Heading off to San Francisco. Won't be anywhere near a computer until the Monday after Easter.
For those of you who check in every day, thanks for that!; and we hope you'll be checking in again when we get back.
30 March 2007
26 March 2007
As we said in our earlier post, John Edwards and Fred Thompson are the stars of today's presidential polls.
But there's a curious wrinkle at the top of recent the GOP polls that has been little noticed but is quite newsworthy. (Or as newsworthy as any poll can be a year out).
John McCain is regaining some ground on Rudy Giuliani.
In particular, McCain is doing well in the races that matter, the individual state races.
American Research Group has put out seven state polls this month. In five of the seven (Florida, Michigan, South Carolina, New Hampshire and Arkansas), McCain leads Giuliani. The two are tied at 29% in Iowa and Giuliani is ahead in Texas.
(McCain and Giuliani are top-two in all of these polls except in Arkansas, where home-stater Mike Huckabee has a big lead.)
Throw in a victory for Giuliani in his home state of New York, in a Siena Poll released today, and McCain still wins the lion's share of states in this recent spate of polling.
The American Research Group's most-recent national poll, released March 8, shows Giuliani leading McCain by just four points, 34% to 30%. In today's USA Today Gallup poll, Giuliani's lead over McCain is down to 9 points. Just three weeks ago he had a 22 point lead.
We'll check on the weekly Rasmussen Reports Republican Poll tomorrow to see if it further supports the notion that McCain is experiencing a rebound.
Perhaps McCain's "Straight Talk Express" is really a magic bus (apologies to The Who and their fans).
Democrat John Edwards and Republican Fred Thompson make the biggest splash in presidential polls released today.
Edwards jumped five points in the latest USA Today/Gallup poll and six points in the weekly Rasmussen Reports Democratic poll, both released today.
Edwards is still fourth among Democrats in the USA Today/Gallup poll, but he is up to 14% from 9% three weeks ago. He trails Hillary Clinton (35%), Barack Obama (22%) and Al Gore (17%).
The poll was conducted Friday to Sunday, just after Edwards' wife Elizabeth announced that she had had a recurrence of cancer.
Given the fact that two out of three of those polled back Edwards' decision to stay in the race (though nearly 40% think he'll eventually have to pull out), the temptation is to consider this a sympathy jump or a reflection of admiration of the Edwardses for their courage.
However, today's Rasmussen Reports poll shows Edwards with a six point jump from the prior week, and the Rasmussen poll was conducted from Monday through Thursday of last week. That means the poll was nearly complete when the Edwardses went public with the cancer news.
It's Obama who took a bit of hit in this poll, dropping five points from last week, and putting him right where he was two weeks ago.
The latest poll shows Clinton in the lead at 37%, Obama at 25% and Edwards at 17%. One week ago Clinton was at 35%, Obama 30% and Edwards 11%
THOMPSON DEBUTS WITH A SPLASH
Actor-turned-senator-turned actor Fred Thompson, who plays District Attorney Arthur Branch on NBC's Law and Order, has not said he's running yet, and in fact he is only in the being-urged-by-freinds-to-do-so stage. But Thompson's been showing up big-time in his first round of polls.
In today's USA Today/Gallup poll he debuts at 12%. That's third behind Rudy Giuliani (31%) and John McCain (22%). Newt Gingrich is fourth at 8%
The Thompson Factor seems to be hurting Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Giuliani dropped to 31% from 44% three weeks ago, while Romney dropped to just 3%, from 8% in the previous USA Today/Gallup poll.
We'll find out tomorrow where Thompson places in the weekly Rasmussen Reports Republican poll, but Rasmussen paired him late last week against the top two Democrats in the race, with mixed results.
In a poll released Friday, Thompson essentially tied Clinton in a one-on-one matchup, scoring 43% to Clinton's 44%. Obama topped Thompson one-on-one, 49% to 37%.
In four individual state polls released last week by American Research Group, Thompson is in the low double digits in three of the states (Texas, Iowa and New Hampshire) and finished at 5% in Arkansas, a poll which saw the state's former Gov. Mike Huckabee get a 40% score.
These are somewhat startling numbers for someone who has not announced and just a couple of weeks ago started making noise about giving it a go. They seem to indicate that GOP voters are still wide open to anyone they think they can rally behind.
24 March 2007
23 March 2007
The critics of her 2002 vote on Iraq continue to greet Hillary Clinton at every campaign stop and that continues to gnaw at Clinton's husband.
Former President Bill Clinton is befuddled and somewhat frosted his wife is being villified by the anti-war left for her vote to authorize President Bush to use force in Iraq while two other polticians are being feted by the left-wing blogosphere as anti-war champions.
Clinton, in a conference call with donors last night, reiterated a complaint he made in a more private setting earlier this week, that Clinton's current stance on the war isn't much different than that of Barack Obama.
As quoted in The Hill today, Clinton said:
"I don't have a problem with anything Barack Obama [has] said on this," but "to characterize Hillary and Obama's positions on the war as polar opposites is ludicrous."This dichotomy that's been set up to allow him to become the raging hero of the anti-war crowd on the Internet is just factually inaccurate." --Bill Clinton as quoted in The Hill
To be fair, Obama, in his public statements since 2002, has been steadfast in his opposition to the war. But his voting record in the Senate has been a little less radically anti-war.
This week the Illinois senator introduced a measure to begin troop withdrawals in May, with complete withdrawal set for next March. But he voted against a pullout in 2006. In explaining his change of position, Obama, quoted in The Portsmouth (N.H.) Herald, said things have changed since 2006.
"Obama (said) the 2006 bill came on the heels of popular elections in Iraq that created a new government and that he wanted to send that government a message of U.S. support. 'The Iraqi government has not used that time (since the 2006 legislation was defeated) to try to bring the parties together, but has used it to dig in to their sectarian agendas,' Obama said." -The Portsmouth Herald
Clinton, meanwhile, has in recent weeks said she'd bring the troops home in 2009 if they're not home before she would be in the White House, but also said some troops would remain in Iraq if she is in charge.
Bill Clinton also wondered aloud in last night's conference call why Republican Chuck Hagel, another possible presidential candidate, is being hailed as a hero of the anti-war left, when his justification for his vote in favor of war in 2002 is the same as Hillary Clinton's. To make his point, Clinton recalled a recent article featuring Hagel in GQ magazine.
GQ: Do you wish you’d voted differently in October of 2002, when Congress had a chance to authorize or not authorize the invasion?
Hagel: Have you read that resolution?
GQ: I have.
Hagel: It’s not quite the way it's been framed by a lot of people, as a resolution to go to war. That's not quite what the resolution said.
GQ: It said, “to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.”
Hagel: In the event that all other options failed. So it’s not as simple as “I voted for the war.” That wasn’t the resolution.
So, in his point about Hagal, former president Clinton may be on slightly firmer ground. The left's embrace of the ultra-conservative Hagel based on his anti-war stance is a bit like the right winger saying to Rudy Giulani's three marriages are fine with them and he can lock up their guns if he wants to as long as he can win an election and keep them damned terrorists from "fighting us over here."
OBAMA LEADS IN DFA POLL
Democracy For America today released results of a poll of its members and the results spotlight Clinton's trouble with the left.
- Barack Obama 28.1%
- John Edwards 24.6%
- Other 12.4%
- Dennis Kucinich 10.3%
- Hillary Clinton 8.7%
- Bill Richardson 7.6%
- Undecided 4.9%
- Joseph Biden 1.9%
- Christopher Dodd 0.5%
- Mike Gravel 0.3%
Note that Clinton, who leads most of the statewide polls and all of the national polls conducted by the professional pollsters, comes in behind "other" and Dennis Kucinich in the DFA poll.
On the other hand, Clinton got good news today from one of the few states where she's not ahead in most polls - Iowa, which has belonged to John Edwards so far.
Former Democratic presidential candidate and former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack is expected to announce on Monday that he is backing Clinton, which should be a major jolt for her campaing in the state because of the local knowledge and goodwill he and his backers can bring to the Clinton campaign effort there.
22 March 2007
I'm not sure this is even worth mentioning, because very little was said.
But since we've been waiting for several days now for any of the Republican candidates to weigh in on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the prosecutor firings I guess we should pass this along.
Giuliani, the only former U.S. attorney in the presidential race, said today we shouldn't presume anything about Gonzales' actions in the matter until he goes to Capitol Hill to say what happened.
"I think that’s what these inquiries are going to be about, right? To determine that,, he said," at a news conference in Chevy Chase, Md. "And I think we should have an open mind about it, and not, you know, not come out of it - come at it with a kind of partisan spirit, whether you're a Democrat wanting to find something wrong or whether you're a Republican wanting to justify. The Attorney General's going to have to explain, and I’m more than willing to listen to his explanation.” --Rudy Giuliani as quoted by New York Times blog The Caucus.
That's 79 words for Giuliani to say pretty much nothing, which, I'm going to presume, is not a world record for a politican.
Giuliani made his comments while in Maryland to receive the endorsement of the state's former governor, Bob Ehrlich.
For once I have to say I agree with Newt Gingrich.
The political process in this country is broken and it needs fixing.
"It is very clear that our current political system is utterly and totally incapable of serious conversation.
To support his assertion. Gingrich points to the Clinton 1984 ad that lit up You Tube in recent days as an example of political discourse gone wrong.
I've steared clear of posting about the ad until now because everyone else has beaten it to death and because I'm hoping to avoid talking about these online ads unless they either say something rather than smear someone, or they become so big I can't ignore them.
Anyway, back to Gingrich.
He says the ad is "utterly, totally destructive of the process of thought," and "there is not a single thing in that commercial that enables America to solve a problem."
Gingrich calls the ad and others like it "The Entertainment Tonight version of governing a great country and it's really very dangerous"
The former House Speaker challenged all of the current candidates for president to pledge - should they win the nominatiuon of their party - to commit to a 90-minute "dialogue" with their opponent once a week, every week, from Labor Day '08 through the general election two months later.
Gingrich proposed there be no moderator "no Mickey Mouse questions" and "no gimmicks" just discussion about the future of the country.
Gingrich's call for a return to real poltical debate comes shortly after call by fellow Republican John McCain to keep personal lives out of the campaign.
While I strongly agree with both Gingrich and McCain, I must say I wonder about motivation.
Gingrich hasn't declared his candidacy yet, but he is seen more and more likely to do so as the ultra-conservative wing of the GOP continues to wander in the dark looking for someone to support.
Gingrich, who's picture was only recently replaced by that of Karl Rove in the dictionary under the listing "dirty politics," was among the most divisive figures of the political wars of the 1990s.
Now that he may run, he's seeking a truce. And one wonders whether it is because his personal life has been less than exemplary.
Whatever the motive, I'm all for the plan. But I don't think we'll see a return to the Lincoln-Douglas days any time soon.
For additional reading:
"2008 Campaign Will Test Privacy of Candidates’ Personal Lives" - Steven Thomma, McClatchey Newspapers
"Obama Vows Not To Raise Rival Candidates' Personal Issues" - CNN Political Ticker
"Don't be Cruel; Divining the New Moral Code" -- New York Times
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth confirmed today that Elizabeth has had a recurrence of cancer, but both said the campaign will continue.
Elizabeth Edwards said the breast cancer, which she made public just after Edwards lost his VP bid in 2004, has re-emerged in a different form. Tests this week have determined that she has cancer in the bone of one of her ribs.
Candidate Edwards said despite the diagnosis, "the campaign goes on. The campaign goes on strongly." He said there will be no change in plans.
The couple said the decision to continue was made only after word from their doctor that the disease and subsequent treatment should not be something that should be debilitating enough to keep either of them of the campaign trail.
John Edwards said he decided to continue the campaign only after he was assured that would be the case and said he will be where his wife needs during her new bout with cancer.
"Any time any place that I need to be with Elizabeth I will be there," Edwards said during a press conference held by he and his wife in Chapel Hill, N.C.
"We are very optimistic about this (the diagnosis)...the key is to keep your head up, keep moving and be strong," he said.
Elizabeth Edwards said she has no intention of allowing the recurrence of cancer to slow her down.
"I expect to do next week all of the things I did last week," she said. I'm as ready for this as any person can be."
The Edwards said they plan to do much of the campaign travel together.
20 March 2007
The Clinton and Obama campaigns have butted heads three times in recent weeks, twice resulting in some rather nasty confrontations.
In the first two instances Clinton's camp was trying to protect something Obama was threatening to take away. In the third - last night at Harvard University - the Clinton team was trying to mitigate Obama's advantage on what may be the key issue of the campaign.
The first confrontation came weeks ago. The Clintons were frosted when Hollywood producer David Geffen - a long-time Bill Clinton supporter until a tiff a few years back - put his support ($$) behind Obama and held a lavish fundraiser for him in La - La land. The Clinton reaction was an attempt to put the Hollywood set on notice that further defections would not be tolerated.
Then came the march on Selma. It was supposed to be a Barack Obama moment, comemorating the famous 1960's civil rights march. In this case the prize - African American support - was even bigger than the campaign dollars thrown around in Tinseltown. Once Clinton got wind of Obama's plans to appear, she hurriedly booked her own place on the Selma program and reserved a spot for her husband, the former president, as well. It was an effort to keep to a minimum the damage Obama could do to Clinton's strong support among black voters.
Which brings us to the latest confrontation, over Iraq.
Clinton would clearly love a clean, consistent record opposing the war in Iraq. But, short of that, she wouldn't mind muddying-up Obama's record a little.
The effort started last week when Bill Clinton, at a fund-raising dinner in New York, seemed to be questioning whether Obama has been consistent in his opposition to the war.
The New York Post's (in)famous Page Six gossip column reported on a conversation New York radio personality Curtis Sliwa said he had that evening with the former president about what Clinton felt was a free pass being given to Obama by the New York Times.
Clinton focused on the fact that three years ago - shortly after Barack Obama burst onto the world stage with his speech at the Democratic National Convention where John Kerry was nominated- Obama was asked how he would have voted on the Iraq war if he'd been in Congress at that time. "And Obama said, 'Im not sure,' " Sliwa recalled (Clinton saying). "Clinton said the Times has a duty to report on Obama's initial ambivalence." -- Curtis Sliwa quoted by the New York Post
The Obama camp struck back the next day, saying his opposition to the war has been unwavering.
Which brings us to last night in Cambridge, Mass., where a shouting match between senior advisors from the two campaigns startled students, faculty members and reporters attending a forum at Harvard.
Here's a bit of the back-and-forth between Clinton's senior strategist Mark Penn and Obama advisor David Axelrod as reported by the New York Times blog The Caucus:
PENN:"Hey, people can say, 'I wasn't in the Senate, here is what I would have done,' or 'Hey, I left the Senate, let me tell you what I would have done now.' Senator Clinton has taken responsibility for her vote."
AXELROD: "I agree with you that the future is what's important. I did not sit here and comment on Senator Clinton's decision in 2002. You found it necessary to draw Senator Obama into the discussion. This goes back to the discussion we had before: Are we going to spend 10 months savaging each other? Or are we going to try to lift this country up?"
The Obama camp - perhaps coincidentally - today released a video time line of sorts, backing the senator's claims that his opposition to the war has been steadfast.
"Campaigning for the Illinois Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama scolded Bush for invading Iraq and vowed he would 'unequivocally' vote against an additional $87 billion to pay for it. Yet since taking office in January 2005, he has voted for four separate war appropriations, totaling more than $300 billion.
Last June, Obama voted no to Senator John F. Kerry's proposal to remove most combat troops from Iraq by July 2007, warning that an 'arbitrary deadline' could 'compound' the Bush administration's mistake. And last week, he voted for a Republican-sponsored resolution that stated the Senate would not cut off funding for troops in Iraq." -Boston Globe
19 March 2007
Once again, it's hard to see where John McCain is going with this one.
McCain has turned down an invitation to speak to the Club for Growth, a group of fiscal conservative heavyweights who also control lots of Republican campaign dollars.
McCain is skipping the group's annual conference at the end of the month and also slammed the organization, saying it may be responsible for the GOP's minority status in the Senate,
In a clip on Pat Robertson's CBNnews.com McCain said the Club for Growth's opposition in all liklihood cost former liberal Republican Lincoln Chafee his seat in the Senate, throwing control of the body over to the Democrats.
So last month McCain blew off the social conservatives at the CPAC conference and this month it's the fiscal conservatives at the Club for Growth. Curious moves for the candidate seen as the GOP establishment favorite who still has some work to do on his relations with the far-right.
However, I will say this. We're finally hearing some straight talk from the Straight Talk Express.
17 March 2007
In an effort to kick-start his sputtering presidential campaign, John McCain revved up the old Straight Talk Express this week - resurrecting the name of the campaign bus which became synonomous with his free-wheeling style in the 2000 GOP primary campaign.
This time around though, the road has been a little bumpy for McCain and something seems to be missing.
A couple of recent campaign anecdotes illustrate this point.
On Friday, McCain used the term "tar baby" when trying to express the thought that the federal government should not get involved in matters of child custody because it risks creating problems rather than solving them.
Without getting into the whole literary derivation of the term, McCain probably could have used the term "can of worms" instead, and avoided the other - racially tinged - meaning of the "tar baby" phrase.
Then there was this little tongue-slip by the senator at another stop in Iowa this week.
``The reason Republicans lost the war -- sorry, the last election -- was because of spending,'' he said.
While both missteps were small matters, they seem to be indicative of a candidate who - after being seen as the GOP's 2008 frontrunner for years now - is on edge, playing it safe and just hoping to get through the campaign without any major gaffes.
An incident on the campaign bus yesterday is probably a still-better example of a candidate - unlike the 2000 McCain - who is too beholden to handlers and strategists. Too afraid to say the wrong thing as he tries to be all things to all Republicans, particularly those of the religious-fanatic variety.
As reported on the New York Times political blog The Caucus, McCain was literally tongue-tied when asked a question about the distribtion of U.S. taxpayer-purchased condoms to help stop the spread of AIDS in Africa.
What followed was a long series of awkward pauses, glances up to the ceiling and the image of one of Mr. McCain's aides, standing off to the back, urgently motioning his press secretary to come to Mr. McCain's side.
The upshot was that Mr. McCain said he did not know this subject well, did not know his position on it, and relied on the advice of Senator Tom Coburn, a physician and Republican from Oklahoma.--The Caucus (emphasis mine)
While McCain fired up the Straight Talk Express to try to recreate the spark his candidacy had last time around, it looks like just another gimmick by the "establishment candidate" this time. Just another image-guy's idea to bring some life back to a stagnant campaign.
The problem facing McCain is not new. John Kerry was "handled" to death. The 2000 model of Al Gore suffered the same fate. And, to a great degree, Hillary Clinton is facing the same problem - as she continues to suffer from the perception that she is too stiff and too contrived.
McCain seems to be trying to play prevent defense in an effort to hold on to a lead he has already surrendered to Rudy Giuliani.
The resurrection of the Straight Talk Express indicates McCain realizes he's no longer winning the race. Now if he could just shed his self-imposed shackles and hit us with some actual straight talk, he might be able to turn his bus around.
14 March 2007
The prosecutor-firing furor, which hit a crescendo yesterday, remains on center stage today - where it belongs.
So not much else got noticed yesterday.
One thing that went ignored was an announcment by the John Edwards campaign that it is going carbon neutral.
Edwards is the only active candidate to take his campaign in that direction, although Tom Vilsack had announced a similar plan before he dropped from the race a few weeks ago.
What exactly is the Edwards campaign doing to meet its claim of being carbon neutral?
- Using timers and motion detectors to control lights and shut down office equipment when not in use and turning off computers, televisions, and lights when not in use.
- Online monitoring and management of heating and air conditioning to conserve energy.
- Buying 100% post-consumer recycled paper and other recycled paper products.
- Recycling paper, plastic, glass, cardboard, and other products.
- Encouraging staff to adopt energy efficient practices in their office and homes. (About a quarter of John Edwards for President headquarters employees walk to work, according to a campaign press release).
- After conserving energy, the campaign will purchase carbon offsets to make it carbon neutral
He was the first to pull out of the now-canceled Nevada debate which was to have been carried by FOX News, which is notoriously unfriendly toward Democrats.Edwards was also the first of the 2008 presidential candidates to call for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign over the DA controversey.
And, he is the only candidate talking about poverty.
Edwards was the first Democrat to formally announce his candidacy, but his numbers had been slipping in the weeks following the official entry of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton into the race, as the media focused almost exclusively on that duo.
Edwards is still firmly in third place in the polls, but after slipping to the low teens - and even single digits in some case - three recent polls show him in back in the mid-teen range. He's at 16% in the latest New Hampshire and Nevada polls, and 15% in this weeks Rasmussen Reports poll.
Edwards' gains are likely the result of the post-announcement hoopla wearing off - at least a little - for Obama and Clinton.Whether Edwards can boost himself close to even with one or both is something to watch over the next several weeks.
13 March 2007
(Updated Wednesday morning to include Clinton's call for resignation)
There's no shortage of places to turn if you want an update on the latest in the district attorney firing scandal.
The latest news today is that the White House was deeply involved in the affair and that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the firings were mishandled but not unjustified.
But, given the focus of this blog we'll look only at the reaction of the 2008 presidential candidates.
Democrat John Edwards was the first candidate to call on Gonzales to resign his post.
"Today's news is only the latest and most disturbing sign of the politicization of justice under President Bush. From the abuse of investigative authority under the Patriot Act to the unconstitutional imprisonment of the Guantanamo Bay detainees and illegal torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Bagram Air Force Base, this president has consistently shown contempt for the rule of law.
"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales betrayed his public trust by playing politics when his job is to enforce and uphold the law. By violating that trust, he's done a great disservice to his office. If White House officials ordered this purge, he should have refused them. If they insisted, he should have resigned in protest. Attorney General Gonzales should certainly resign now."
Hillary Clinton joined Edwards in calling for Gonzales' resignation on ABC's Good Morning America this morning.
"The buck should stop somewhere," Clinton said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" which was broadcast Wednesday morning. She added that Bush "needs to be very forthcoming -- what did he say, what did he know, what did he do?" and that high-level White House adviser Karl Rove also "owes the Congress and the country an explanation" for his role in the affair.
Barack Obama aimed his criticism at both Gonzales and the White House.
"I opposed Mr. Gonzalez's nomination, in part, because he had shown in his role as White House Counsel a penchant for subverting justice to serve the President's political goals, and I feared that in an Attorney General. Sadly, the latest revelations underscore my concern. Americans deserve to know who in the White House is pulling the strings at the Department of Justice, and why. Anyone involved should appear under oath and answer these questions."
We've not come across any comments from any of the GOP candidates. It would be especially enlightening to know what Rudy Giuliani, the GOP frontrunner and a former DA himself, thinks about the firings.
As for my own thoughts, I have to say I just can't stomach the "mistakes were made" nonsense any longer.
Gonzales says he accepts the responsibility for the mess, but what does that mean? So far it means one of his underlings has been shown the door.
Justice Department officials told lawmakers under oath that the firing scheme was hatched and executed entirely by the Justice Department. Today we learned of the White House's involvement.
Which led to my favorite comment of the day by Gonzales:
"Obviously I am concerned about the fact that information - incomplete information - was communicated or may have been communicated to the Congress."
Incomplete information? Or outright lies?
12 March 2007
09 March 2007
Suppose you were considering a presidential candidate who was long on experience on the state, national and international level. Seemed like someone who thinks like you do. Somebody you might even be happy to vote for.
And then you read this about them:
"(So and so's) 2008 presidential campaign has been burdened by unusually public discussion about his behavior with women. (A female public official with a similarly high post in the government) was quoted in (a local newspaper) saying she avoids standing or sitting near (the above candidate) because of his physical manner, which she said was not improper but was 'annoying.' '(He) pinches my neck. He touches my hip, my thigh, sort of the side of my leg.'"
And then you read this:
"The willingness of (this candidate) and top aides to speak directly about speculation over his relations with women is itself an indication of how much the issue may be shaping public perceptions of his presidential prospects."
All of a sudden you are not at all sure about voting for this guy. The obvious impression - another womanizer.
Now suppose you read another story about the same candidate that started out like this:
" (So and so) likes to touch people. He hugs, pokes, jabs and tickles. If he sees a man with a bald pate, he rubs it. Looking to start a conversation, he might lean forward and head-butt someone --male or female. Bored on an airplane flight? He'll lick his finger and smudge an aide's glasses. (So and So) says he's just joking and teasing to ease tension and boredom. (The aforementioned female co-worker) says she finds the practice irritating. She said she tries to avoid sitting or standing next to (him) at public events. She said (his) personality is 'one of charisma, joking, joshing,' but also used some other words to describe his hands-on approach. 'I think it's irritating and annoying.' (she) said in a recent interview. 'I try not to put myself in that situation, trying not to stand or sit next to him.' Others who work with (him) say it doesn't bother them. "
Having read that you can see where the guy might be a little insufferable to be around all day. But a womanizer?
The first two passages were from a recent article on the political Web site Politico. The third was lifted from a story last December in the Albuquerque Journal which formed the basis for the Politico article. Both articles were about New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson - a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The thrust of Politico's story is that "speculation over his relations with women" is keeping Richardson out of the top tier of candidates, despite being "an exceptionally well-credentialed politician."
Politico has been around for only a couple of months, but it is staffed by seasoned journalists. So I'm not at all ready to allege any sort of deliberate bias. In fact the reporter in this case, Ben Smith, did make all the traditional journalistic attempts to "balance" the story.
But, the way the story is presented, the lasting impression it leaves is; Bill Richardson - letch.
And yesterday it gave the rightosphere ammunition to do some Richardson bashing. ("He's such a perv even his own lieutenant governor stays as far away as possible.")
Politico is already on the radar screen of MediaMatters.org, which charges that twice before Politico has published misleading stories that have sent the right-wing spin machine into overdrive.
From what I read yesterday, that count is now at three.
08 March 2007
06 March 2007
Who won the smackdown in Selma over the weekend? I supposes it depends on who you ask who's button they're wearing on their chest.
But in the first opinion poll to be released after the weekend in which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama squared off face-to-face for black voter support, Obama has gained on Clinton.
The weekly Rasmussen Reports Democratic presidential preference poll shows Obama moved three points closer to Clinton in a week's time.
In the latest poll Clinton leads the Democrats at 34% to Obama's 26%. Last week Clinton was at 37% while Obama's numbers have held steady in the week. John Edwards picked up two points this week as well, polling at 15%.
Unfortunately, the poll does not break out respondents by race, so there's no real reading on if either candidate gained or lost support in the black community.
HotlineTV's Chuck Todd and John Mercurio had some thoughts on the events in Selma and the fight for the black vote. The two hosts spend too much time being pithy but eventually makes some points worth noting if you stick with the video.
Mercurio predicted that when all is said and done, Obama will get 70% of the black votes cast in the primaries, but he also said Clinton played solid defense by coming to Selma to block an Obama "coming out party" in the black community.
Todd said Clinton's late decision to crash Obama's party made Clinton look a little desperate by allowing Obama to set her campaign's agenda.
05 March 2007
Right-of-center bloggers, led by James Joyner of Outside the Beltway are calling for an end to the shenn-ANN-igans.
Saying that Ann Coulter is doing damage to the conservative movement with her "reckless language," the bloggers have sent an open letter to organizers of last weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference asking that Coulter not be invited back again.
"Coulter’s vicious word choice tells the world she cares little about the feelings of a large group that often feels marginalized and despised. Her word choice forces conservatives to waste time defending themselves against charges of homophobia rather than advancing conservative ideas." --James Joyner
Joyner says Coulter has gone too far and it is time to do more than shake a finger at her.
"Denouncing Coulter is not enough. After her "raghead" remark in 2006 she took some heat. Yet she did not grow and learn. We should have been more forceful. This year she used a gay slur. What is next? If Senator Barack Obama is the de facto Democratic Presidential nominee next year will Coulter feel free to use a racial slur? How does that help conservatism?"
In the letter, endorsed by other conservative bloggers, Joyner says CPAC organizers should keep Coulter off their roster of speakers next time around.
"CPAC sponsors, the Age of Ann has passed. We, the undersigned, request that CPAC speaking invitations no longer be extended to Ann Coulter. Her words and attitude simply do too much damage."
It would seem at least one of the sponsors of CPAC, The National Center for Public Policy Research, is in tune with the bloggers' sentiments. The center's president Amy Ridenour expressed disgust for Coulter's comments on her blog.
"It would be better, in my opinion, to not have a CPAC at all than to have one that presents conservatism as a hostile, people-hating ideology. We conservatives have enough trouble overcoming the false things that are said about us without paying for a platform upon which we shoot ourselves annually in the foot."
04 March 2007
Ann Coulter, widely and severely criticized for her sophomoric, or just plain moronic, comments about John Edwards Friday at CPAC, is taking the criticism to heart we see.
Here's a post from her Web site.
"AMBULANCE CHASER GETS REAR-ENDED BY ANN COULTER
- I'm so ashamed, I can't stop laughing!"
And, from today's New York Times there's this:
"Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: "C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean."
Only three of the 10 or so Republican candidates have critcized Coulter, who called Edwards a "faggot" at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.
The three - Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney were quoted in today's Times.
"The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate."
McCain spokesman Brian Jones:
"The comments were wildly inappropriate." (McCain didn't attend CPAC).
Romney spokesman Kevin Madden:
“The comments were wildly inappropriate.”
Conservative columnist George Will waived off comment about Coulter on ABC's This Week this morning, saying "the less said about her" as his voice trailed off.
At the conference Coulter said she would likely support Romney in '08. Lucky him!
GINGRICH BLAMING KATRINA VICTIMS?
Newt Gingrich spoke at CPAC on Saturday while the Coulter flap was still in the air, so his comments on the Hurricane Katrina debacle went mostly unnoticed.
Quoted on Blog For Our Future, Gingrich seems to be blaming everyone for the Katrina mess, including the victims.
"Now can you have the mess we have in New Orleans, and not have had deep investigations of the federal government, the state government, the city government, and the failure of citizenship in the Ninth Ward, where 22,000 people were so uneducated and so unprepared, they literally couldn't get out of the way of a hurricane."
If you listen to the recording provided by the site, Gingrich's voice is muffled by a technical glitch after the word "unprepared" so we can't vouch for the accuracy of the rest of the quote. click here.
CPAC organizers called the weekend event "a huge success."
Gee. Do you really think so?
03 March 2007
The hate mongering, name calling and efforts by the candidates to out-conservative each other are over and Mitt Romeny emerged as the favorite of those attending the Conservative Political Action Conferenece this weekend.
Romney was the first choice of 21% of those voting in the
CPAC straw poll.
Rudy Giuliani finished second at 17%. Sam Brownback was third at 15%, Newt Ginrich came in fourth at 14% and John McCain rounded out the top five at 12%. All the other candidates scored below 5%
Romney put a lot of eggs in this basket, busing in college students from his home state of Massachusetts, as well as from Michigan where his father was a popular governor in the 60s.
The move may have swayed the voting a bit.
The youth chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, Matthew Hall, earlier this week told the New York Times he thought Romney would do well in the poll because of the students who would be there working, and voting, on his behalf.
"The response we've seen from students in Michigan is that regardless of who they are supporting for president, they are more than willing to take a free trip to the conference if all they have to do in return is wear a shirt and vote for him in a straw poll."
So it's not really clear whether the results were skewed or not, but Romney did seem to make some gains among social conservatives. Among those voters in the straw poll who said "traditional values" were the most important issue, Romney finished second ( 22%), behind Brownback (29%) and ahead of Gingrich (13%) and Giuliani and McCain (8% each).
Gingrich and Giuliani were the top second choices at 16% apiece. When first and second choices were combined, Giuliani came out on top at 34 points, followed by Romney and Gingrich at 30, Brownback at 24 and McCain at 20.
So it appears the other winner this weekend was Brownback, who -as we said- led the pack among "values" voters. He also finished third on the "first-choice" question and fourth when first and second choice votes were combined.
Brownback clearly stood out among the second-tier candidates The other lesser-known candidates barely registered, and only scored high enough to be noticed in the "second-choice" balloting.
They say desperate times call for desperate measures. Maybe even breaking a commandment or two.
Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, barely a blip in the polls, broke the GOP's 11th commandment today. The one about speaking no evil about fellow Republicans.
Gilmore, who should be speaking about now to the Conservative Political Action Conference, released a video on his campaign site and YouTube today in which he questions the conservative credentials of Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain.
Of Giuliani and Romney, Gilmore says they "repeatedly opposed core conservative values to win elections in New York and Massachusets."
He says, McCain has "opposed conservatives time after time, even invoking the rhetoric of class warfare to oppose the Bush tax cuts."
With each passing day the political discourse in this country just keeps getting loftier.
Right wing hitwoman Ann Coulter raised it to heights even she previously failed to hit yesterday by calling John Edwards a "faggot." (the video may take some time to load. A lot of people are trying to get to the site).
It was another tasteful performance for the (what is she anyway? a journalist? - clearly not; a pundit? - she doesn't even deserve that name; a comedian? - well her stuff's not funny. How about talentless, tasteless, immature nut job?).
Whatever she is, she spewed her venom again at the Conservative Political Action Conference yesterday, the same venue where she used the word "raghead" to refer to Middle Easterners last year.
Coulter also used her chance at the podium to ask if "Al Gore actually swallow(ed) Michael Moore."
Of course when someone put Coulter on the spot she wasn't quite as thick-skinned, but equally high-brow with her response.
When a questioner asked Coulter why she praises marriage but broke off so many engagements, she responded by calling the questioner ugly.--Washington Post
Coulter has made a living by making juvenile, yet poison-filled, comments - having at times in the past said she expects Hillary Clinton to "come out of the closet" at some point, that Bill Clinton "shows some level of latent homosexuality," and that Al Gore is a "total fag." (Hardball with Chris Matthews 5/27/2006).
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who was at the podium just prior to Coulter, seemed as though he couldn't wait to hear just who Coulter would direct her vitriol at this time.
“I am happy to hear that after you hear from me, you will hear from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing. Oh yeah!” -- Mitt Romney (video from youtube)
Human Rights Campaign President Joseph Solmonese called on the GOP presidential candidates who were at CPAC yesterday - they were all there except John McCain - and Vice President Dick Cheney (who was also there) to repudiate Coulter's remarks.
“To interject this word into American political discourse is a vile and disgusting way to sink the debate to a new, all-time low.” ... "It is clear that some in the Republican Party plan to run in 2008 the same way they did in 2004, by using discrimination to divide the country and rally their base. But, 2008 is not 2004, and this time the politics of fear and smear will not work. The American people are tired of those who would rather divide than unite."
The Edwards camp doesn't seem to be overly ruffled by the comments and in fact is using it as a fundraising opportunity.
Campaign Manager David Bonoir sent an e-mail to supporters asking them to contribute to the campaign's effort to raise $100,000 in "Coulter Cash"
"This is just a taste of the filth that the right-wing machine is gearing up to throw at us. And now that it's begun, we have a choice: Do we sit back, or do we fight back? I say we fight. Help us raise $100,000 in "Coulter Cash" this week to show every would-be Republican mouthpiece that their bigoted attacks will not intimidate this campaign. I just threw in 100 bucks. Will you join me?"
We get what we put up with folks, until we start demanding better of our candidates and their surrogates this is the kind of garbage that will serve as political discourse in this country.