Kerry Endorses Obama, Voters Yawn And Demand To Be Awakened When Gore Endorses

2004 Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry endorsed Barack Obama today at a campaign stop in South Carolina, noting [video of endorsement can be found here]:

“But I believe more than anyone else, Barack Obama can help our country turn the page and get America moving by uniting and ending the division we have faced.

“We are electing judgment and character, not years on this earth,” said Kerry, who added that Obama, an opponent of the Iraq war, was “right about the war in Iraq from the beginning.”

Tom Daschle indicated that Obama would be a stronger candidate for the party to rally around, saying:

“Of all the candidates running, the easiest to rally around is Barack Obama…because of his newness on the scene, he has not created the political opposition and enemies that come with extensive service in politics. He is a clean slate.”

John Edwards, who was Kerry’s running mate in 2004, issued the following statement in response to news of the endorsement:

“Our country and our Party are stronger because of John’s service, and I respect his decision. When we were running against each other and on the same ticket, John and I agreed on many issues. I continue to believe that this election is about the future, not the past, and that the country needs a President who will fight aggressively to end the status quo and change the Washington system and to give voice to all of those whose voices are ignored in the corridors of power.”

This endorsement will probably have little effect on the minds of voters, but it does potentially give Obama access to Kerry’s donor and volunteer lists from 2004, which may include some untapped sources that the Obama campaign can dip into at this critical time.

Now, we wait for Gore to chime in…

[Photo Credit: AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast]

Sphere: Related Content

Giuliani Attacks Clinton Over MoveOn Ad

This controversy started last week when Moveon.org ran this ad in the New York Times in advance of Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker testifying to Congress. (More on the ad here)

Republicans immediately responded (full list of responses is after the jump), in past substantively to the ad, and in part in response to this article in the New York Post regarding a significant discount that the New York Times allegedly gave MoveOn.org. The New York Times responded here, saying that MoveOn paid the standby rate that is standard for issue groups; it’s also the rate that Giuliani would end up paying to run his own ad.

Hillary Clinton said the following to Petraeus and Crocker on Tuesday:

(in part) ….[T]oday you are testifying about the current status of our policy in Iraq and the prospects of that policy. It is a policy that you have been ordered to implement by the president. And you have been made the de facto spokesmen for what many of us believe to be a failed policy.

Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.

In any of the metrics that have been referenced in your many hours of testimony, any fair reading of the advantages and disadvantages accruing post-surge, in my view, end up on the downside.

Giuliani responded, saying the following in Atlanta two days later (Audio):

“[I] call upon the New York Times to give us the same rate, the discount, heavily discounted rate they gave MoveOn.org for that abominable ad–that was, in a very, very coincidental way, published on the day that General Petraeus testified–in which MoveOn.org, which is well known for its character assassination of Republicans, decided to participate in character assassination of an American General in a time of war. This is unprecedented. And we are going to ask The New York Times to allow us tomorrow to print an ad that will obviously take the opposite view. We believe, unlike Hillary Clinton, that General Petraeus is telling the truth. We think that her attack on General Petraeus was a follow up to the MoveOn.org/Times attack.

“I’ll tell you what she said. It’s pretty simple. You go interpret it because this is typical, how can I say this in the kindest way about the Clintons, not the most direct way of saying what it is you’re trying to say. This is what she said to General Petraeus: ‘I think the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.’ The willing suspension of disbelief I imagine means saying that the General wasn’t telling the truth. And I believe that in a time of war–with a General about whom there is no question about the General’s integrity. I agree with the success that he’s had and I think we should support that success, other Americans might not agree with the success that he had. They have a right to not agree. What I don’t think should happen in political discourse is the kind of character assassination that MoveOn.org participated in in calling him ‘General Betray Us,’ that The New York Times gave them a discount to do, and that Hillary Clinton followed up on with these attacks on his integrity.

“I believe those organizations should all apologize and I believe The New York Times should give us the same discounted rate and the same ability to place it on the day that we want to place it, which is tomorrow morning, the day after the President speaks, that they gave to the very excessive left-wing side of this dispute. It’s time for Americans to really insist that American politicians move beyond character assassination, and this is exactly what they attempted to do with General Petraeus. Well, it’s one thing when politicians do it to each other. It’s another thing when it’s done to an American General who has been putting his life at risk to protect us, who is back there right now or on his way back there right now, putting his life at risk to protect us and about whom there’s never been a question about the man’s integrity. Maybe you can disagree with his tactics. I don’t. I agree with him. You have no right to disagree with his integrity and put his integrity into question. That is what’s wrong with American politics today. Hillary Clinton, The New York Times, MoveOn.org should apologize for what they did. Their excessive political view led them to character assassination. They should apologize for it. They should stop it and what we should move on with from now on is a civil discourse without name calling.”

Giuliani followed up on that attack by putting a full page ad in the New York Times on Friday (as I mentioned above, at that same rate he called for), and launched the following internet ad:

Giuliani also attacked Clinton campaign for comparisons of Clinton with Margaret Thatcher, saying, “I don’t think Margaret Thatcher would impugn the integrity of a commanding general in a time of war, as Hillary Clinton did, or require an army to give a schedule of their retreat to the enemy, as the Democrats are suggesting.”

The Clinton campaign responded to the ad fairly quickly with the following brief press release:

“It’s hardly surprising that Mayor Giuliani is running the first negative ad of the ‘08 campaign, given his inability to justify his unqualified support for President Bush’s failed Iraq strategy.”

In the middle of this fracas, Giuiliani touted a congratulatory letter from Bill Clinton:

Giuliani told a law-enforcement group in Louisiana he has a letter from then-President Bill Clinton praising him for helping pass a federal anti-crime bill when he was mayor.

“I have a letter - I keep it at home,” Giuliani told members of the Louisiana Sheriff’s Association in Baton Rouge.

“It’s a letter from President Clinton, congratulating me for all of my efforts and saying something like the crime bill couldn’t have been passed if it weren’t for me.”

“I keep this letter. I’m going to use it at the right moment. You can imagine when,” he said to thunderous applause, hinting that the letter would be trotted out if he faces Hillary Clinton in the general election.

As for what Democratic candidates have said on the Moveon.org ad, here is what Clinton said regarding both her comments to Gen. Petraeus and the Moveon.org forum in the Democratic mashup:

Rose: You said yesterday it required a willing suspension of disbelief. Meaning that you questioned either his veracity or his judgment in what he said.

Clinton: No, what I said was meant to convey my very strong feeling that no matter how flat the pancake, there’s always two sides. The problem is that what the administration’s report intended to do was was to take anecdotal evidence and actually gild the lily once again, making it seem as though there had been much more progress than I think you can actually justify. For example, they take tremendous credit for what’s happened in al Anbar province in terms of the coalition with the Sunni tribal sheikhs. That was going on before the surge. In fact, when Gen. Petraeus testified during his confirmation hearings last January, he alluded to the progress that was going on, the sheikhs were already turning in the face of the barbarity and violence of al-Qaida in Iraq. And there is no getting away from the fundamental problem, which is there is no military solution. And everyone has to admit that the Iraqi government has failed politically, and the Bush administration has failed to pressure the Iraqi government and has totally missed the boat when it comes to the diplomatic offensive that should have been undertaken.

…..

Rose: Did you think the Moveon.org advertisement about Gen. Petraeus was either appropriate or necessary?

Clinton: You know, I think that we should focus on what the problem is here. The problem is a president who has a policy that flies in the face of reality. I don’t fault people who are serving their country and fulfilling the mission that they have been given. Both the general and ambassador were there implementing the president’s policy, and I think we should remain focused on this president, and frankly, I’m getting enough Republican support to force the president to change course.

This seems to be an issue that the Clinton is trying to wait out, not wanting to undermine support of those who support the Moveon.org ad, but wanting to stay as far away as possible from explicitly supporting it. The benefit of waiting it out is that Democrats instinctively will rally to her support, much like they did to Kerry when Bush attacked him during the last primary; they likely will keep responding by bringing up Giuliani’s time on the Iraq Study Group and more should Giuliani keep pressing this issue. I’m not waiting for Clinton to, to sue the language of Giuliani, play much defense in this, since discussing the Moveon.org ad is pretty much a losing proposition for Clinton no matter what she says (which is the same idea that Kerry likely had on the Swift boat attacks); unlike Kerry, though, Clinton will assuredly attack Giuliani back should these ads keep up.

Meanwhile, the primary issues on both sides are still being overlooked, as secondary candidates keep jostling to get media attention. They’re the big losers in this situation.

[Image credits: Foxnews.com and politicsnj.com]

After the jump, as promised, Republican reactions to the Moveon.org ad.
Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Why We Won’t Cover Romney’s Makeup Criticism; also, Kerry and Romney Campaign Exchange Barbs

From Marc Ambinder:

The Politico found a neat little item in Mitt Romney’s second quarter disclosure forms — $300 he spent on make-up in advance of television debates. It’s kind of funny for a half a second — man wears make-up, ha-ha. $300 is close to $400, which is what John Edwards spent on a haircut.

Why doesn’t John Edwards’s hair equal Mitt Romney’s face paint?

The primary difference is definitional: The centerpiece of Edwards’s campaign is his anti-poverty efforts; he presents himself as a dedicated messenger for the cause, and he likes expensive haircuts, bought a gimungous house, etc. etc. His credibility as a messenger comes into question when he spends money ostentatiously. (The haircut was inadvertently billed to the campaign, a spokesman later said).

There is a difference in the political reality: fairly or unfairly, a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn’t like John Edwards.

Fairly or unfairly, there’s also a difference in narrative timing: when the first quarter ended, the press was trying to bury Edwards. It’s not so much interested in burying Romney right now — many reporters think he’s the Republican frontrunner.

Of course, I’m going with the Occam’s Razor explanation: people on television should wear makeup. The ghost of Richard Nixon would certainly agree. …

Oh, and we didn’t care about the haircut either, so there.

Also, John Kerry and the Romney campaign had this exchange which only seems to legitimize Mitt Romney. From The Boston Herald:

“Let’s be very clear. I had not changed my positions and they played a game with that,” Kerry said of his Republican opponents in the 2004 race.

By contrast, he said, Romney is far more deserving of the flip-flopper label. “He’s changed on abortion, he’s changed on gay rights and he’s changed on marriage,” Kerry said. “He’s changed on guns and he’s changed on the war. That’s pretty significant. I think people are asking the question out there, ‘Who is he, really?’

A Romney spokesman quickly returned fire yesterday, charging that Kerry is harboring the delusions of a fallen contender.

“This is a textbook case of Freudian projection,” Eric Fehrnstrom said. “John Kerry is projecting his own undesirable traits onto other people. It’s a mild form of personality disorder. Usually, it’s not a cause for concern unless it shows up in a U.S. senator.”

What the hell is Kerry thinking doing something like that? There’s absolutely no possible benefits… Somewhere Mitt Romney is smiling.

Related at 2008 Central:

• Update: I Still Do Not Care About John Edwards’ Haircuts

Sphere: Related Content

Will Fairness Doctrine Be An Issue In 2008 Election?

The Fairness Doctrine recently was overwhelmingly defeated in a vote in the House 309-115. And yet with 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry having called for its return, along with Dennis Kucinich (not to mention unsubstantiated rumors that Hillary Clinton wants to do something), there are those saying the issue will be a topic in the 2008 election.

Some conservatives seem to be trying to rally the base over the issue:

The House voted 309 to 115 to approve the Pence amendment, but Cliff Kincaid, editor of the conservative group Accuracy in Media, said even if the Senate passes the measure, “it would do absolutely nothing to stop a Democratic president and Congress from reinstating” the regulation.

Beyond that, he said in a release, the amendment has caused confusion and provided the opportunity for “several dozen liberals [in Congress] to claim they are not interested in re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine.”

Kincaid argued that if Democrats gain control of both the White House and Congress, those same liberals would simply let the FCC reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. “This may be what is planned.”

James Gattuso of The Heritage Foundation and the National Review says the House vote should take care of the Fairness Doctrine, but that there is another piece of legislation looming that would have th esame effect:

The odd Dennis Kucinich aside, few on the Left ever seriously thought the Fairness Doctrine could be reinstituted. Last week’s win was mostly over undefended ground. But the Left has been very active in promoting a number of much more subtle “reforms” meant to alter what broadcasters do and say.

These approaches were detailed in report jointly released last month by the liberal advocacy groups Free Press and the Center for American Progress. Entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Talk Radio,” many conservative commentators mistakenly assumed the report endorsed the Fairness Doctrine. Far from it: The authors dismiss the doctrine as “ineffective.”

Instead, they propose an alternative agenda, including:

Strengthened limits on how many radio stations on firm can own, locally and nationally;

Shortening broadcast license terms;

Requiring radio broadcasters to regularly show they are operating in the “public interest;”

Imposing a fee on broadcasters who fail to meet these “public interest obligations” with the funding to go to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

The goal of the reforms is the same as the Fairness Doctrine: to reduce the influence of conservative talk radio. Limiting ownership, the authors believe, will eliminate many of the owners who favor conservative causes. Public interest requirements can be defined almost any way a regulator wants — up to and perhaps even beyond that required by the old Fairness Doctrine. And the proposed fee provides regulators with a quite effective stick to compel compliance — as well as to direct funds to more ideologically compatible public broadcasters.

Free speech and free markets enjoyed a great victory last week in the defeat of the Fairness Doctrine. But the real fight to protect the media from government interference is just beginning.

The Fairness Doctrine is now being mentioned even in seemingly benign and unrelated areas, take this example from John Gibson:

NBC is reportedly airing hours of the concerts — hours upon hours — on and through various NBC platforms. Al Gore is the chairman of the Live Earth project. NBC is a company which is owned by a corporation which must declare its political contributions.

Does anybody think the Live Earth concerts are not a political statement by Gore’s supporters that will end up benefiting Al Gore? Does anybody think Al Gore isn’t running for president? I know he’s said he’s not, and every time I get a Democrat analyst sitting next to me, he or she says he’s not. But it sure looks like he’s running to me.

BTW, John, we at 2008 Central do not think that Gore will run barring some massive unforeseen event that would tank the campaigns of Clinton and Obama. But back to the point: Again, the Fairness Doctrine is a rallying point for conservatives. And there’s virtually been no payoff for anyone that has brought this issue up on the left at all.

Which makes me wonder why is was brought up in the first place. Kucinich probably brought it up to get attention. But aside from that, I doubt any Democrat would risk endorsing this in the general election. There’s no wide base of support for this kind of change, and the internet is quickly becoming a great equalizer.

In fact, searches for recent news and commentary articles are overwhelmingly against the fairness doctrine. It’s relatively hard to find supporters of it online. Even on liberal sites like Kos, people are talking more about Republicans fighting against it rather than actually supporting it. No doubt there are some liberals supporting it, but I question how many there actually are.

Sphere: Related Content

Bob Shrum Blasts Edwards In New Book

“Kerry said that he wished he’d never picked Edwards, that he should have gone with his gut.”

Time Magazine published a very interesting excerpt from Bob Shrum’s upcoming book, No Excuses.  It’s definitely worth a quick read; I hope the entire book is as interesting as this excerpt.  Here are the highlights…

Shrum describing a conversation between John Kerry and John Edwards during Kerry’s running-mate search, where Edwards shocks Kerry:

Kerry talked with several potential picks, including Gephardt and Edwards. He was comfortable after his conversations with Gephardt, but even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he’d never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he’d do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade’s ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he’d never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn’t pick Edwards unless he met with him again.

Shrum discussing Kerry’s request from Edwards that he not run against him in 2008 should they lose the general election in 2004:

Kerry tried to get a better personal feel for his potential number two; as rivals for national office since 2000, shortly after Edwards had entered the Senate, the two men hadn’t spent a lot of time together. Kerry also wanted a specific reassurance. He asked Edwards for a commitment that if he was chosen and the ticket lost, Edwards wouldn’t run against him in 2008. Edwards agreed “absolutely,” as Kerry recalled him saying.

Shrum noting the abrupt end of Kerry and Edward’s relationship after the election:

Kerry’s relationship with Edwards would sour after the election—and mine would simply fade away. When Elizabeth discovered she had breast cancer, John and Teresa reached out to help the Edwardses find the best doctors they could. Marylouise and I called—but afterward, never heard from John again. Maybe we shouldn’t have expected to. Kerry told me that the Edwardses simply stopped returning calls or talking to him and Teresa. Within months, Edwards started preparing for a bid in 2008. Kerry said that he wished he’d never picked Edwards, that he should have gone with his gut.

The Washington Post reports another excerpt from Shrum’s book and the Edwards campaign’s response to the specific allegation…

Shrum recalls asking Edwards at the outset of that campaign, “What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?”

“I’m not comfortable around those people,” Edwards replied, according to Shrum. He writes that the candidate’s wife, Elizabeth, told him: “John, you know that’s wrong.”

Edwards’s pollster, Harrison Hickman, who was in the room during the discussion, says Shrum “is sensationalizing and taking out of context what was an honest discussion about [Edwards's] lack of exposure to these issues and openly gay people. I don’t remember anything that expressed any kind of venom or judgment about gay people.”

Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz says Shrum “has a very casual relationship with the truth. Bob is obviously more interested in selling books than reporting honestly and accurately about what happened.”

Needless to say, the aforementioned information could lead to some rocky times for Edwards in the near future.  Although, there are at least two conditions that would need to be met in order for Shrum’s words to have a chance of adversely affecting Edwards:

1. First and foremost, it’s necessary to keep in mind that Bob Shrum is a political strategist, who worked for John Kerry back in 2004.  Accordingly, the veracity threshold for matters relating to the Kerry-Edwards dynamic is, or at least should be, much higher than if Shrum was a well respected journalist/author unconnected to either campaign.  He would need to meet this standard by providing strong evidence for his claims or additional similar examples substantiated by well regarded third party.
2. These, and other allegations in the book will need to grow legs.  Meaning: This book will need to create an incentive for others to start piecing together Edwards’ comments about his deceased son.  If it turns out to be the case, that Edwards ended up delivering the “I’ve never told anyone this before” story on several occasions to various audiences or to various people, then he’s going to be in for some trouble.  It’ll certainly turn off many voters to him.  Moreover, it’ll make people reevaluate and further scrutinize his conduct relating to Elizabeth Edwards’ most recent cancer announcement.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama: I’m Electable

Chris Cillizza at The Fix points out that Barack Obama has his own memo today: that he’s the most likely to get crossover votes from Republicans in a general election, and that he’s beating possible Republican opponents in polls by a larger margin than John Edwards or Hillary Clinton.

Cillizza points out what this means:

By injecting the electability argument into the Iowa caucuses, Obama is hoping to force likely caucus goers to think not just with their hearts but also with their heads. He’s making sure the caucuses are thinking about electing a president not just about choosing a Democratic nominee.

It’s the same strategy pursued by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in Iowa in 2004.

Kerry’s closing message in the final weeks before the caucuses was that he alone had the resume to compete with President George W. Bush. Implicit in that argument was that former Gov. Howard Dean (D-Vt.) who had shot to the front of polls in Iowa and elsewhere was a risk; he was not the known commodity that Kerry represented.

Bumper stickers began to crop up that boiled down this message to a single line: “Dated Dean, Married Kerry.” Kerry won Iowa and went on to win the nomination before losing narrowly to Bush in November 2004.

But, after Iowa Democrats went with their head (Kerry) over their heart (Dean) in 2004 and got nothing for it, will the electability argument still sell?

I think electability can still sell; I just think that a lot of voters will weigh that against being liked. The problem with Kerry was that, to use the analogy, while people married him, no one ever fell in love with him. Obama is having people fall in love with him, but wonder if he is a serious candidate, wonder if someone like him is truly electable.

I think for Obama this memo is aimed at eliminating a doubt voters have against his campaign. For Kerry, his electability was the campaign. Compare the grassroots reaction of Democrats to Gore and Kerry; while they both came exceptionally close to winning the election, Democrats feel a lot more warmth towards Gore than Kerry.

Electability in a post-Kerry Democratic country is an effective argument when its not the main basis. That’s a large source of the motivations of people not supporting Clinton - that she’s simply too calculated.

Sphere: Related Content

Poll Vaulting: Iowans Call For Al Gore And Condoleezza Rice

An interesting new poll from The DesMoines Register gives high marks amongst likely Democratic primary voters to Al Gore and high marks amongst likely Republican primary voters to Condi Rice, Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson…

Usually, I don’t find polls particularly meaningful, but they can be interesting or entertaining; this poll is both. The one take away from this poll is that yet again it appears as though Republicans are significantly less satisfied with their choices than the Democrats are. Enjoy!

Sphere: Related Content

On TV Tonight: Fred Thompson on H&C, Tancredo

The Situation Room (CNN): John Kerry

Hannity and Colmes (Fox News): Fred Thompson

Hardball (MSNBC): Tom Tancredo

Sunday Morning Talk: Huckabee, Gingrich, Kerry, Tommy Thompson

ABC’s “This Week”: Carl Levin and Jon Kyl; John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry; Walter Isaacson (author of “Einstein: His Life and Universe)

CBS’ “Face the Nation”: Mike Huckabee.

NBC’s “Meet the Press”: David Gregory; Kate O’Beirne, Washington editor, National Review; Chuck Todd, political director, NBC News; and Judy Woodruff, senior correspondent, PBS’ “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.”

CNN’s “Late Edition”: Sens. Arlen Specter, and Joe Lieberman; former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson; former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; Mark Thompson, Time magazine correspondent; retired Army Brig. Gen. David Grange; Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Washington arch-bishop emeritus.

“Fox News Sunday”: Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; author Christopher Buckley.

Also, a reminder that 60 Minutes on CBS this Sunday will interview John McCain.

Sphere: Related Content

Poll Vaulting: Clinton Ahead of Obama, Edwards Nationwide.

Rasmussen’s latest national poll came out yesterday. It doesn’t tell us as much as an Iowa or New Hampshire poll might, as the election really hasn’t begun in most states. But it’s a good barometer to compare to later.

Poll results: Hillary Clinton (28%), Barack Obama (23%), John Edwards (13%), Al Gore (8%).

Favorability Ratings: (Favorable % - Unfavorable %)

Biden 35-38
Clark 39-28
Clinton 50-48
Dodd 26-32
Edwards 53-38
Gore 50-47
Kerry 42-54
Kucinich 23-33
Obama 50-34
Richardson 35-37
Vilsack 21-21

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday Afternoon Roundup

John Edwards

An article about how Edwards politically came around to advocating his health care system. He came to the realization that half-measures were perceived just the same, so he figured he should push for all the change at once. And yes, he’s still planning on taking on the ‘entrenched interests.’ It is interesting that national health care was in platforms of presidential candidates as far back as Harry Truman. …

Barack Obama

The Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, of all people responded to Obama’s speech by saying that his election would embolden the terrorists / enemy in Iraq. What he said was not unexpected or groundbreaking - we’ve been hearing it in America for months now. But that a foreign leader said it? That’s fairly unbelievable. There are a couple of ways this can go. First, other leaders start chiming in, which would just dilute everything and probably give Obama or other Democrats some help they do not want. Another way is that some member of the GOP says it soon, and Howard is forgotten - that’s what I expect, and I’d expect it from a candidate. Will Americans care what the Australian PM says? I expect those who already agree with his viewpoint will cite it, but no one else will be swayed. Howard stated, “I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory. … If I were running Al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.”

Christopher Dodd

Dodd and John Kerry appeared on morning talk shows to urge the Bush Administration of caution in how is deals with a possible Iranian conflict, stating that they don’t want the same mistakes that were made in regards to Iraq. …

Tommy Thompson

Thompson was in Iowa for the sixth time this year and took on his problem head-on: “My name is Tommy Thompson. You might think that’s surprising. I know, how can anybody elect anyone with the name ‘Tommy’?” On Iraq, he endorsed building a confederation of three separate states - Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia. That’s been the stance of Joe Biden for quite a while. Thompson said, “Instead of trying to force one Iraq upon people who dislike and distrust each other, we should focus our strategies on dividing Iraq into separate states providing a distinct home to the diverse cultures and religious sects of Iraq.” He also wants to institute a revenue sharing program in Iraq similar to the one used in Alaska, saying, “We should give Iraqi people a stake in the success of their country.” Former Iowa Gov. Robert Ray watched Thompson speak, but stopped short of endorsing him. Regarding his campaign in Iowa, Thompson stated: “I sell most people when I’m in front of an audience. People like me. … The question is whether or not I have enough staying power throughout all of Iowa.” Thompson invoked Colin Powell when talking about how to wage war (with overwhelming force); he also mentioned that the next preisdent had to find a way to “to break down this absolute hatred that some of these countries and some of these terrorists have for us.”

Newt Gingrich

This article about Newt shows how he is back in politics as a leader again, leading Republicans to ‘fight back.’

Sphere: Related Content

Huckabee, Dodd, Hunter, Kerry on Sunday TV Talk Shows

The lineup:

ABC’s This Week — Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; actor Sean Penn.

CBS’ Face the Nation’ Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss.

NBC’s Meet the Press - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

CNN’s Late Edition - Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, former U.S. commander in Afghanistan; Qubad Talabany, representative to the U.S. of the Iraqi Kurdistan regional government; Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and John Cornyn, R-Texas; Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; Terry McAuliffe, former Democratic National Committee chairman; retired Army Col. Patrick Lang; Ray Takeyh, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Fox News Sunday - Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.

McAuliffe is also Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday Morning Roundup

Democrats

Barack Obama - The Sun gives a brief overview of Barack Obama’s life and candidacy…

Bill Richardson - A anti-death penalty bill in the New Mexico legislature threatens to put Bill Richardson between a rock and a hard place. He’s always supported the death penalty, according to the article, though, so I would expect him to veto it as such if it came to that… A touching story of the long, slow journey of one senator’s dream to ban cockfighting, and how Gov. Richardson’s eventual support in the end (after wavering all of his first term) was crucial.

Christopher Dodd - Chris Dodd is behind in the polls - he’s even behind Joe Lieberman, who isn’t even a Democrat officially and isn’t running. Ouch.

Dennis Kucinich - Kucinich will be on community TV in Portland, Oregon promoting his idea for a Dept. of Peace. Here’s video of him on Hannity and Colmes last night.

John Edwards - Edwards went to a fundraiser Monday night. Also, there’s a story of a somewhat plausible way for Edwards to get ahead in the Democratic primary. I’m not sure it will work, but it might be possible.

John Kerry - Kerry gave his opinion on the pending global warming legislation sponsored by McCain, Clinton and Obama: it doesn’t go far enough. I doubt any of them is going to lose sleep over the rebuke.

Republicans

George Pataki - Pataki was speaking in Naples and would not rule out a run at the Presidency.

John McCain - Romney and McCain had dueling announcements of support yesterday; Romney announced Zrizona supporters, McCain announced supporters in the county Romney is visiting on Thursday… Why the general lack of news for McCain compared to other candidates (look at how few times he’s been mentioned comparatively on the right sidebar since this site launched)? Mostly because McCain is biding his time and waiting for the opportune moment to announce…

Mike Huckabee - Huckabee hired directors for his campaign in Iowa. Huckabee was in Des Moines, Waukee and Urbandale yesterday and will be in Grinnell, Iowa City, Cedar Rapids, Tipton and Bettendorf today… Yesterday, he said that he wanted Republicans to be Republicans. “I think if people look at my record, they see there’s a consistent and authentic conservative record that was translated into action,” Huckabee stated. “I think at times it’s almost as if we’ve been seen that we’re not the party that’s on the front burner for education reform, for health care reform.”

Mitt Romney - Romney and McCain had dueling announcements of support yesterday; Romney announced Arizona supporters, McCain announced supporters in the county Romney is visiting on Thursday… The abortion isse will not go away regarding Mitt Romney; some people are convinced - and some are not convinced.

Rudy Giuliani - Giuliani attended a fundraiser in Palm Springs, California.

Sam Brownback - Reminder: Brownback is in Michigan today… Brownback wants to focus on building bridges on consensus, and is building his campaign around human trafficking, climate change and poverty. I’m not sure those three issues will send him shooting to the top of the polls. Also noted on the page is that Brownback was actually dis-invited to the National Review dinner that Romney was keynote speaker of this past weekend.

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday Roundup

WCAX TV (CBS Affiliate): Tom Tancredo hosted a buffet in New Hampshire. It’s noted that illegal immigration is not an issue in that state that resonates much, so that battle is especially difficult for Tancredo there.

Mike Huckabee wrote a front page op-ed for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, refuting claims of the Arkansas Times regarding his possibly tumultuous last days in office. Here is what the Times had to say about his op-ed. I have no idea who is right and who is wrong, but it’s clear this isn’t good for the Huckabee camp, to have to print denials of impropriety on the same day he declares for the Presidency. (The Huckabee editorial, to the best of my knowledge, is not currently available online.)

New York Times: Mitt Romney spoke about social issues to the National Review Institute’s Conservative Summit Dinner in Washington DC, explaining his mixed record on abortion, as well as his position on stem cells and gay marriage. It was also noted in the article - and previously mentioned here - that Mike Huckabee was slated to speak there today. Additionally, it is noted that Newt Gingrich spoke as well, noting that he will not make a determination on whether to run for President until ‘much’ later this year.

The Saginaw News: Mitt Romney has also hired Rep. Dave Camp and Rep. Joseph Knollenberg to run his Michigan campaign.

Joe Biden issued a statement earlier this week that he was ‘extremely’ sad that John Kerry is not running for President.

WTKR Online: Jim Gilmore is on the campaign trail.

KWWL Online (NBC Affiliate): Tommy Thompson is also in Iowa this weekend, in Iowa City, as is noted at the end of this Hillary article. (Vilsack is also noted).

LA Daily News: Al Gore won a straw poll of California Democrats. Only 39 people participated, though.

The Washington Post: Dick Cheney is not happy with Chuck Hagel, but he’s going to bite his tongue for now. That’s one heck a line that ends the article, though. “Well, I’m Vice President and they’re not.”

The Montrose Daily Press: There is an op-ed in the Montrose Daily Press saying that Bill Richardson’s resume has more foreign policy that anyone else in the Democratic Party running (arguable: one could say that Biden’s experience on the Foreign Relations Committee trumps it), and also, with the west emerging as a force in Democratic politics, that Richardson deserves a long look.

Topeka Capital Journal: Did you think candidates were supposed to get favorable coverage in theiir state? Not so much with Sam Brownback, who is mocked in poem form here.

Huntington News: On the other hand, the Huntington News raves about Brownback being a real compassionate conservative.

(Incidentally, my editorial policy, for the record, will be to link one positive editorial if at all possible whenever I link a negative one; if I have a positive op-ed, though, I’m not going to search out a negative one.)

Sphere: Related Content

Kerry is Out

CNN is now reporting that John Kerry will not be running for president, as per ’sources familiar with Kerry’s thinking.’

UPDATE: Widely reported now, Kerry has stated, “I’ve concluded this isn’t the time for me to mount a presidential campaign …. It is the time to put my energy to work as part of the majority in the Senate to do all I can to end this war and strengthen our security and our ability to fight the real War on Terror.” He continued, “I intend to devote all my efforts and energies over the coming two years not to another race for the presidency for myself but to doing whatever I can to ensure that the next president can take the oath with a reasonable prospect of success for him or her for the United States.”

UPDATE 2: MSNBC has video up.

Further updates as warranted.

Sphere: Related Content

State of the Union Wrap Up - Part 2

And the Democratic candidate responses are in…

* Sen. Clinton really did not say anything other than reminding us that the president didn’t offer us a plan

* Sen. Obama emphasized his proposal for an immediate phased redeployment of troops in Iraq

* Rep. Kucinich used this opportunity to recite parts of his stump speech

* As expected, Bill Richardson’s response was the most substantive. His opening remarks pretty much sum his position up: “Welcome to the party, Mr. President, the rest of the country and the world have been talking and doing something about these issues for years. In addition to being years behind, what the President is proposing doesn’t go far enough and isn’t realistic.”

* John Edwards response was substantive and politically savvy. Reminding voters of what he calls the McCain Doctrin (escalation of troops in Iraq) and that he believes the troops should be brought home immediately. Additionally, he emphasized the need for bold leadership (presumably, what he believes he can offer).

* Sen. Dodd’s response simply reminded us that he disagrees with adding more troops to Iraq.

* In an odd political move, Sen. Kerry posted his SOTU response on his campaign website instead of his senate website. Posting the response on your official website somehow makes it more legitimate and less personally political (it’s obviously politicial no matter where it gets posted). Needless to say, I consider this seemingly insignificant detail to be indicative of the issues we’ve come to know and issues we can expect from the Kerry campaign.

Sen. Joe Biden, Gov. Tom Vilsack and Mike Gravel have not published responses yet.

Sphere: Related Content