist throwing in my 2 cents here.

One item I find amusing is the fact that no one commented on the global warming poll thing.

If "34% disagreed...." on an item does that mean 66% "agreed"?
Were there any "no opinions"

Did nobody pick up on that?

Go back and reread that thing and turn the numbers around and get the "facts" that the poster likes to believe in.

Posted by: LenJ | December 30, 2006 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, on the issue of Iraq, Edwards had neither experience nor good judgement, having supported the Iraq War until earlier this year when polls revealed to Edwards that an overwhelming majority of Americans opposed the war. So Edwards finally decided to oppose the war, too. (I'm curious, what did John Edwards not know about the Iraq War two years ago, that he just learned earlier this year, except for the new poll numbers?)

While Edwards has neither the experience or good judgement to be president, Barack Obama has both.

Barack Obama strongly opposed the Iraq War from the outset. Obama strikes everyone as having the good judgement of a veteran statesman. Maureen Dowd recently wrote about how Obama has enough experience to be president. It's difficult to picture Obama on top of a tank for a photo op, like Michael Dukakis. It's difficult to picture him sighing in a debate when his opponent gives a lame answer, like Gore did against W. It's difficult to see him flub a joke about W, like Kerry did.

And it's difficult to see him wrong on Iraq - for almost three years - like Edwards was.

Edwards: tomorrow's mistakes can be avoided today [by voting for Obama]. (For those who missed it, that's a play on Edwards' theme which is "tomorrow begins today.")

Posted by: Robert* | December 30, 2006 7:13 PM | Report abuse

more Wilipedia:

Troll (Internet)

In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.

Usage

The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument ad hominem. [citation needed]
Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives. Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities. [citation needed]

Posted by: Anonymous | December 30, 2006 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Amy, that's called trolling. It's not funny; it's disruptive, and makes it a lot harder to have actual discussions here. This is supposed to be a serious blog, not the Fark forums.

And a note to the guy who makes every post with a different name: Your name appears at the end of the post. It might look fine when you're typing, but in the actual post you seem to start midsentence. It's confusing.

Posted by: Blarg | December 30, 2006 5:11 PM | Report abuse

like stupid people, I especially dislike stupid dishonest people that prey upon children check zouks hard drive.

Posted by: I do not | December 30, 2006 4:38 PM | Report abuse

poofins of elevator gas..

IN GENERAL, Appeal to emotion

is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the listener's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument.

This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including:

Appeal to consequences
Appeal to fear
Appeal to flattery
Appeal to pity
Appeal to ridicule
Appeal to spite
Wishful thinking

Related fallacies
Other types of fallacies may also overlap with or constitute an appeal to emotion, including:

Ad hominem attacks
Guilt by association
Misleading vividness
Slippery slope
Truthiness
Two wrongs make a right (if arguing for revenge)
Example: "For the children"

External links
About.com: Appeals to emotion index
Fallacy Files: Emotional appeal
Nizkor: Appeal to emotion
Emotion Theory in Advertising
Fallacies of relevance
Accident • Ad nauseam • Base rate fallacy • Chronological snobbery • Compound question • Fallacy of many questions • False compromise • Naturalistic fallacy • Proof by assertion • Irrelevant conclusion • Special pleading • Straw man • Two wrongs make a right

Appeals to emotion
Fear • Flattery • Novelty • Queerness • Pity • Ridicule • Spite • Wishful thinking

Genetic fallacies
Ad hominem (Ad hominem tu quoque) • Appeal to authority • Appeal to motive • Appeal to tradition • Argumentum ad crumenam • Argumentum ad lazarum • Association fallacy • Ipsedixitism • Poisoning the well • Reductio ad Hitlerum

Posted by: for the simpler of you that are actually wounded by zouk as his harmless | December 30, 2006 4:30 PM | Report abuse

know that George W. Bush was to be investigated by the SEC

over insider trading before he was governor of Texas dont you?


they never followed through.

you do know that the president of Chile was killed after the CIA was warned, while he was visting Washington DC while George H.W. Bush was director of the CIA....


and you did know that Porter Goss was a yale classmate of George W. Bush, John Negroponte and Paul Wolfowitz the author of Project for a New American Century and current WORLD BANK President right?


g o o g l e Negroponte and Honduras if you want to really understand who the terrorists are....


Congressional funding for Al Queada? It is a fact, CIA trained? it is a fact...


and now all of a sudden they are against us?


not likely .

Posted by: you do | December 30, 2006 4:22 PM | Report abuse

You guys - where is your sense of humor... Here is why William was funny.

In some posts, William said things that sounded practically illiterate, like "We will SMEEAAR Barack HUSSEIN Obama." (And who, actually planning a smear, would ever flag it in advance in the WashPo blog??? Can we really take this seriously?)

In other posts, William constructed literate and thought-provoking arguments.

In yet other posts, William successfully baited a lot of earnest Dems.

William was funny because he was having fun himself.

And notice... If the best you can come up with to counter my arguments against Edwards is that I have a dull sense of humor, Edwards is REALLY not doing so well.

OK, I am signing off. I have burned up way too much time recently on this blog... Time for cold turkey full stop in the New Year. Bye and it's been fun.

Posted by: Amy | December 30, 2006 4:19 PM | Report abuse

good catch...

it has to do with serendipity and putting things together in such a way as to effect a change.


believe it or not telling the truth affects a stronger change than lying...

that is if you are trying to stand up to a lie...


you see, the truth resonates, a lie needs to be supported


it is a structurally unsound construct...

that is why such a simple person as myself can effect such great change....


I throw rocks at glass houses, big rocks.

.

Posted by: it was Neil Bush and Silverado | December 30, 2006 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I have noticed the phenomonen the anon poster alluded to... the absolutely rabid, drooling, venomous rage over muslims the wingers have fallen into since the elections. I guess losing really snapped whatever tenuous connection they had with reality.

It's truly amazing how the kind of things they are saying about Muslims are just EXACTLY -- often in the same words -- what Hitler and many of hte German people were saying about Jews, right before they started slaughtering them.

These are truly sick, demented and evil people.

Posted by: lark | December 30, 2006 4:10 PM | Report abuse

' The American Right achieved its political dominance in Washington over the past quarter century with the help of more than $3 billion spent by Korean cult leader Sun Myung Moon on a daily propaganda organ, the Washington Times, according to a 21-year veteran of the newspaper.... Parry goes on to describe Sun Myung Moon as a nexus connecting organized crime, including drug trafficking, with prominent right-wing American politicians.'

-- I thought everybody knew this already.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 30, 2006 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Amen, Lark!

Amy still misses the substantive points.

Posted by: Duh! | December 30, 2006 4:01 PM | Report abuse

'Perhaps the Frankensteinian bolts in their necks are fastened too tight. Perhaps the bunker walls of their converted basements are closing in, inducing paranoia and frantic unease. I don't pretend to know what group psychosis seems to have taken possession of the right blogosphere. What I do know is that in this most festive of seasons, when you would think tidings of comfort and joy would provide momentary distraction from the vacuity of their paltry lives, the Free-Range Chickenhawks instead have gone full metal freaking bonkers with rage, loathing, inane pranks, and fantasies of violent retribution. Steve Gilliard brings us a lurid effusion by a delusions-of-grandeur dork named Emperor Misha I who blogs about recent events in Somalia as if he were gargling with blood. Gavin M. at Sadly, No! provides a handy rundown of this virulent spaz-out on the right, whose culprits include those familiar slow-footed mammals over at Little Green Footballs.

That's what it's like where the grubworms gather. But the vistas are no prettier in the upper reaches of the right blogosphere. The rhetoric is fancier, the sentences longer and more fully equipped with subordinate clauses, but the electrical wiring is just as frayed.

Ponder the intellectual procession of one that is Francis W. Porretto at Eternity Road.Porretto has enough unctuous piety oozing out of him to mold a new set of wax lips, and he has none of the true curmudgeon's gift for tart, aphoristic expression; he's a wordy bastard.

As represented by his latest address to the congregation, titled with his customary modesty The Imperative of the Age. In this oracular exercise it would appear that the election of Keith Ellison, an American Muslim, to Congress, has incited an uprising of dark forebodings in Porretto's reptilian brain that has him prepping for a remake of Red Dawn. I won't try to escort you like Virgil through the tortuous coils of his "thought processes," but instead deposit you at the spot where he distributes his curbside advice:
Your Curmudgeon exhorts you all:

Learn all you can about Islam. Read the Qur'an, and at least one of the authoritative hadith. Make use of the learning of Robert Spencer, Dainel Pipes, Bat Ye'or, and Steven Emerson. Familiarize yourselves with the travails of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and other apostates from Islam. Familiarize yourselves with the lives of Muslims in Islamic states, and with the sufferings of non-Muslims in lands such as Pakistan and the Philippines where Muslims are a militant force. Don't allow the just-another-harmless-Abrahamic-faith propaganda to condition you to inertia.

Arm yourselves as heavily as you can. If yours is a right-to-carry state, get a concealed-carry permit and buy a handgun. No matter where you live, stock at least one long arm for every adult member of your household. Instruct your children in firearms discipline, and invite them along when you go to the range. Try to interest your neighbors as well; shooting sports are a way to build both the sense of community and the sense of obligation to community defense. And make sure everyone you know is familiar with the citizen's obligation, as a militiaman, to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

--For some reason I picture Lucy, Ricky, Fred, and Ethel patrolling their apartment with loaded guns, convinced their downstairs neighbors are spies. That ended badly, if unfatally, and I fear how many innocent Muslims may end up getting shot due to the overzealous vigilance of gun-toting nuts unable to accept a Muslim being elected to Congress.

While Perretto guards the backyard, practicing his marksmanship on pesky squirrels, his blog buddy The American Digester entertains a more ambitious global vision of Muslim removal. Just in time for Christmas, he reprinted his speculative essay "Toying with Genocide," wherein he gives fair warning to the West and its enemies that if billions of Muslims refuse to listen to reason and mend their ways, it'll be their funeral served on a platter:

'ONCE A SOCIETY BECOMES CONVINCED that it is harboring something within it that is intractably "Other," and that the "Other" clearly and without quarter means to destroy it, that society looks for an answer that preserves it at the expense of the "Other."
The classic answer is, in historic terms and sooner rather than later, genocide.

Fortunately, there's a way to administer genocide without having to get your hands messy and your clothes mussed. No need to wade into cities or invade ports when you've got so many ballistic missile submarines at your disposal.
The cold fact is that should America or the West feel its way of life and the lives of its citizens are sufficiently threatened by Islam these weapons will, in the end, be used against the Muslim centers of mass; cities in the middle-east or elsewhere where Muslims are the majority of the population. This is not some "Strangelovian" fantasy, but a very real option on the table of realpolitik. If you think our ballistic missile submarines don't carry the targeting information for these cities, think again.'

--It'll be a toasty time in ol' Tehran tonight, if the Western powers have the courage to dream big.
Sometime shortly after 9/11 in an online forum I frequented then, an exasperated idealist proclaimed that "After all, you can't kill a billion Muslims." Like so many others he spoke from somewhere outside History. History, especially the world's most recent history, shows us all how wrong that statement is. The hard truth is rather that, "Yes, if you really want to, you can."

And the American Digester is nothing if not a can-do kinda guy. As is Arthur Herman, whose Commentary article "Getting Serious About Iran--a Military Option" (muchos gracias, Glenn Greenwald) serves as a tasty sidedish to "Toying with Genocide." And Michael Ledeen, for whom military muscle can't be applied against Iran fast enough. When I read these civilized roughnecks, I picture their invisible tails lashing at the legs of their chairs, like the character in Norman Mailer's Tough Guys Don't Dance. The tougher they pretend to be, the harder their tails lash, impotently beating against the bars of their cages. '

Posted by: these people make nazis look good... | December 30, 2006 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"U.S. soldier reacts to Saddam Hussein's execution: "So now, what will be the next story they tell us to keep us over here?" -- Soldiers expressed doubt that Saddam's death would be a significant turning point for Iraq. "First it was weapons of mass destruction. Then when there were none, it was that we had to find Saddam. We did that, but then it was that we had to put him on trial," said Spc. Thomas Sheck, 25, who is on his second tour in Iraq. "So now, what will be the next story they tell us to keep us over here?"

Posted by: Anonymous | December 30, 2006 3:47 PM | Report abuse

'because William thinks Duke is a wacko nutjob.' --that's the official winger line now, because Duke has criticized Israel. They were fine with Duke when he was a racist only on the subject of blacks and latinos.

And William IS a racist -- just about everything he said indicated that. He's a blood brother of Duke. And I didn't find him 'funny' in any way. Just loud, obnoxious and ill-informed.

Posted by: lark | December 30, 2006 3:45 PM | Report abuse

'Clinton ripped our nation apart on corruption, and cronyism, and bribes.'

Umm, sorry, you must be c onfused. That would be bush you are speaking about. Who after all, was such a good buddy of Jack Abramoff? Ralph Reed? Duke Cunningham? Bob Ney?There are expoentially more criminals in this administration than probably any other in history. Get over it.

and sorry again, condi is ALREADY in the gutter with bush.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 30, 2006 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Just observing a statement in here, that Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton were trusted advisers to their husbands. Well, most people sort of expect that, but the final decision is made by the President.
Eleanor was asked to run for president in 1948, the party would have handed it to her since Truman was down to 29% support at that time.
Eleanor had years and years of being the eyes and ears for FDR, but again, the final decisions were made by him, not her.
Hillary and her National Healthcare plan led to the 54 seat loss in 1994, plus the increased taxes.
Now, if Condi is equal to Eleanor or Hillary in being able to give advice to a President, that should be a PLUS. Laura Bush has stated that she is a person who comforts her husband, not a woman who tries to tell him what to do. That is a PLUS.
In the polls I have seen, both Hillary Clinton and Condi Rice are favored to be considered for president, another PLUS.
I belong to no political party, I just vote for who I think will do a good job.
Today we understand Ford was correct to pardon Nixon. Why? Look at the mess the impeachment of Clinton made? Clinton ripped our nation apart on corruption, and cronyism, and bribes.
That is why I voted for Bush in 2000. To get away from the Clinton garbage.
But I voted for Kerry in 2004, to give him a chance to fix the mistakes of Bush.
But I refuse to blame Condi to each and every problem created by Bush. Only the die-hard Democrats who hate the President would try to drag Condi down into the gutter with Bush.
I like Laura, and I like Condi. But I do not like Bush. Is that ok?

Posted by: Not party member | December 30, 2006 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Maybe people are finally sick of theocrats meddling in their personal lives and the education of their children:

'Against that backdrop, Kline made headlines with his assault on abortion clinics while the Board of Education drew worldwide attention -- and some ridicule -- for its endorsement of challenges to firmly established Darwinian theory.

More recently, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a social conservative thought to be considering running for president, drew notice for holding up a federal judicial nomination when he learned the nominee had attended a commitment ceremony for a lesbian couple. He said he wanted to know whether she had presided.

Kansas Democrats and moderate Republicans fought back this year. In the midterm elections, Democrat Nancy Boyda stunned five-term incumbent Ryun, while moderate Republicans Morrison and his friend Mark Parkinson, a former chairman of the Kansas GOP, changed parties and easily won statewide office.

Morrison outpolled Kline 65 percent to 35 percent in the traditionally Republican county

Posted by: drindl | December 30, 2006 12:58 PM | Report abuse

The NYT gets a scoop on an investigation into the director of a multibillion-dollar Interior Department oil-trading program, who is suspected of being a paid consultant to oil companies while also determining which of those companies get government contracts. Cozy relations with Big Oil in the Bush administration?

Posted by: Anonymous | December 30, 2006 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Amy, I understand. Thank you for clarification. I don't agree or disagree about Edwards yet -- I haven't really seen enuogh. However, I think the staff that he has chosen speaks very highly for him. The campaigns they've been involved in have been competent and most of all, clean.

Wheras John McCain, for instance, has picked some of the filthiest liars and swiftboaters and dirty-tricks operatives in the business, bush's personal circle. He even stooped so low as to hire the very people who smeared his own family. You can see there is nothing he will not do, he's that megalomaniacal and dangerous. Another bush.

I think we wil face a stark choice -- most likely the republican candidate will be another religious chickenhawk, whose only vision for the future is government intrusion in our private lives and endless war.

But if we are lucky, on the Dem side we will get someone like Edwards or Gore -- who understand that the most important issues facing us are going to be energy dependence and the gigantic disclocation of globalization that we are just starting to feel.

Our manufacturing sector is collapsing, our middle class jobs are being outsourced overseas, 40% of us receive no health care. The only people who are not losing ground in this country today are the wealthiest 5% or so. And as bush continues to spend the Social Security surplus, fewer companies offer pensions, and the cost of health care and college continues to rise, things are only going to get worse.

If a candidate can manage to engage these issues, to propose serious solution, I think whoever it is, D or R, can win. Sure terrorism is a big deal, but we have to stop cowering under our beds, and get on with it. We have to create our own future, because right now, partly through the suppression of science by theocrats defunding of research, we are losing our competitives and our tradtional edge on science and technology and falling behind other countries.

Posted by: drindl | December 30, 2006 12:36 PM | Report abuse

William said David Duke was a wacko nutjob or something like that, I forget exactly what. So he probably isn't a junior David Duke. Otherwise, he wouldn't have called Duke a wacko nutjob or whatever.

It would take too long to go back in the archives and find whatever obviously funny thing made me smile. But whatever it was, it can't have been a mini-David-Duke, because William thinks Duke is a wacko nutjob.

Posted by: Amy | December 30, 2006 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Robert*, you put your finger on something important when you mentioned Edwards-speak plagiarizing Obama. But I am not too worried about this sort of thing.

Given enough time, Americans can always tell the difference between a genuine article and a knockoff. If it is taking too long and the primary is coming up, Jon Stewart - plus whatever cool new media will have evolved in 2008 - will help Americans notice before it is too late.

In the long term, plagiarizing Obama just hurts the Edwards campaign. If Edwards instead identifies what makes him unique, and finds a way to work those unique qualities into a viable candidacy, he will be better off.

Needless to say, ethical behavior from all candidates would benefit the whole Democratic party as well.

Posted by: Amy | December 30, 2006 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Amy, Weren't you the one who encouraged William to keep posting because you thought his comments were "funny"?

If you read his comments closely you could see that he is nothing but a junior version of David Duke. That's funny?

Posted by: Duh! | December 30, 2006 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Hi vmi98mom,
Nice post. You mentioned that Edwards "learned from his last venture in National politics that he can only be successful if he honors those beliefs".

I kind of raised my eyebrows because that makes it sound like the reason he lost in 2004 is that he failed to honor his beliefs, but I may have missed the point.

Anyway, can you tell us some more about the differences between 2004 Edwards and 2008 Edwards?

2004 Edwards is the one familiar to most Americans, and also to me.

Based on an earlier thread (a Line of all the Democratic likely candidates) before Edwards officially began his campaign, I've concluded that most Fix contributors are talking about 2004 Edwards. So please clue us in.

I am skeptical that the leopard does not really change his spots. But to be fair, it is always possible that Edwards may have had some sort of personal awakening, and since it is a long time until the primary, he has plenty of time to tell us about it.

Posted by: Amy | December 30, 2006 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Edwards' Two Americas theme is not terribly original and seems cynically calculated to appeal to the more liberal voters in the primaries. While I'd like to see another version of LBJ's War on Poverty, I don't believe that will sell very well to swing voters in a general election. Are we going to see Edwards version 3.0 if/when he is in the general election, and how believable will it seem to change one's public persona on the drop of a dime.

Posted by: Robert* | December 30, 2006 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Drindl,

Your comment that I "sure do like to criticize [my] fellow Dems" is worth a serious response. Here goes.

There is a big difference between criticizing a candidate for political office and criticizing some blogger.

When someone puts their name out there as a candidate or potential candidate, as Edwards and Clinton have done, they are inviting criticism. In fact, it is our responsibility as citizens and voters to express perceived weaknesses in candidates and potential candidates.

Our responsibility holds in the primary season just as much as it does in the general. In fact, drawing attention to perceived weaknesses of Democratic candidates during the primary season benefits, not harms, the Democratic party.

I genuinely believe that John Edwards would be a poor President. There is nothing wrong with my saying so.

That's very different from posting criticisms of another blogger. We are all putting our opinions out there and I'm sure most of us are speaking from the heart. I feel that it is helpful, not harmful, to hear a wide variety of opinions.

That's why, if you look back on my posts, you will see plenty of criticisms of candidates, but no criticisms of bloggers themselves.

I've criticized a few bloggers' POSTS (for example, in the second post today, I quoted MikeB in full, and my language suggested that I did not think his post was very helpful), but only when I felt that those posts exemplified the worst aspects of the characters of the candidates under discussion.

That's different from calling bloggers evil swine with no morals, or twits who suffer from intellectual bankruptcy (see MikeB).

Oh. The other point is that although I've never voted for a Republican candidate, I've also never registered Democrat. I will register Democrat this time, because I want to vote for Obama in the primary. But right now I'm still on the record as Independent. So don't worry about all that fellow Dem stuff. I was not a core Dem to begin with.

OK last thing - nobody else responded to your concern about Edwards' Two Americas leaving out the middle class, but I would like to comment that I agree.

Posted by: Amy | December 30, 2006 11:49 AM | Report abuse

the reason others have reacted as they have to your posts is that they are invariably filled with small-minded sniping. i do not care whether you or anyone else agrees with me or not, but i take offense to (some) positions with which i agree being described as "moonbat," among other things. if you disagree with someone's position, you have to respectfully address the points that are being made, using the language of an intelligent adult and taking care to address the issue rather than the person or philosophy behind it. also, you can use sources that a few more of us have heard of and respect - note that i say nothing about the two you cited today, because i've never heard of them... but one poster did mention that the "global warming" article you linked to does NOT in fact represent a serious dissent within the scientific community.
whether you agree or not, when making a point you are responsible not only for how it is made, but also for how you think it will be received. conversation is a 2 way street - should be, at least - and if you step off the curb without looking both ways, people get hurt.
i suspect that you will either ignore this or find a way to sneer at it, perhaps by calling me a "moonbat." whatever floats your boat - but i hope you will consider, deep down in your Grinchy heart, the value that there still is in sincere and respectful dialogue. as the chief house right-winger, you have a great opportunity to set a good example and turn this thread into something which will contribute to peoples' understanding rather than degenerate into name-calling.

Posted by: hey zouk | December 30, 2006 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Unlike Amy, who seems to choose her candidate by gut feeling, I have met both Barak Obama and John Edwards (also Biden, Richardson, Clark and Clinton). Both are smart and charismatic. Both would make good candidates. I think both are genuine in their beliefs, but I think that Edwards has the "fire in the belly" needed to go the distance, learned from his last venture in National politics that he can only be successful if he honors those beliefs, and has demonstrated life experience and has a record of how he would handle crisis that Obama does not have.

For the Biden supporters, Joe is a nice enough guy and is very well-versed on foreign policy, especially on the ME. He has spoke at some of our local breakfasts and is very charming, but he suffers from foot-in mouth-disease and his past comments will haunt him. Richardson is VERY smart, but is a better behind-the-scenes player than in front of the crowd. HRC is not WJC. She comes across as condescending in person and as wishy washy to the public. Clark is nice enough, but has no vision.

So my money is on Edwards.

Posted by: vmi98mom | December 30, 2006 7:28 AM | Report abuse

The subject is Condi, but not for President. She can not escape being largly a responsible member of the inner circle of George W. Bush.
She is called his closest adviser by some. But as far as I can see, she just agrees with him one hundred percent of the time.
So she is part of the failure that is happening in Iraq, and Condi was one of the main architects of that failure.
This is not a good resume point. It shows her to be an important part of the calamity of The Iraq War. But, she is clearly a loyalist to George W. Bush which will make her ineligible for President in the Public's mind.

Posted by: Virgil C | December 30, 2006 3:34 AM | Report abuse

The subject is Condi, but not for President. She can not escape being largly a responsible member of the inner circle of George W. Bush.
She is called his closest adviser by some. But as far as I can see, she just agrees with him one hundred percent of the time.
So she is part of the failure that is happening in Iraq, and Condi was one of the main architects of that failure.
This is not a good resume point. It shows her to be an important part of the calamity of The Iraq War. But, she is clearly a loyalist to George W. Bush which will make her ineligible for President in the Public's mind.

Posted by: virgil clifton | December 30, 2006 3:32 AM | Report abuse

The subject is Condi, but not for President. She can not escape being largly a responsible member of the inner circle of George W. Bush.
She is called his closest adviser. But as far as I can see, she agrees with him one hundred percent of the time.
So she is part of the failure that is happening in Iraq, and Condi was one of the main architects of that failure.
This is not a good resume point. It shows her to be an important part of the calamity of The Iraq War. But, she is clearly a loyalist to George W. Bush which will make her ineligible for President in the Public's mind.

Posted by: zvirgil2 | December 30, 2006 3:30 AM | Report abuse

Thank you Amy.

I was away from my computer most of the day and didn't get a chance to respond to MikeB.

As noted by another reader, another reason I question John Edwards is that he recently stole basically verbatim Barack Obama's response to the "inexperience" question - without attribution. This is the type of blatant plagiarism of another politician's speech that destroyed Biden's campaign for president many years ago.

The following is an exchange I had on the last thread with an intelligent, reasonable supporter of John Edwards regarding race baiting. Though MikeB wasn't mentioned by name, it's who I was thinking of:

Robert, thanks for that. I didn't realise NC Governor was blue.

Re "Watch this in the coming year: I believe it will be certain fellow Democrats - who are rooting for another candidate - who play the race card on Obama more than Republicans."

I hope you're wrong, but it may well occur. Under the respectable banner of "electability" of course. I wish people would stop talking about electability and start talking about why they should be elected. This was Bayh's real problem.

Posted by: JayPe | December 28, 2006 08:18 PM

Posted by: Robert* | December 30, 2006 1:01 AM | Report abuse

hmm

Posted by: Anonymous | December 29, 2006 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Apologies for the double, laptop froze up and I didn't think the first went through.

Posted by: CJ | December 29, 2006 11:27 PM | Report abuse

I think Tina is wrong about Condi, though hopefully my perception is mistaken instead. The day on which an African-American woman wins a Republican primary, particularly in the South, is a long time in the future.

Posted by: CJ | December 29, 2006 11:26 PM | Report abuse

I think Tina is wrong about Condi, though I hope that instead it is I who misunderstands some segments of the voting populace. My estimate is that the day on which an African-American woman wins a Republican primary, particularly in the South, is a long time in the future - way more than, say, 15-18 months.

Posted by: CJ | December 29, 2006 11:23 PM | Report abuse

KOZ, you asked where the post-election gas price rise was. Well, it happened right on schedule. After several months of falling prices, the price at my local Chevron station went up ten cents a gallon on the Thursday after the election--2 days. And at least on the West Coast (I have direct knowledge of prices in Washington state and California) the price has continued to escalate, and is now $2.75 or more in California, and generally $2.69 in Washington. At the same time crude prices have been quite stable.

Right on schedule, KOZ, right on schedule.

Posted by: larry | December 29, 2006 10:47 PM | Report abuse

I thought it was Neil Bush and Silverado...

Posted by: Anonymous | December 29, 2006 8:08 PM | Report abuse

says:

"
What ever happened to the instant rise in gas prices directly after the election you conspiracy nuts predicted?
"


why are gas prices in the United States at around 2 dollars when in Europe the price of GASoline is at 8 dollars?


do you think that the mpg of US vehicles would go up if the price of gas oline were raised for non commercial vehicles?


do you think that the amount of air pollution would decrease in DC if government workers were mandated telecommuting as a commitment to the environment, infrastructure and forward thinking?


can any of you think of obvious things that would positively affect our national security besides having Michael Chertoff divert funds to the presidents friends under the guise of fighting "terrorism?"


g o o g l e Negroponte and Honduras if you want to know who the terrorists are and who supports them....


you might also remember that Congress has voted money to Al Quearboyz, when the CIA was using them to harass the Soviets in Afghanistan...


which would make them _our_ agents


sorta like the Contra scam, you know drugs for money/guns....

Noriega, George W. Bush snorting coke.... Columbian


or how about searching on Bridas Corporation and the TransAfghanistan Pipeline....


Argentina lost 13 Trillion when Bush decided to use the military to take over Afghanistan.... you all know all about that right?

remember Michael Moore was talking about the head of the Taliban visting Bush at his Crawford ranch in Farenheit 911? When they didn't reach an accord, Bush invaded...


Iraq, second largest OIL RESERVES IN THE WORLD....


democracy? huh? how stupid are you? did we give democracy to the red man, or kill them all and send the rest to Oklahoma...

remember the Alamo? how about invading Mexican territory and making up a BS story about _that_?

remember the Maine? how about making up a BS story and invading Cuba, Puerto Rico and Manila?

Posted by: king of pandering | December 29, 2006 8:06 PM | Report abuse

is simplicity and lack of arrogance.

talking about outsourcing alone would win him the presidency....


not that he needs it.

the middle class is hurting, and there are a lot of people in the service sector that have college educations....


what good is a degree if you can't find a job?


you all in Washington, need to visit the outlying areas.


Even Oprah, is so far removed from the solution to a better America, that she has missed her opportunity on her show on poverty, she has no idea that if there were manufacturing jobs to be had that poverty would be something that people could step out of...


with the first rung missing on the ladder to vertical growth...


the people below Lower Upper Class is increasing at light speed.

and the largest segment moving into poverty most rapidly, are the aging....


lose any pensions in the Savings and Loan Disaster ? Keating 5 Jeb Bush/Siverado.

.


Posted by: what edwards has going for him | December 29, 2006 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about the multiple post. That was an accident.

Posted by: Charles Coulter - LA | December 29, 2006 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Let's not be so quick to count John Edwards out.

Barack Obama still hasn't entered the race, and he is every bit as untried a commodity as Edwards.

Here are a few Edwards selling points: when the 2004 campaign took wing, who were the Bush people most afraid of facing in the general campaign? Edwards.

Why? Because they innately understood that the American people do not sit around ticking off experience checks in columns. If this were about experience, rather than popularity and plausibility on the national stage, we would all be discussing Bill Richardson more seriously, who has a resume quite unlike any other.

The presidency, like it or not, has never rested solely on experience and gravitas--otherwise the candidacies of FDR (2 years governor, secretary of the Navy, failed VP candidate), Carter (one term Georgia governor), Lincoln (one term congress, two failed senate runs) and others would never have taken wing.

This is why Obama and Edwards are both viable. The best solution is hear the candidates out. Review their economic plans. Many critics though Edwards's was the most substantive of the candidates the last run out, and Kerry adapted many of JE's best ideas--even though JFK seemed to not know what to do with his VP.

Another factor: a GOP strategist on Hardball was asked which candidate they fear the most from the Democratic pack, and the strategist replied Edwards.

Matthews commented that Edwards was neither a woman nor a black man. I assume he meant that, if JE were chosen, those hurdles would not play into an inability to siphon votes from the opposition. The strategist thought Edwards was simply the most appealing.

I, for one, don't think being black or a woman is a deal-breaker. Far from it. I think being a Clinton is a deal-breaker.

A female governor like Kathleen Sebelius would be a better national candidate in a climate after what is now twenty years of Clintons and Bushes.

HRC's hopes hinge on the Midwest. What state will she win?
What that was once red will she win?

Here is where we hear--Florida and Ohio. Please. Florida won't happen. And Ohio is slightly more possible, but only slightly, and this is after all the other houses are controlled by Democrats (historically the American people divide power) and granted the fact that she is not her husband, and Kerry lost the state by a fair margin--even with a limping Bush.

Obama--now he is the other possible winner.

But I want to see what Edwards can do. This isn't about celebrity. We don't pick a superhero here. Look at their plans.

Posted by: Charles Coulter - Los Angeles | December 29, 2006 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Let's not be so quick to count John Edwards out.

Barack Obama still hasn't entered the race, and he is every bit as untried a commodity as Edwards.

Here are a few Edwards selling points: when the 2004 campaign took wing, who were the Bush people most afraid of facing in the general campaign? Edwards.

Why? Because they innately understood that the American people do not sit around ticking off experience checks in columns. If this were about experience, rather than popularity and plausibility on the national stage, we would all be discussing Bill Richardson more seriously, who has a resume quite unlike any other.

The presidency, like it or not, has never rested solely on experience and gravitas--otherwise the candidacies of FDR (2 years governor, secretary of the Navy, failed VP candidate), Carter (one term Georgia governor), Lincoln (one term congress, two failed senate runs) and others would never have taken wing.

This is why Obama and Edwards are both viable. The best solution is hear the candidates out. Review their economic plans. Many critics though Edwards's was the most substantive of the candidates the last run out, and Kerry adapted many of JE's best ideas--even though JFK seemed to not know what to do with his VP.

Another factor: a GOP strategist on Hardball was asked which candidate they fear the most from the Democratic pack, and the strategist replied Edwards.

Matthews commented that Edwards was neither a woman nor a black man. I assume he meant that, if JE were chosen, those hurdles would not play into an inability to siphon votes from the opposition. The strategist thought Edwards was simply the most appealing.

I, for one, don't think being black or a woman is a deal-breaker. Far from it. I think being a Clinton is a deal-breaker.

A female governor like Kathleen Sebelius would be a better national candidate in a climate after what is now twenty years of Clintons and Bushes.

HRC's hopes hinge on the Midwest. What state will she win?
What that was once red will she win?

Here is where we hear--Florida and Ohio. Please. Florida won't happen. And Ohio is slightly more possible, but only slightly, and this is after all the other houses are controlled by Democrats (historically the American people divide power) and granted the fact that she is not her husband, and Kerry lost the state by a fair margin--even with a limping Bush.

Obama--now he is the other possible winner.

But I want to see what Edwards can do. This isn't about celebrity. We don't pick a superhero here. Look at their plans.

Posted by: Charles Coulter - Los Angeles | December 29, 2006 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Let's not be so quick to count John Edwards out.

Barack Obama still hasn't entered the race, and he is every bit as untried a commodity as Edwards.

Here are a few Edwards selling points: when the 2004 campaign took wing, who were the Bush people most afraid of facing in the general campaign? Edwards.

Why? Because they innately understood that the American people do not sit around ticking off experience checks in columns. If this were about experience, rather than popularity and plausibility on the national stage, we would all be discussing Bill Richardson more seriously, who has a resume quite unlike any other.

The presidency, like it or not, has never rested solely on experience and gravitas--otherwise the candidacies of FDR (2 years governor, secretary of the Navy, failed VP candidate), Carter (one term Georgia governor), Lincoln (one term congress, two failed senate runs) and others would never have taken wing.

This is why Obama and Edwards are both viable. The best solution is hear the candidates out. Review their economic plans. Many critics though Edwards's was the most substantive of the candidates the last run out, and Kerry adapted many of JE's best ideas--even though JFK seemed to not know what to do with his VP.

Another factor: a GOP strategist on Hardball was asked which candidate they fear the most from the Democratic pack, and the strategist replied Edwards.

Matthews commented that Edwards was neither a woman nor a black man. I assume he meant that, if JE were chosen, those hurdles would not play into an inability to siphon votes from the opposition. The strategist thought Edwards was simply the most appealing.

I, for one, don't think being black or a woman is a deal-breaker. Far from it. I think being a Clinton is a deal-breaker.

A female governor like Kathleen Sebelius would be a better national candidate in a climate after what is now twenty years of Clintons and Bushes.

HRC's hopes hinge on the Midwest. What state will she win?
What that was once red will she win?

Here is where we hear--Florida and Ohio. Please. Florida won't happen. And Ohio is slightly more possible, but only slightly, and this is after all the other houses are controlled by Democrats (historically the American people divide power) and granted the fact that she is not her husband, and Kerry lost the state by a fair margin--even with a limping Bush.

Obama--now he is the other possible winner.

But I want to see what Edwards can do. This isn't about celebrity. We don't pick a superhero here. Look at their plans.

Posted by: Charles Coulter - Los Angeles | December 29, 2006 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Amy, although I agree with your stance on Obama, for a democrat, you sure do like to criticize your fellow Dems, more than say, anyone else here.

For the record, I don't support any of the candidates yet, from either side. I think Edwards has potential [sorry, all photo ops are creepy], I think Obama bears further study, I don't much care for Biden [due to past votes], I think Gore would be terrific, but how much chance is there, I could even vote for Hillary if she was the only choice against any republican who is it currently out there [well, maybe Chuck Hagel--that's a possible].

Posted by: drindl | December 29, 2006 7:17 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards, I encourage you to urge your footsoldiers to avoid calling dissenters intellectually bankrupt name-callers who have no arguments and sound like twits.

Your recommendations to them would go a long way to raising the tone of the whole primary season.

Posted by: Amy | December 29, 2006 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, I haven't been following the thread, but I just wanted to say that for the record historians are going to look back at Saddam's execution during a civil war as the lowest point of the entire Iraq effort, and thus the lowest point of Bush's career.

Well deserved, I might add. Tonight's events clinch the fact that Bush has personally overseen the worst strategic blunder in American history. Executing the country's former President during the worst period of a multi-year occupation/insurgency turned overt Civil War. It just boggles the mind. May God forgive our country and may our future leaders know the difference between right and wrong.

I wish everyone a happy and healthy New Year and we've got some real work to do in '07. Cheers.

Posted by: F&B | December 29, 2006 7:09 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, you were basically saying that anyone agreeing with this statement - Edwards is sort of like a white Obama except not as effective as the real Obama - is a racist right-winger trying to split the Democratic ranks.

When someone says "Anyone who does [blank] is a racist who wants [blank], that's called "playing the race card."

Posted by: Amy | December 29, 2006 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Robert* - "...using the race card..." What are you talking about? Pointing out that the right is trying to get some sort of fight going between Edward's and Obama supporters over race? Is that the race card? Or, is it wondering if a lot of American's wont vot for a black candidate no matter who he is? Come on! Get real. You sound like the twits who claim it is racist to want to deport all of the illegals. All it amounts to 21st Century name calling, an admission of intellectual bankruptcy and a complete lack of arguments to support your position.

Posted by: MikeB | December 29, 2006 6:38 PM | Report abuse

A quality hard to describe and somewhat intangible should also be examined in any potential democratic candidate. It is the ability to inspire, move and motivate people. JFK definitely had it and so did Reagan to an extent. If a candidate is blessed with the intangible and can somehow *move* the people to common thought and action, it may mean as much or more than the experience derived from many years in public service. Of course, I'm thinking Obama here ... and the *common thought and action* I'm refering to only means enough of a Tsunami to wash aside what would surely be extreme and aggravated opposition. We'll see what happens.

Posted by: EyeOpener | December 29, 2006 6:15 PM | Report abuse

It may well be a bumpy road for the democratic candidates as the process runs its course and a final leader of the pack become apparent. There may well be some outside agitators (hmmm who could that be?) that will try to shake things up and drive wedges between the candidates. The democrats must keep their cool and their honor and not self destruct. The most capable leader and potential democratic nominee should emerge as a result.

Posted by: EyeOpener | December 29, 2006 5:53 PM | Report abuse

I know the concern you mean, but I think Obama is wholly on top of the zeitgeist. He does not seem naive to me at all. He seems extremely competent.

Anyway it is still 2006 (if only barely). So Obama has two whole years to convince you that I'm right or me that you're right. Could go either way. I don't want a naive President any more than you do.

Posted by: Amy | December 29, 2006 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama could easily be a repeat of peanut. no experience, far-left liberal, good hearted but with no sense of how the world really works. that may have barely worked in the 90s but now we are past that naive state.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 29, 2006 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Zouk-

Your take on Edwards, yup, I agree.

Obama - "empty blank slate" was initially my concern, too. I thought I would have to decide between Hillary and Giuliani.

What a choice: potential loser (whether before or after the inauguration), or a Republican propelled into fame by Al Qaeda. OMG.

But then I checked Obama out in a bit more detail and felt that what he is bringing to the table is valuable for the Presidential office but rarely seen there. His comments to the Saddleback congregation were particularly impressive to me, and I am far from being a fundamentalist.

Posted by: Amy | December 29, 2006 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Amy, those are the moonbat contingency found in here. What ever happened to the instant rise in gas prices directly after the election you conspiracy nuts predicted?

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 29, 2006 5:10 PM | Report abuse

I just want to speak up as an Edwards fan - my support for him stems from my belief that he's a principled, progressive and intelligent man who shares many of the same beliefs and political opinions as me. But I like Obama and Clinton almost as much as I like Edwards, for exactly the same reasons. The fact that I like Edwards more than them most likely is a result of the fact that I grew up in NC and was in college there when he ran for the Senate. (Ironically enough, given some of the criticism of him here, I had donated to another candidate in that Senate primary and then saw Edwards in a debate - I was so impressed I immediately switched my allegiance to Edwards and went door-to-door for him after he got the nomination!) I think Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, are much like Bill and Hillary Clinton in that both are really, really smart and neither takes a subservient position to the other in their public relationship. The fact that Edwards is wealthy doesn't bother me any more than the fact that the Clintons are wealthy bothers me - he made every dime of his wealth as an attorney, mostly representing kids who got injured by faulty products and careless doctors. Good for him. I wish I could do so well in my profession!

I would be happy with any of the three as the Democratic nominee, but Edwards is my first choice. Obama and Clinton are right on his heels, but Edwards inspires me in a way that they haven't yet. I'm so, so glad that the Democrats (most likely) are going to have at least three great options, though - what a pleasant change from years past!

Posted by: Emma | December 29, 2006 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is all about sweet platitudes with no substance and Obama is simply a blank slate upon which all hope can be projected. Neither can be considered one of the adult candidates with any chance of actually winning. Kinda like Dean.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 29, 2006 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Robert*.

I'd imagine that reasonable, intelligent Democrats might support Edwards if they feel that anything would be better than another Republican President, and fear that neither Clinton nor Obama is electable. It isn't dumb to worry that someone as cold as Hillary, or as not-white as Obama, might lose the general.

Once enough time passes, it may become clear that genuine voter interest (not media hype) is the source of the Obama boom (not boomlet). If (when) this happens, we will probably see a lot of the reasonable, intelligent Democrats switching over from Edwards to Obama.

In the meantime, I still find Edwards to be shallow and his photo-ops creepy. The swift boating attacks just reflect the general shallowness of Edwards' attitude toward politics. (My favorite attack so far was when JEP said that I must have had an unhappy relationship with a member of the Edwards campaign, because no other explanation could possibly account for my preferences for other candidates. Wow! MikeB may not be able to beat that creative leap.) Shallow leader, shallow followers.

Posted by: Amy | December 29, 2006 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I don't think the terms "left wing" and "right wing" can be applied to everyone. Times are changing and we need new terminology. Even though it makes me smile to be called a right wing whack job in one post and the left wing of the Democratic party in the next post, those names don't really advance the conversation.

Already said I'm not right wing, voting record makes that plain.

But I definitely wouldn't call myself on the left wing of the Democratic party, Obama voter or not. I am pretty fond of Zouk, even though I hope he comes around on global warming soon enough to make a difference. (We may not have the 50 years' luxury of cogitation time that we did for Einstein.)

If I were an old left winger, Zouk would drive me up the wall. But I like him. Libertarians may be overly idealistic for day-to-day operations, but it is good that we have some around in case of emergency.

Posted by: Amy | December 29, 2006 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Fearing President Bush is poised to escalate the Iraq war, several New England Democrats said they will support spending restrictions to block a potential troop surge, or even leverage a withdrawal.

another broken campaign promise. Can't you at least wait until you are actually in office to break all your lies... I mean promises. No, I mean lies.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 29, 2006 3:45 PM | Report abuse

"reasonable and intelligent Democrats"

Do you know any? I would love to meet her.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 29, 2006 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Bsimon - I will defend myself if provoked. you peaceniks should consider the benefits of that philosophy. I am more than happy to remain on the up-and-up if anyone will take the challenge. there are a few but a minority here.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 29, 2006 3:36 PM | Report abuse

It wasn't clear from my last post, but it's not Drndl who I believe is swift boating fellow Democrats. I just don't understand how reasonable and intelligent Democrats can support Edwards. But some of them do.

Then there are also the wackos who support Edwards, swift boat fellow Democrats, and use the race card against Obama. They've made their identities abundantly clear as well.

Posted by: Robert* | December 29, 2006 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Like Amy, I'm also a lifelong Democrat. As I've previously indicated, I'm also a very strong supporter of Barack Obama. I think he'd make a far better candidate and president than Edwards.

I am very disturbed by some of the swift boat tactics used by a few Edwards supporters - you know who you are - who resort to ad hominen attacks against fellow Democrats who dare mention some of Edwards' weaknesses.

I agree with Drndl on most issues, but not on this. As for MikeB, I don't appreciate him using the race card against Barack Obama.

Posted by: Robert* | December 29, 2006 3:31 PM | Report abuse

lark writes "Lieberman proves he's even more clubfooted and clueless than anyone could have guessed:

'So, in his WaPo editorial Lieberman truly reveals that he knows absolutely nothing about what's going on in Iraq. He asserts it's a conflict between bad guys sponsored by Iran and everyone else, which is a more ignorant analysis of the situation than even Glenn Reynolds usually manages to come with up.

And this is who is supposed to be "serious" about foreign policy."


While I feel no love for Bush or Cheney, I can't say that I wish Lieberman had been Vice President for the last 6 years.

Both parties have been far too competent at practicing the peter principle for their last several nominees.

Posted by: bsimon | December 29, 2006 3:24 PM | Report abuse

KingofZouk writes "I enjoyed the interaction yesterday and found that without the usual moonbat posters the tone and effectiveness of substantial policy debate is excellent. Perhaps the JEPs, drindls and nonames will moderate their insults-all-the-time and strive for some progress inducing and idea sharing in the new year. but it is relatively easy to ignore them otherwise."

How odd it is that you failed to mention some of their colleagues on the other side, like... you, for one example, or bhoomes.


Posted by: bsimon | December 29, 2006 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Tina writes "There is no other woman in our history who has had such a direct link to the president or who has been as trusted as Condi."

With the possible exceptions of Eleanore Roosevelt, Hillary Clinton and Madelaine Albright. Any of whom I would trust more as President than Condi - including Ms. Roosevelt, who is no longer with us.

Posted by: bsimon | December 29, 2006 3:13 PM | Report abuse

"Sometimes people who feel strongly about an issue (like that person who wanted troops out of Iraq) can get a bit overblown."

Do you really need to explain this to the hurricane of blowhards? I am not surprised his approach elicited a reaction like that. fight fire with fire. how would you respond to:

you're not voting for Kerry you "simply ignorant, self destructive moron". you "are despicable and need to understand that we have figured you out and you are about to go the way of all failures".

speaking about failures from a Kerry supporter is deliciously ironic.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 29, 2006 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Amy, don't get me wrong, here. If Obama was the Democratic nominee, I would vote for him. You sound as if you are a part of the left wing of MY party, however, and we are miles apart on most issues.

Posted by: MikeB | December 29, 2006 3:07 PM | Report abuse

I prefer to inhabit the world of facts until at least they are agreed upon and then opinions from them can be examined. But we seldom if ever even agree on any facts on this website. why would offering my opinions in a vacuum be of any value to you?

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 29, 2006 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Hi again MikeB,

Thank you for your work on the Kerry campaign. Like you, I supported and voted for John Kerry in 2004. Even then I had a negative reaction to Edwards, but that didn't affect my vote.

It is a shame that someone you visited during that campaign said something so tactless. Sometimes people who feel strongly about an issue (like that person who wanted troops out of Iraq) can get a bit overblown. That person probably meant well, whoever it was. People mostly do mean well.

Posted by: Amy | December 29, 2006 3:04 PM | Report abuse

I see. That's your rational summary of Democratic positions is it? Never mind.

It is your willingness to disrupt conversation by brutal means while not supplying your own opinions for examination that has offended me in the past. I suspected that it was a sport for you. Thanks for clarifying.

Posted by: Adam Hammond | December 29, 2006 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Other comment to MikeB:

If someone says they are an Obama supporter, one possibility is that they are an Obama supporter.

This is the simplest explanation of why someone might say they are an Obama supporter. It is also the reason why I said I am an Obama supporter. It is because I am.

Another possible explanation is that the person is a right-wing plant, hired to subvert Edwards. This explanation is somewhat baroque and convoluted; it may be accurate in a few instances, but likely is inaccurate in most.

For example, when I say I am an Obama supporter, you are not reasoning very carefully if you assume that means I must be a right-wing plant.

In all likelihood, most of the Obama supporters out there are probably not right-wing plants. That's why his books are selling like hotcakes. Right-wing plants would not shell out the bucks to read them. People who are actually interested in him would.

Posted by: Amy | December 29, 2006 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I would reply that I am not unyeildingly partisan. In fact yesterday I acknolwedged several policies of clinton that I supported. I can also freely find many Bush poliicies I don't support. I am personally more interested in the twisted nature of the reasoning process that many Dems use to come to their conclusions. killing prisoners is bad, killing terrorists is Ok as long as no soldiers die, killing babies is OK. Raising taxes is good, spending is bad, unless it is our spending. bad schools are OK, bad retirements are OK, expensive health care is a benefit, supporting the military is good unless they are losing.... it just goes on and on.

You probably don't know many of my personal beliefs on most issues since I don't wear my views on my sleeve (or keyboard). but this is all just sport to annoy pompous, know-it-all big government liberals.

If you are able top provide an interestign idea from the Dem party I would be glad to consider and then have it shot for treason.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 29, 2006 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Amy: "I voted for...Nader...."

Amy, by definition that makes you a certified whacko in my book. When I was knocking on doors, campaigning for Kerry, before the 2004 election, I ended up on the doorstep of some Naderite's. They insulting, to say the least, and we got to talking about the fact that my son was in Iraq. The Naderite comment was that she hoped he would be killed becasue he deserved it, 'all of the U.S. soldier's over there are war criminals anyways'.

Nader and Naderite's are as criminally insane as Bush and Bush's supporters.

Posted by: MikeB | December 29, 2006 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Zouk,

Since you are in a contemplative mood, perhaps I might ask a question. Why are you so unyieldingly partisan? I do not mean to suggest that you are the only one here who harbors an us-versus-them mentality about politics. I am just universally interested in what makes people so adamant. Even if an individual has had bad ideas in the past, a rational evaluation treats each idea individually. How can you claim to be Socratic, but prejudge all ideas that come from the Democratic party? I suppose this is the wrong place to unpack these issues. Sorry to those of you who came for pure politics. Its a slow day for that.

Posted by: Adam Hammond | December 29, 2006 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Hi Drindl,
Irrespective of the polarity of the intelligence difference between MikeB and me, my vote and his count the same.

Hi MikeB,
I'm not a right wing whack job. I voted for Clinton, Nader and Kerry. I've never cast a Republican presidential vote in my life.

Posted by: Amy | December 29, 2006 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Adam - just sharing an alternative viewpoint I stumbled upon today. I can't vouch for the data, only report it. But notice I confess to not know, something few on the green side will do. I am from the Socrates school on that measure. I really "know" very little. The one thing I do know is that I don't know. Maybe that's why they poisoned him.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 29, 2006 2:25 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, if you alredy know EVERYTHING, why bother visiting here. you seem to have many issues which you project onto others. Feel free to ignore me, as I am sure you do with anyone who resists your pronouncements. that fits the definition of a closed mind and misses the goal of this venue. It must be difficult to be a grouchy, pessimistic, conspiracy-minded "know-it-all" with zero powers of persuasion.

If we are going the way of all failures, I can only presume you mean to Plains, Georgia.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 29, 2006 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Yes, in real science there are some aspects of any question that are more settled than others. The question of whether climate change is our fault is more debated than the question of whether the climate is changing, etc. Your choice of studies to make your point was unfortunate, since it had absolutely no respect for the scientific method and was just a blatant attempt to cloud the issues.

Posted by: Adam Hammond | December 29, 2006 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Maybe he (or she) is changing. His posts have had fewer personal attacks and increased rational argument. Lets face it, this thread usually contains a lot of stretched points.

Posted by: Adam Hammond | December 29, 2006 2:06 PM | Report abuse

My only point about the climate change idea was that it is far from settled science. In fact it took over 50 years to demonstrate proof for Einstein's relativity, despite almost instant acceptance. Science is almost never settled. the visitors of this site seem to rely on polls and do not harbor much respect for the scientific method required for technical conclusions. Math doesn't lie but models can be used to fake you out with variables which are not properlly vetted.

I enjoyed the interaction yesterday and found that without the usual moonbat posters the tone and effectiveness of substantial policy debate is excellent. Perhaps the JEPs, drindls and nonames will moderate their insults-all-the-time and strive for some progress inducing and idea sharing in the new year. but it is relatively easy to ignore them otherwise.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 29, 2006 2:05 PM | Report abuse

drindl, You don't even try to reason with people like Amy and KOZ. They are simply ignorant, self destructive morons and I expect Darwin will take very good care of them. For some reason that totally eludes me, these right wing whack jobs seem to think that being a liberal and a Christian means we have to be nice to thugs and jerks. Well, guys, get over it! We feel no obligation whatsoever to tolerate ignorance, bigotry, evil, or simply nonsense. Moreover, most liberals I know hunt and own guns, fish, aren't particularly upset about someone eating meat or wearing fur. We aren't upset either if two people of the same sex love each other want to set up a household, and we actively sympathize with a terrified woman who goes through the hell of deciding whether to bring a child into the world or risk their life. We want a teenage girl, raped by a father or other male relative or a rapist, to have a choice to bring that child into the world or not. Many of us are opposed to illegal immigrants being granted any sort of amnesty, but we will not be brought down into some sort of racist fight with you. We understand that these people are simply poor, desparate people, who want to feed and house their families, as much as the desparately poor American's they are competing with for scare jobs. The enemy is the employer who hires them, who actively encourages them to come here and artificially sets up this fight...rather like the Obama-Edward's attempted setup by right wing talk radio right now. You right wingers are despicable and need to understand that we have figured you out and you are about to go the way of all failures. Darwin.

Posted by: MikeB | December 29, 2006 2:03 PM | Report abuse

oh adam, zouk isn't fooled. he has an agenda-- probably works for an oil company. anyway, citing BS is what he does...

Posted by: Anonymous | December 29, 2006 1:59 PM | Report abuse

but course, bush is just some poor lil nobody from texas. it's not like he's heir to one of the richest guys in the world [from saudi oil deals] btw...

really logical, joey boy. really consistent.

just looking for something to slam democrats -- all you people know how to do...hate hate hate.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 29, 2006 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Hi Zouk,

Yesterday was a good day for you. Engaging contributions. The source you mention on climate change is a misrepresentation of a flawed poll. NREP is a tiny organization whos members come from a very broad array of backgrounds with highly variable authority on climatology, in fact, most of them are not scientists. The questions asked were designed to take advantage of the fact that even scientists never speak in absolutes - it was an opinion poll that had more to do with politics than scientific analysis of data. Finally, the presentation of the results at the Hernando Today site misrepresents what the poll was and what it means. The poll probably does represent the opinions of the members of NREP, but absolutely does NOT warrant the title it was given "Scientists still vigorously debating climate variance"

I can see how this article would be misleading, but don't be fooled.

Posted by: Adam Hammond | December 29, 2006 1:49 PM | Report abuse

dirty Harry Reid will be away on his all expense paid trip to some Mayen ruins and won't be at the President's funeral. this is the most classless and tasteless member of the Senate. He can't forego his vacation despite whining all year about perks.

His next big avaricious act will be to cling to power based on an incapacitated Senator who physically can't represent his state. doesn't matter as long as Harry gets to make the rules. dirty harry - bound to go down in the books as the biggest weasel of the decade.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 29, 2006 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Edwards Inner Circle: Pretty impressive. You can definitely tell the guy's been planning a second run for years now. He might just pull it off.

Concerning Dr. Rice: There's no way she runs. Period. She brings way too much Iraq baggage.

Posted by: Centrist Texan Dem | December 29, 2006 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Has the Wash Post heard about the multi-million dollar estate Edwards is building? By calling Edwards a populist, it creates the image that he is just like the rest of us. Excuse me, but how many of us live in a $3 million mansion and are in the middle of building a bigger mansion?
The Democrats seem to talk a lot about greed and abuse of power, but why can't they see that mulitmillionaires like Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Harry Reid, Edwards, and John Kerry just give the common regular guy the image of their own lavish lifestyle as out of reach of most Democrats.
My focus is mostly on Edwards since the media finally exposed his living arrangements in North Carolina and DC. Lavish mansions at both locations along with Kerry and his 5 lavish mansions made them look foolish.
By claiming to promote energy conservation, and water turbines, the Democrats sounded pretty good until Kerry and Walter Cronkite tried to block the wind turbines from being built off the RICH Haven of Nantucket.
Time for Rosie to make up a poem about Democrats who are hypocrites and fly around on their lavish jets polluting the air.

Posted by: Joe from Kalamazoo | December 29, 2006 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman proves he's even more clubfooted and clueless than anyone could have guessed:

'So, in his WaPo editorial Lieberman truly reveals that he knows absolutely nothing about what's going on in Iraq. He asserts it's a conflict between bad guys sponsored by Iran and everyone else, which is a more ignorant analysis of the situation than even Glenn Reynolds usually manages to come with up.

And this is who is supposed to be "serious" about foreign policy.

Lord help us all.

Of course, no one will bother to ask the Last Honest Man why a year ago he said everything was working and 6 months ago he said we'd be able to start substantial troop withdrawals by now.'

Posted by: lark | December 29, 2006 1:41 PM | Report abuse

That is your position, everyone is a liar except Bill Clinton? I suppose you could ignore the facts if you must.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 29, 2006 1:39 PM | Report abuse

I don't know when Scott Stanzel started working as a White House spokesman, but his rejoinder to Joe Biden's anti-escalation views doesn't make much sense: "I would hope that Senator Biden would wait to hear what the president has to say before announcing what he's opposed to." So while the Decider dithers none of us are allowed to offer our opinions about what he should do? I suppose it would be convenient for the White House message team if things worked that way. I think Gary Schmitt from PNAC is insightful on the psychodynamics here:

"No president wants to be remembered as the guy who lost a war," he said. "Who knows whether this is a day late and a dollar short, but it is a striking example of presidential will trying to bend the system to what he wants."
Roughly speaking, the fixed point of the president's thinking is an unwillingness to admit that the venture has failed. For a long time the best way to do that was to simply deny that there was a problem. Political strategy for the midterms, however, dictated that the president had to acknowledge the public's concerns about the war and concede that things weren't going well. At that point, simply staying the course doesn't work anymore. But de-escalating would be an admission of failure, so the only option is to choose escalation. Thus, the idea of an escalation starts getting pushed and we start reading things int he paper like "Top military officials have said that they are open to sending more U.S. troops to Iraq if there is a specific strategic mission for them." Consider the process here. It's not that the president has some policy initiative in mind whose operational requirements dictate a surge in force levels. Rather, locked in the prison of his own denial he came to the conclusion that he should back an escalation, prompting the current search for a mission.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 29, 2006 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"Bush administration officials" are telling CNN that Saddam Hussein will be hanged this weekend. Convention dictates that we precede any discussion of this execution with the obligatory nod to Saddam's treachery, bloodthirsty rule and tyranny. But enough of the cowardly chatter. This thing is a sham, of a piece with the whole corrupt, disastrous sham that the war and occupation has been. Bush administration officials are the ones who leak the news about the time of the execution. One key reason we know Saddam's about to be executed is that he's about to be transferred from US to Iraqi custody, which tells you a lot. And, of course, the verdict in his trial gets timed to coincide with the US elections.

This whole endeavor, from the very start, has been about taking tawdry, cheap acts and dressing them up in a papier-mache grandeur -- phony victory celebrations, ersatz democratization, reconstruction headed up by toadies, con artists and grifters. And this is no different. Hanging Saddam is easy. It's a job, for once, that these folks can actually see through to completion. So this execution, ironically and pathetically, becomes a stand-in for the failures, incompetence and general betrayal of country on every other front that President Bush has brought us.

Try to dress this up as an Iraqi trial and it doesn't come close to cutting it -- the Iraqis only take possession of him for the final act, sort of like the Church always left execution itself to the 'secular arm'. Try pretending it's a war crimes trial but it's just more of the pretend mumbojumbo that makes this out to be World War IX or whatever number it is they're up to now.

The Iraq War has been many things, but for its prime promoters and cheerleaders and now-dwindling body of defenders, the war and all its ideological and literary trappings have always been an exercise in moral-historical dress-up for a crew of folks whose times aren't grand enough to live up to their own self-regard and whose imaginations are great enough to make up the difference. This is just more play-acting.

These jokers are being dragged kicking and screaming to the realization that the whole thing's a mess and that they're going to be remembered for it -- defined by it -- for decades and centuries. But before we go, we can hang Saddam. Quite a bit of this was about the president's issues with his dad and the hang-ups he had about finishing Saddam off -- so before we go, we can hang the guy as some big cosmic 'So There!'

Posted by: Anonymous | December 29, 2006 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday, Condi was front and center with the War Cabinet meeting in Crawford TEXAS. If you watched the TV news on networks and cable, you saw Condi standing next to the President along with Cheney, Sec. Def Casey and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Peter Pace. She is the most powerful woman in Washington DC, she is helping to create policy decisions, and her voice is giving advice to the President. There is no other woman in our history who has had such a direct link to the president or who has been as trusted as Condi. Even the Democrats who want to badmouth Condi have to be amazed that she has worked her way up the ladder of success and into the State Department. And I think the Democrats are really afraid that if Condi did run, they will be blocked from claiming Hillary as a history vote for women. Condi is more of a Margaret Thatcher type than Hillary and Condi could have a real impact on 2008.

Speaking of the 2008 race, I found some very interesting news at the search site of www.granitegrok.com website:

Back on August 19, 2006, there was a Republican picnic and they took a straw poll. Guess what? McCain and Condi Rice tied at 26%. Rudy was at 14%.

Cillizza has met many of the people from Washington DC and Florida and California who are promoting Condi for president. He knows they have raised money during the past 2 years for TV and radio ads. Cillizza and the Wash Post reporters also know one of the groups purchased air time in Iowa and New Hamsphire for weeks and weeks.

By the results of the August 2006 New Hampshire poll, it shows those ads paid off by getting Republicans and conservative voters in the state to think about Condi as a contender.

That might explain why the Quinnipiac poll shows Condi is at 56% likeable, Edwards at 49%, and Hillary at 49%.
In the same poll, 1623 people were asked who is the most powerful woman in the US?
45% said it is Condi.
29% Hillary
23% Pelosi

These same people also said Hillary is qualified to run at 56%
and 50% also said Condi is qualified to run.

In the Marist poll of November 27,
45% of the people said they want Condi to run in 2008.

So people, I am NOT the only person speaking up for Condi as a potential candidate. In poll after poll, she is in the upper top level, over 10% and sometimes even at 20%. That is not just me, so you will just have to believe the movement to get Condi on the 2008 primary ballots is the REAL DEAL.

If Condi was not favored by thousands of people to run, I doubt her name would be in all the national polls like Gallup and Marist, and Pew, and AOL/AP.

Anyone who collects this data on the Republican side knows that I am right. Condi can enter the race late, just like Gingrich. No need for her to worry right now, she is admired and respected just as much as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Tina | December 29, 2006 1:33 PM | Report abuse

A new definition of failure: White House says bin Laden capture "a success that hasn't occurred yet" - TPM Muckraker: "Five years after the Sept. 11 attacks, Osama bin Laden is still at large -- but that's not a failure of White House policy, says Frances Fragos Townsend. As she explained, "It's a success that hasn't occurred yet. I don't know that I view that as a failure."

Posted by: amazing, really | December 29, 2006 1:32 PM | Report abuse

A giant ice shelf the size of 11,000 football fields has snapped free from Canada's Arctic, scientists said.

The mass of ice broke clear 16 months ago from the coast of Ellesmere Island, about 800 kilometers (497 miles) south of the North Pole, but no one was present to see it in Canada's remote north.

Scientists using satellite images later noticed that it became a newly formed ice island in just an hour and left a trail of icy boulders floating in its wake. (Watch the satellite images that clued in ice watchers)

Warwick Vincent of Laval University, who studies Arctic conditions, traveled to the newly formed ice island and could not believe what he saw.

"This is a dramatic and disturbing event. It shows that we are losing remarkable features of the Canadian North that have been in place for many thousands of years. We are crossing climate thresholds, and these may signal the onset of accelerated change ahead," Vincent said Thursday.

In 10 years of working in the region he has never seen such a dramatic loss of sea ice, he said.

The collapse was so powerful that earthquake monitors 250 kilometers (155 miles) away picked up tremors from it.

The Ayles Ice Shelf, roughly 66 square kilometers (41 square miles) in area, was one of six major ice shelves remaining in Canada's Arctic.

"What surprised us was how quickly it happened," Copland said. "It's pretty alarming.

"Even 10 years ago scientists assumed that when global warming changes occur that it would happen gradually so that perhaps we expected these ice shelves just to melt away quite slowly, but the big surprise is that for one they are going, but secondly that when they do go, they just go suddenly, it's all at once, in a span of an hour."

Posted by: lark | December 29, 2006 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Freeh is a committed liar and rightwing operative who spent his entire career trying to treasonly overthrow clinton.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 29, 2006 1:29 PM | Report abuse

How Dems cope with terror:

"Mr. Freeh also maintains that instead of pressing then-Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah for help with the Khobar Towers investigation, Mr. Clinton asked the Saudi royal for a donation to his presidential library"

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061228-090910-1301r.htm

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 29, 2006 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Amy,

I have4 yet to see ONE intelligent comment from you -- only cheapshot criticism of other posters.

I agree with you, MikeB --Edwards looking pretty good to me.

But I think he has to broaden his appeal, and talk more not just about poverty in the US, but the precarious plight of the middle class. Cause if things don't change and fast, we're going to be the new poor. Outsourcing should be a natural issue for him, financing education, health care, of course [really hurting a lot of people now] protection of social security from predatory privatization, etc.

Posted by: drindl | December 29, 2006 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Not so definitive if you ask the right people - from our talk the other day:

More than 12,000 environmental scientists and practitioners participated in the survey, which found:
* 34 percent disagree that global warming is a serious problem facing the planet,
* 41 percent disagree that the planet's recent warmth "can be, in large part, attributed to human activity,"
* 71 percent disagree that recent hurricane activity is significantly attributable to human activity,
* 33 percent disagree that the U.S. government is not doing enough to address global warming, and
* 47 percent disagree that international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol provide a solid framework for combating global climate change.

http://www.hernandotoday.com/MGB0X2BR9WE.html

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 29, 2006 1:25 PM | Report abuse

With several million such footsoldiers, we can look forward to a lot more great comments like this one from yesterday's thread:


JayPe, You're being a fool. That "edwards is a white Obama" crap is a talking point being trolled around by the right wing talk radio shows to split the Democratic vote up. The Repug's are scared of Edwards. He would trash any candidate they can put up against him. With Obama, they can play their little racist games like they did in the Tenn. Senate campaign. DOn't fall for it. These people are simply evil swine, dogs, with no concern, no patriotism, no morals, no care for anyone beyond their own inbred crowd. Don't fall for it. SImply ignore them.

Posted by: MikeB | December 28, 2006 07:12 PM

Posted by: Amy | December 29, 2006 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Chris, DON'T FORGET (!!!!) the rest of us, eiher. I'm a foot soldier in the Edward's campaign. There are several million of us and we intend to win this election.

Posted by: MikeB | December 29, 2006 12:53 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company