Thursday, January 31, 2008
I love how uncomfortable McCain and Romney are as Paul is talking. They know he's right!
The best part is when Paul asks "how many are we going to let die" and (1:34) Romney looks around for help - like he wants someone to shut this guy up.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Judging from this graphic depicting the relative net worth of the remaining presidential candidates (which was adapted from this very entertaining site), Mitt Romney is, if anything, a guy who is used to getting his way!
A trophy case full of “silver medals” is not going to cut it for a guy who is likely used to wielding his considerable financial power to squash his competition like so many bugs.
At this point, I would equate Romney with the big-bankrolled gambler who has
So I’m fully expecting Romney to open the vaults and bombard the nation with ads like this one attacking John McCain:
It’s coming, and it’s going to be fun to watch!
I just wonder how long before the five Romney brothers decide they had better start campaigning for McCain in order to stop dad from spending all of their inheritance in the general election!
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
"I had just been asked a question -- I don't remember which one -- and Obama was sitting right next to me. Then the moderator went across the room, I think to Chris Dodd, so I thought I was home free for a while. I wasn't going to listen to the next question. I was about to say something to Obama when the moderator turned to me and said, 'So, Gov. Richardson, what do you think of that?' But I wasn't paying any attention! I was about to say, 'Could you repeat the question? I wasn't listening.' But I wasn't about to say I wasn't listening. I looked at Obama. I was just horrified. And Obama whispered, 'Katrina. Katrina.' The question was on Katrina! So I said, 'On Katrina, my policy . . .' Obama could have just thrown me under the bus. So I said, 'Obama, that was good of you to do that.'"
Monday, January 28, 2008
Florida was supposed to Rudy Giuliani’s firewall, but it looks like his campaign is already riddled with the loser virus!
His (cough) strategy (cough) was to spent many months and 30 million dollars in order to let the people of Florida get to know him. Oops! Bad idea! Perhaps he would have picked up a few more votes if he’d spent the money letting people get to know Mitt Romney!
At this point, Rudy will be lucky to pull himself up to third place, in a “winner-take-all” primary that will give him exactly zero delegates worth of Tsunami Tuesday momentum!
There are times when a failure this large and this embarrassing would draw at least a slight bit of my sympathy. I mean, if I were to come across a Duncan Hunter or a Tom Tancredo sitting alone, teary eyed and forlorn, at a neighborhood bar, I might even buy him a (cheap draft) beer and give him my condolences.
But Rudy? Nah. I’d probably give him a hand gesture shaped like an inverted Florida!
(music by: The Clash)
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Just a couple of comments after the South Carolina Primary:
Talk about the “audacity of hope!” The Clintons are now hoping that the Democratic Party will decide to count the delegates from Michigan, where Billary won handily as the only candidate on the ballot; and Florida, where she is expecting a big win. If the Clinton campaign is successful at convincing the Democratic Party establishment to change the rules in the middle of the game to benefit her, the “establishment” candidate, and the Michigan and Florida delegates provide her a margin of victory (or, for that matter, if superdelegates end up providing her a margin of victory), the Democratic Party will have essentially disenfranchised the entire country!
Despite their primary being “unofficial,” Florida Democrats who support Barack Obama still have an opportunity to have their votes register as a critical turning point in the nominating process. After the Clintons’ cynical ploy of trying to encourage a change in the rules to their benefit, if Obama supporters can turn out in sufficient numbers to deny Billary a win in Florida, they could, perhaps, drive a stake through the heart of the Clinton campaign! Clinton supporters in Florida don’t have the same opportunity, since a (currently meaningless) win is expected.
Finally, I’ll close by highlighting my favorite piece of post-election analysis by paraphrasing Joe Scarborough, as he described John Edwards strategy of staying in the race after finishing third in South Carolina, a state he won in 2004:
John Edwards is trying to keep circling the drain long enough that one of the larger candidates gets sucked down first!Thanks, Joe, for the perfect visual metaphor for the Edwards campaign, although, technically, I don’t think they call it a “drain!”
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Caroline Kennedy endorses Barack Obama.
"I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans."
Friday, January 25, 2008
At this point, I would argue that Billary Clinton’s campaign can be reduced to one simple assertion:
We’re all lying, mudslinging, politicians . . . but I’m the most experienced at it!Unfortunately, repeated attacks on Barack Obama have succeeded at dragging him into the mud with her, to a level where her assertion now seems plausible to many voters.
While it’s understandable that Obama would get frustrated and feel the need to defend himself to avoid becoming a punching bag, it is also clear that Billary’s tactics have undercut his greatest strength coming out of the Iowa Caucuses – the ability to be a breath of fresh air in a polluted presidential landscape!
Obama has got to find a way to escape a seemingly endless cycle of bickering and mudslinging to return to his messages of transformational change and a new kind of leadership!
Fortunately, an opportunity to do just that has been presented by John Kerry’s endorsement, his recent call to fight the politics of “swiftboating,” and his criticism of the Clintons.
Obama needs to give a speech that includes something like this:
One of the things we learned from the 2004 election, is that when the Republican slime machine attacks, it is important to fight back with an equally aggressive assertion of the truth, and to show the voters what kind of character is behind the evil and hateful smear merchants who use such tactics.This speech could effectively cut off Billary’s primary strategy, if any time (s)he tries to goad Obama into another pissing match, he would just repeat the mantra:
On the other hand, because of the experience of my good friend, John Kerry, and because I never expected such vicious attacks coming from other Democrats, I made the mistake of engaging too quickly in this campaign, without remembering one important caveat:
Real Democrats don’t betray the team by attacking other Democrats!
Real Democrats strive to contribute their own passion and ideas to make the party stronger, rather than tearing others down to make themselves look better, at the risk of splitting the party apart.
That’s why I’m calling on both of my opponents to join me in a pledge not to engage in destructive personal attacks, but to campaign based on our own unique approaches to the issues facing the American people.
Real Democrats don’t betray the team by attacking other Democrats!Of course, he should calmly correct any mistruths that are spread about him, but if she persists by trying to pick another fight in any future debate, rather than engaging in the battle, Obama can simply smile and use some variation of Ronald Reagan’s “There you go again!”
By turning Billary’s desire to sling mud into a series of acts that are equivalent to “betraying the team,” Obama can turn her biggest advantage into a weakness, leading voters to wonder:
If Billary Clinton will attack another Democrat just for being in her way to the nomination, would she attack Democrats like me if she thought I was in her way to something else she wants?In summary, Billary Clinton’s ruthlessness can be her greatest strength, or her greatest weakness, depending on how Barack Obama responds to it!
Thursday, January 24, 2008
But really - who the hell cares who Chuck Norris or Sylvester Stallone want for president?
Why would anyone trust their judgement after they each thought this was a good idea?
As Randy Jackson would say, "you ain't good enough to go to Hollywood - dog"!
Republicans, don't be swayed by these action stars...............or at least wait until Steven Segal weighs in!
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
In a press conference held today in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Brett Favre criticized fellow quarterbacks, Tom Brady and Eli Manning, claiming that the two will stop at nothing in their efforts to make each other look bad on February 3rd in Arizona when they meet in Super Bowl XLI.
“I’m just going to keep practicing hard, making sure that I continue to work toward my goal of winning the Super Bowl. I’m a quarterback, not a football strategist. All I can do is be positive and spread my message of overcoming adversity, and I’m confident that I’ll be on top when the final whistle blows.”
Favre, in his 16th season with the Green Bay Packers, says he’s made it his life’s work to focus, in an intensely personal way, on winning the Super Bowl, ever since he lost to the Denver Broncos in the 1998 contest.
“Brady and Manning are being very immature. They are determined to yell out plays at the last second, just to make sure they get the last word in! With all due respect to my fellow quarterbacks, they are both immersed in studying the minute details of past history, scanning for weaknesses and planning to find ways to surprise each other by catching the opposing team unprepared."
"I’m not like that. I’m going to do what’s right as I prepare to head to Arizona. I'm the one who is acting like an adult, not like a child playing a child's game. Someone has to show the maturity that it takes to stay above the fray while seeking a Super Bowl victory!”
Favre also had some harsh comments for teammates on both the Patriots and Giants, as he spoke before a partisan Packer crowd.
“You will see the Patriots and the Giants players working over the next two weeks on elaborate and deceptive plans to push and shove each other around the football field. I don’t believe in those kind of tactics. I think they demean the game of football, and I won’t participate in them!"
"My team is owned by the fans - not like those greedy franchises who take millions and millions of dollars from corporate interests. It’s about time we had a Super Bowl quarterback who represents the people. That’s why I’ll continue fighting every single day to win the Super Bowl!”
Monday, January 21, 2008
As long as Bill Clinton is willing to keep using his status as a former president to enhance Hillary’s campaign, Barack Obama will be fighting a steep uphill battle to even have a chance at the Democratic nomination.
As a former president, Bill knows that he can dominate the media cycle any time he wants, merely by saying something controversial about the Obama campaign. He can lead every newscast and make the front page of every newspaper with a strategically provocative comment, and if he times them right before each primary, he can drown out Obama’s message for the large portion of voters who make their decision at the last minute based on what they see in the news!
Because of the media advantage that the former president affords Hillary as she relies on him to advance her campaign, I think it is completely fair to ask some serious questions about the other side of the coin - Bill Clinton’s cozy relationship to the Bush family, and whether a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton "dynasty" is in the best interest of our country.
If Hillary Clinton becomes president, and Bill is as involved in her administration as he is in her campaign, what advice can we expect him to give her about acknowledging and addressing the disastrous aftermath of the presidency of his good friend’s son? Would Bill feel a sense of responsibility toward his friend, leading him to spare Bush Sr. from embarrassment by using his political skills to help whitewash the problems created by the younger Bush?
It has been noted many times that a Hillary Clinton presidency could put the White House in the hands of the same two families for as many as 28 consecutive years! This might not be a concern if those two families were not connected in any significant way. However, Bill Clinton has spent the last five plus years chumming around with the patriarch of the family currently controlling the White House.
Why, given the relationship that has developed between the Bush and Clinton families, would we believe Hillary Clinton is the best person to help the country bounce back from eight years of the latest Bush presidency?
Sunday, January 20, 2008
In this interview with the Appleton, Wisconsin, Post-Crescent, he indicates that, as of this point, he does not expect to make an endorsement, but he does seem to give what looks like a subtle “anti-endorsement” to John Edwards (my emphasis).
On the Democratic presidential candidates:I guess at the end of the day, in case my preferred choice, Barack Obama, doesn’t get the nomination, I have to take some solace in the fact that Feingold feels relatively favorable toward the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency.
I did notice that as the primaries heated up, all of a sudden, all the presidential candidates — none of whom voted with me on the timeframe to withdraw from Iraq — all voted with me and when we did the Patriot Act stuff.
The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.
When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on.
On whether he'll make an endorsement in the Feb. 19 Wisconsin primary:
Probably not. I'm having a hard time deciding between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as are many people. Those are the two I take the most seriously.
I go back and forth, to be honest with you. I'm torn on this whole issue of who's more likely to be progressive and really seek change vs. who's ready to do the job today. It really is a true dilemma in my mind.
Frankly, it’s the first thing I’ve heard in weeks that reflects positively on her!
Friday, January 18, 2008
Although I’ve primarily been an Obama supporter in this primary, I’ve also appreciated John Edwards’ contribution to the campaign dialog, and felt that he was a great candidate who would make a good running mate for Obama, on either side of the ticket!
Unfortunately, with his response to Obama’s invocation of Ronald Reagan, Edwards is rapidly moving into “Ralph Nader” territory by using the same speech over and over, regardless of the situation. If he proceeds to finish a distant third in Nevada and South Carolina and does not drop out of the race, he will have completely blown up any bridge to my respect.
Here’s an account of Edwards’ response:
Speaking at an event on Thursday, Mr. Edwards told the crowd that Mr. Obama used Reagan “as an example of change,” a description with which Mr. Edwards strongly disagreed.I’m not going to go into the details of why Edwards is wrong in his interpretation of Obama’s comment, but here’s a great analysis from Daily Kos.
“When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class, to the working people,” Mr. Edwards said, adding that Reagan was intolerant of unions and the labor movement, he “created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day.”
“This president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change,” Mr. Edwards added, referring to himself.
My point is simply this:
Edwards does not listen!
He is so eager to jump into his tear-jerking speech about who “has to sleep under a bridge or on a grate” that he completely ignores the fact that Obama never said he agreed with Reagan, only that Reagan changed things – mainly by inspiring Democrats to consider voting (unwisely, in retrospect) for a Republican!
Edwards is so quick to jump at any opportunity to twist things around to fit his pre-packaged emotional appeal that his speeches have begun to sound just like the fear mongering we hear from the GOP, only from the other side of the political spectrum! More and more, he is looking like a caricature of the typical ambulance chasing attorney, who spins the same argument over and over and over, even when it doesn’t fit the facts.
Because Edwards doesn’t bother listening to the facts.
He just wants to give his speech!
In a highly controversial piece last week on Huffington Post, Lawrence O’Donnell wrote that “John Edwards is a Loser!”
I thought O’Donnell was being unfairly harsh at the time, because with only two states in the books, I thought it was too early to expect Edwards to pack it in! From what I’ve seen lately, I’m afraid O’Donnell may turn out to be right!
Thursday, January 17, 2008
After playing nice during the Nevada debate, Hillary Clinton is back to picking at Barack Obama for what she sees as an open wound. But I’m not so sure she is seeing what she thinks she is seeing! It all started with this revelation by Obama, when asked to comment on an earlier statement about his role as president:
Well, I think what I was describing was how I view the presidency. Now, being president is not making sure that schedules are being run properly or the paperwork is being shuffled effectively.He followed with this honest admission of a perceived weakness:
It involves having a vision for where the country needs to go.
It involves having the capacity to bring together the best people and being able to spark the kind of debate about how we're going to solve health care; how we're going to solve energy; how we are going to deliver good jobs and good wages; how we're going to keep people in their homes, here in Nevada; and then being able to mobilize and inspire the American people to get behind that agenda for change.
And my desk and my office doesn't look good. I've got to have somebody around me who is keeping track of that stuff.After smelling blood, Hillary’s response came quickly, with an explanation of why she’s soooooo much better prepared to be president than Obama:
And that's not trivial; I need to have good people in place who can make sure that systems run. That's what I've always done, and that's why we run not only a good campaign, but a good U.S. Senate office.
I was somewhat taken aback about what he said, that was reported yesterday. I think it’s important that we have a president who understands that you have to run the government.Right, Hillary! Like Bill was a president who was sooooo hard-working and detail oriented that he got up every morning and filed his own paperwork! As I recall, he made full use of interns in order to keep his systems running!
(People) want a president who they believe gets up every single day and works for them, that requires a president who is hands-on. Who after you set the goals and give the speeches, you go back to the White House and you start holding people accountable and you want to know what they’ve done today to help the American people.
You’ve got to take on this government, you’ve got to to run this government, you can’t leave it to others.
Barack Obama is striving to be a president who is an inspirational, visionary leader who, in common business parlance, “empowers” others to play an integral role in achieving the vision they helped create.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, thinks the American people deserve a micro-managing, autocratic, know-it-all, control freak in the Oval Office!
The choice is clear: Do we want a president who runs the country like Steve Jobs runs Apple . . . or do we want a president who runs the country like Al Davis runs the Oakland Raiders?
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Rudy Giuliani has been the national frontrunner for the GOP nomination for nearly a year, and yet after four primaries he still hasn’t finished higher than fourth place, or broken 10 percent of the vote in any primary.
In Michigan yesterday, he got only 3 percent of the vote. That’s only half the percentage gained by racist "loonitarian," Ron Paul, 1 percent less than Grandpa Fred, and only 1 percent more than “Uncommitted!”
To put it in perspective, consider that for every 3 GOP voters who chose Giuliani in Michigan, there were 2 other voters who braved the harsh winter weather to go down to the polls and check the box for “Uncommitted!”
Yet there is always hope! Mitt finally won a primary after devoting all of his resources to the State shaped most like him (well, his name anyway!)
Now, Rudy is essentially going to try the same thing in Florida!
(music by: The Specials)
[Update] Just in case you were wondering, I'm not a scab writer for The Colbert Report:
Monday, January 14, 2008
After seven years of the Bush Administration, our country may be irrevocably damaged. A Democrat winning the White House in 2008 is beyond critical - And yet the Clintons are pursuing a path that will essentially split the party. And that - is the only way I can see a Republican winning in November.
The Clintons know exactly what they and their surrogates are doing. Focusing on Race - whispering about drugs and all the while complaining anytime Obama points out a legitimate policy difference.
Bill's basic argument in the Clip below is that Obama's record on the war is just as bad as Hillary's. Not a great argument Bill! As Seenos pointed out, I will vote for someone who can be honest about his inhaling any day.
Yeah I bet Hillary never took a puff. Has anyone asked her about her use of drugs? For God sakes the American people elected an alcoholic to the Presidency...........twice!
The Only double standard here is that the Clintons seem to think that they can say whatever they want. You don't see Obama's people out whispering about Bill's infidelity............................ or Hillary's inability to keep him from straying.
If they don't keep the arguments about policy they will lose my vote even if they win the nomination. And, I don't think I'm alone.
Al Gore as an independent anyone?
Sunday, January 13, 2008
After being criticized for comparing the Barack Obama campaign to a “fairy tale” in the speech shown above, Bill Clinton called Al Sharpton’s radio show to deny that he was talking about the campaign itself, insisting that he was only referring to Obama’s position on the Iraq war.
But listen to the original statement carefully. After a rambling critique of the media’s reaction to Obama’s position on the war, including a series of actions attributed to Obama, Clinton ended the tirade with the following statement:
“This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen!”If you ask me, it sounds like Bill was playing clever word games in order to deliberately say one thing, while giving himself plausible deniability of the intentions behind his statement.
And his denial is like arguing over what the meaning of “Is” is!
After listening, do you think “this whole thing” wasn’t carefully selected to sound one way, while allowing Bill to deny that meaning if he was called on it?
Frankly, I’m surprised that Bill, while talking to Sharpton, didn’t wag his finger in the direction of some random person and declare:
“I never suggested that man has no business thinking he could be President of the United States!”I also find it a bit ironic that this tactic is being used against Obama, whose campaign is largely based on a promise “to be straight with the American people,” and whose actions so far seem remarkably consistent with that promise (Hey, he’s even capable of admitting that he inhaled!)
Listening to Bill twist his words to manipulate his audience is just another reminder of why we need real change from the old style politics of rhetorical deception!
Thursday, January 10, 2008
After listening to numerous pundits try to explain Hillary Clinton’s surprising win in New Hampshire when all of the pre-election polls and even some of the exit polls predicted an Obama victory, I have to say, despite the difficulty in forcing my fingers to type it, that the only one making any sense to me is Pat Buchanan.
He has basically said that he thinks many New Hampshire voters didn’t like the appearance that Obama and Edwards, as well as most of the media, were ganging up on Hillary, and they decided to make a statement by giving her their votes.
Buchanan’s theory seems more likely than the latent racism theory (not in a Democratic Primary), or that voters were deliberately misleading the pollsters (why would they bother?)
Hillary Clinton is the first serious female presidential candidate in American history, and many voters, particularly women, were naturally reluctant to see her beaten as decisively as the polls were suggesting she would be beaten. Perhaps her tearful account of the emotional burden of getting her hair cut, or her “hurt feelings” during the debate, played a role. Or maybe Bill Clinton’s pathetic tongue lashing of the Obama campaign created even more sympathy for Hillary (As an aside, I should also add that the greatest fairy tale I’ve ever heard is: that one can remain a Democratic Party icon while hanging out with members of The Carlyle Group!)
Either way, I think the image of Hillary being humiliated by another loss led many voters, including some previously leaning toward Obama, to change their vote at the last minute. This would explain the pre-election polls favoring Obama. But what about the exit polls?
Here’s the simplest explanation:
In order to conduct accurate exit polling, you need voters willing to participate. Voters must be eager to reveal their choice. However, there will always be a certain percentage of voters who are unwilling to disclose their selection. The polling will reflect only those who are open enough about their vote to participate.
Younger voters, who tended to vote for Obama, are more likely to be enthusiastic and open about their support for their candidate; while older voters, who tended to vote for Hillary, are more likely to be private about their voting habits. Since the pollsters have no way to differentiate between refusals to participate, the result would be an inflated percentage for Obama.
Of course, there’s also a more complicated explanation that also fits with Buchanan’s theory:
Voters who are conflicted, having had a last minute change of heart, perhaps even against their best hopes for the country, are the ones most likely to tell the pollsters that their vote went to “None of your damned business!”
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
But Hillary you proved that you are not going down without a fight. You hunkered down and ......................... came out crying! Bravo - a fine piece of theater!
You could have cried real tears which might have been more believable.
You also could have waited to cry after a more substantive question than "How do you do it? Who does your hair?" - but I quibble.
Your "show of emotion" was a brilliant strategic move. It instantly changed the media narrative hours before the voting began and as you stated today during a CNN interview "was a very special moment". (Something is really creepy with you yourself calling it "a very special moment")
Now that you have"finally found your own voice" - what are you going to say that's different than what you've been saying so far? How is your campaign of change going to................well............. change?
Its solely up to you - not new strategists - not new negative adds attacking Obama - not Bill. You must prove to everyone that you really have had a significant epiphany. You're campaign must change! Crying again if you lose - is not an option. That get out of jail free card is all used up.
What now? I'm watching.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Sunday, January 06, 2008
But what is hard to understand is how the other Presidential Candidates have been so blindsided by the effectiveness of Obama's message of change.
Hillary and her "just hand me the keys to the White house" campaign of inevitability are reeling in the wake of her stunning defeat in Iowa. And with the polls now showing Obama ahead by as much as 12 points in New Hampshire - Hillary has decided to steal Obama's message. In the debate last night she angrily spoke about how she has 35 years of experience and has been an "agent of change" all that time. Um - how long has Hillary held an elected office? Excuse me Hillary but all of your experience prior to the "Use of Force" in Iraq vote didn't help you get that right. And with all this experience you keep spouting - all I can remember is your failed health care plan. If you are so ready to be President you wouldn't be getting your Ass kicked in the early primary states. You are "commander and chief "of your campaign and it ain't going so well!
And now Mitt Romney has worked change into every sentence he speaks. Hoping somehow that saying the "magic word" will turn him into a real presidential contender. In tonight's Republican debate - Romney, Huckabee and even Giuliani seemed to be trying their best to channel Obama. I lost count of the times that they used the word change.
Its a good thing that I wasn't playing the "change" drinking game or I would have passed out ten minutes in.
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then Barack must be feeling pretty good about now. He is clearly the front runner for the Presidency as all the other candidates seem to be trying to live off his pockets change.
On the GOP:
1. How can all of the candidates (except Ron Paul) continue to rail about the evils of "socialized" medicine, while pushing to dramatically expand what is essentially a "socialized" military and insisting it can't be funded by (gasp!) taxes? At least they could be consistent, and suggest that America develop the “strongest, best equipped, military in the world” by having individual citizens pay for their own Blackwater mercenaries with a personal “Private Defense Account!”
2. When Rudy Giuliani talked about his list of twelve core commitments that he would put on his desk in the Oval Office in order to make sure he stayed committed to them every day, I’m guessing his wife wasn’t one of the twelve!
3. My idea for a new TV reality show to help the networks wait out the writers’ strike: Who Wants to Punch Mitt Romney in the Stomach? It would be a big hit among the other GOP candidates and their supporters. In fact, I might even watch, and I hate TV reality shows!
Regarding the Dems:
1. How much harder would it have been for Obama and Edwards to brand Hillary Clinton as “The Establishment Candidate” if Bill hadn’t just spent the last five years hobnobbing with George Bush Sr.?
2. Is it just me, or was the only time Bill Richardson made any sense (literally) when he was reciting his resume? Everything else seemed like stringing together random words, both real and imagined (example: “emboldering”) until the moderator cut him off. If I were holding hostages, and Richardson showed up to negotiate, I’m sure I would release the hostages just to get Bill to stop talking!
3. Despite harsh criticism toward Barack Obama from many Edwards supporters (like Paul Krugman, for example), it seems clear to me that Edwards himself respects Obama and understands that the two men are working toward similar goals, with only stylistic differences about the best way to achieve them! Obama/Edwards (or Edwards/Obama) seems like a pretty good match, and I got the feeling (particularly in the exchange above) that either man would willingly take the second slot on the ticket if it becomes apparent that he can’t win, and it means preventing Hillary Clinton from beating them both.
Friday, January 04, 2008
According to Mitt Romney, his second place finish in the Iowa Caucuses is the equivalent of an Olympic Silver Medal, but that doesn’t mean he won’t go on to win a Gold Medal in his later events!
And then he presented his evidence, in the form of a celebrity supporter who won’t exactly leave Chuck Norris shaking in his boots:
Reinforcing that message was Olympic gold medal speed skater Dan Jansen, who said Iowa’s caucuses are only the first of many state contests that will determine the nominee.So, using Jansen as his model, I guess we can expect Romney to finally win his first State primary sometime during the 2020 campaign season.
“I was a sprinter. Mitt Romney is a marathoner,” Jansen said.
But I’m sure he’ll continue to work hard setting World Spending Record after World Spending Record, until he finally achieves his goal!
I can’t help but feel proud of what the Iowan voters said to the nation and the world. With decisive wins by Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee, the citizens of
It seems that George Bush has finally become the “uniter”. He’s united the entire country in mutual disdain for his administration and the
With the huge turnout – Barack Obama is succeeding in energizing young and independent voters. And if you watched Obama’s victory speech (above) it’s easy to see why!
Mitt Romney is just too plastic and superficial to be taken seriously. A billion dollars can’t buy you personality!
Poor Rudy! At least you’ll always have 9/11.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Some time ago, I came across this poll, which I found quite interesting as it posed the following question to a mixed sample of Republicans, Democrats and Independents:
Which one of these four statements do you agree with about President Bush?Using weighted averages to combine Democrats and Independents, 43.6% think President Bush should be impeached (No. 4), and 31.0% think President Bush does not warrant impeachment (Numbers 1 and 2 combined). This leaves a striking 25.4% in the grey area of believing President Bush has abused his powers as president which rises to the level of being impeachable offenses under the Constitution, but he should not be impeached!
1. President Bush has not abused his powers as president.
2. President Bush has abused his powers as president, but the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment under the Constitution.
3. President Bush has abused his powers as president which rises to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution, but he should not be impeached.
4. President Bush has abused his powers as president which rises to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution and he should be impeached and removed from office.
How can 25.4% think he’s committed impeachable offenses, but should not be impeached? While I suppose there are a few Democrats and Independents who would say the “War on Terror” justifies some unconstitutional and therefore technically “impeachable” acts, my theory is that the vast majority of Democrats and Independents in this category simply don’t want to go through the distraction of an impeachment process! In other words, it’s not that they don’t think Bush should be held accountable, they just don’t want to it to happen while he’s President!
Much of the growing sense of frustration among Democratic and Independent voters, I think, can be attributed to a Congress that seems to be slowly but surely covering the tracks of accountability for any illegal acts on the part of the Bush Administration.
Approving Michael Mukasey as Attorney General, after he refused to commit to labeling waterboarding as (illegal) torture while indicating he would enforce any future laws enacted against waterboarding, seems clearly calculated to “cover the ass” of those who have already authorized waterboarding!
Granting immunity to telecoms for assisting in illegal wiretapping, which unfortunately still seems to have the support of all but a few principled members of Congress, seems clearly calculated to “cover the ass” of those who have already authorized illegal wiretapping!
Clearly the Congress, although purportedly controlled by an “opposition” party, are largely willing to allow a slow, but inevitable, legal whitewashing of a Presidency that has led the country into disaster upon disaster upon disaster, using obvious lies and seemingly multiple illegal acts!
So why can’t one of the current Democratic contenders make a play for the real middle – those Democrats and Independents who want accountability, but without the sturm and drang of an impeachment process?
Why can’t one of the candidates simply promise that the first thing he will do as President, is to have his Attorney General appoint a Special Prosecutor to thoroughly investigate any potential crimes committed during the Bush Administration? The goal would be to restore faith in our own principles as a nation, and our moral authority in the World.
Up until now, I’ve been an uncommitted, but hopeful, supporter of Barack Obama. I’ve liked some things about John Edwards, but have often felt that his occasionally over-the-top lawyerly posturing undercuts his message, while Obama has a characteristic of openness and sincerity that would be desperately needed after eight years of George W. Bush.
However, Obama has campaigned on a promise to “turn the page” on the Bush Era, which doesn’t exactly telegraph the intention to “clean up the mess.” I don’t want someone promising to sweep it all under a rug or shove it in a closet before running a clean shop. I want someone who is going to clean out the closets and toss out all the dirt before running a clean shop!
And that’s where Edwards could get me to support him whole-heartedly – by promising to do what the current Democratic Congress won’t do, holding the Bush administration accountable for their illegal acts as soon as they leave office and can be prosecuted for crimes they may have committed!