Switch Hitter

senator arlen specter of pennsylvania has become a democrat!

the moderate republican announced today that he was leaving the grand ole party to caucus with the dems and run as a democrat next year in his pennsylvania senate race.

assuming al franken wraps up the ongoing senate battle in minnesota, specter's defection would give the blue party a 60-member, filibuster-proof majority in the senate.

i'm sure much of this decision comes from specter's internal polling which shows him in a rather unfavorable position with most conservatives. his support of obama's stimulus alone could cost him his seat.

in a news conference today, specter said:

I know I'm disappointing many of my colleagues. The disappointment runs in both directions....I'm putting principle at the top of the list.

specter added "the decision has been reached as i have traveled the state in the last several months. specifically, i got my home poll results last friday...and consulted with my campaign managers and had a long discussion."

i think in an ever-bluing new england, he saw the writing on the wall and wants to do all he can to reach his sixth term.

his statement reads:

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right."

Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

welcome to the party, arlen.

e.

So Much Politics, So Little Time...

oh, i just know this is gonna piss off my friend steven.... but i have to blog about all the political situations that have fallen through my blogal cracks over the past couple of weeks.

two main topics i want to discuss and just some minor ones i wants to touch upon.

first...as a follow-up to the democratic national convention.

well, actually, first.... wolf blitzer just cut off someone from NOLA who was describing a dire situation where it appears some levees might be about to give way. he cut him off.... a man who was passing along some very important information.... so we could listen to laura bush address the republican national convention.

indeed, laura bush must clearly be more important than NOLA going under water again.

jesus.....

but...this does lead me into some aftermath talking points of the DNC.

hillary can't win
as we all know... hillary gave a helluva speech on tuesday night. it did so much to unify the party and move the entire obama campaign forward.

first....how does the rudepundit on tuesday night say, "rarely does one witness someone eating shit with such energy, grace, and aplomb." and then write such a glowing review on wednesday morning? i've lost so much love for the rudepundit.

but back to cnn. i think just about everyone agreed that hillary did everything she needed to do (except, maybe, fox news). but to emphasize the fact that the entire great divide between hillary and obama was driven by the media... a media that is still unwilling to let it go, cnn had the following story on their website:

(CNN) — What did Hillary Clinton's body language give away at the Democratic National Convention?

Dan Hill, a body language expert and author of "Face Time," told CNN that even while the words Clinton delivered offered an unequivocal endorsement of Barack Obama, her body language was much less affirmative.

"When she spoke about Obama, she really did not emote very much," Hill said. "The only thing she showed was a very weak smile, the cheeks didn't tend to lift very much, it was really almost what I would call a 'crocodile smile' where even the slight corners of the lips sometimes raise into a little bit of a smirk."

"I don't think that helped move the 30 percent of her supporters who say they won't vote for Obama," Hill added. "What she did do was appeal to voters at large, that she did more emotionally."

body language? seriously? you guys can't find shit to fault her with in her actual speech so you decide to attack her body language. come one, cnn.... get your shit together.

countdown to forgiveness
keith olbermann continues to make amends for his jackassery during the primary season. he seems to be annoyed by everyone at msnbc and he's doing his best to move the dialogue positively forward.

i'm not ready to forgive him yet... but sunday night football starts soon and i'd like to hear him recap games without a sneer.

separation of church & state, anyone?
i'm sorry... but that rick warren forum on faith never should have happened. i don't give a shit what religion my president subscribes to and his (or her, someday) religion should never make a difference in their executive decision making.

separation of church and state was one of the few things the founding fathers got right. why can we not seem to keep the two separate?

i'm growing more annoyed by the day as religion becomes a bigger and bigger part of our national, political dialogue.

hillary is right
is anyone else amazed that the republican party and john mccain are using hillary clinton in their ads to sell mccain as president? i mean... doesn't hillary represent everything evil in the minds of the GOP? and yet... now they have commercials that say "hillary is right."

really? i mean... i know hillary's right... i'm just happy to hear the republicans finally get it.

did you hear about john mccain?
apparently he was a POW during the vietnam war... i guess for about five years or so.

now... i don't mean to demean this sacrifice.... but when mccain uses the excuse for every fucking thing in the world... he diminishes it himself.

maureen dowd, the fauxgressive of the times, did write a fabulous article about this last week. and i was kind of aware of it... but when mccain was on leno the other night and leno made some joke about "how many houses do you really have?" mccain got all grave and said, "can i be serious just for a minute..." and then went into his years spent as a POW. ummm.... what does that have to do with the fact that you can't even remember how many houses you own?

also.... the republicans had no problem dismissing john kerry's vietnam service back in 2004 saying "oh...that was forty years ago." ummmm....so was mccain's time in the hanoi hilton.

are we allowed to dismiss it so willy-nilly?

sarah barracuda
so.... how 'bout that surprise pick by john mccain back on friday? pundits on the 24 hour news channels weren't even sure how to pronounce her name.

loyal readers will remember that i mentioned governor palin about a month ago but quickly dismissed her. it looks like mccain should have done the same.

now... i will admit that palin of alaska seems like a great choice.... for about a week. but what does she ultimately bring to the ticket? she's been governor of a state that ranks 48th in population for about 20 months (not even two years). no foreign relations experience (despite fox news' insistence that alaska being right next door to russia gives her experience).

also.... it takes away mccain's main argument against obama: his lack of experience.

all old man jokes aside....mccain is 72. that's not young... and his health has not been great. his veep is much closer to the "heartbeat away from the presidency" than most. does anyone really feel like palin could step in on day one and run the country?

i mean.... palin gets the party excited. she's got a great backstory. she's charming and stunningly beautiful. (obviously, mccain has a soft spot for ex-beauty queens.)

but she won't bring along any hillary supporters. she's hardcore pro-life. she's evangelical. she's a hunter, a fisher... her favorite meal is moose stew... and she wants to take polar bears off the endangered species list. polar bears!

and she's a strong, strong supporter of abstinence only education in school. no contraception. no safe sex education. abstinence only.

and, um, did i mention her unmarried, seventeen year old daughter is five months pregnant?

yeah..... clearly the abstinence only education has worked well for the palin family.

and i'm not even going into what the news channels are already calling "troopergate." all i want to say is... this is a lot of surprises in the first weekend following a friday morning announcement.

can't wait to see what comes out next!

e.

Notes From All Over: Political Edition

i know, my lovelies... i've been neglectful.

but work has appeared to slow down and i've caught up on my press watching and i've had a chance to compile all of my political thoughts from the last couple of weeks.

when last we visited our heroine, senator clinton was coming off a sub-par performance in the philadelphia debate.

where do things stand now?

latest polls

hillary has slipped in the polls. no question. she saw an immediate slide after the philly debate and obama has finally shown some movement.

the latest kcci8 poll (november 12-14) shows the iowa race with hillary still in the lead at 27% but obama only two points behind at 25%. edwards is still showing strong at 21%.

for the first time, however, obama does lead in an iowa poll. a new abc/washington post poll of iowa voters has obama at 30%. hillary is four points behind at 26% and edwards is four points behind her at 22%. the poll has a +/- of 4.5 points. a statistical dead heat.

interesting thing about iowa, however. it's just about impossible to know who will win. polling is pointless, almost, because you never know who will show up at the caucus meetings. is it snowing that night? does someone have to stay home and watch the kids?

and time after time i hear pundits tell me most iowans do not make up their minds until they step into the high school gym.

but...obama's movement is troubling. trends mean something... and hill's team is obviously nervous. more national members of her campaign are arriving in iowa every day.

this could get interesting.

my new wet dream site

i've been meaning to look for a month or more... i finally did. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

seriously...check this out. you can track national polls and state polls... all the major races. who's ahead in iowa? check it out. florida? take a look....

it shows trends... it provides links to interesting articles.

see for yourself... i can't get enough.

jefferson jackson day dinner

have you seen clips from obama's speech this past saturday night? it reminds me of the greatness he displayed at the 2004 democratic national convention.

if he could perform like this at a debate.... he'd be ahead in all the polls.

speaking o' the debate - or - knock out in vegas

as one member of the press put it: the bitch is back.

hillary delivered a stellar performance at the cnn las vegas debate last thursday night. she was strong and fought back when attacked.

roger simon of politico wrote: "she gave as good as she got. and those who tried to kick her stubbed their toes."

john dickerson of slate said: "well, that was a short death spiral." and went on to say: "clinton ran no risk of looking weak by talking about her gender, because she was kneeing her opponents in the groin."

when asked about playing the gender card, hillary had - perhaps - the best answer of the night: "i'm not playing the gender card, i'm trying to play the winning card." she went on to say, "they're not attacking me because i'm a woman. they're attacking me because i'm ahead."

huge applause... and the rest of the night just went her way.

edwards and obama tried to consistently attack hillary. but every time they swung, she hit right back.

after obama first attacked hillary she hammered back about his health care plan and how it wouldn't cover the populations of nevada, iowa, new hampshire and south carolina (i wonder why she picked those states?). obama loomed at first - then backed off. he can't look at her when she attacks, but she can look at him.

and an interesting thing happened about an hour into the debate - after a lot of the attacks had stopped - edwards tried to use his canned attack on hillary about lobbyist money. he was actually booed. obama was booed at one point, as well, when he tried to compare her to romney and giuliani.

i think this really frazzled them both and i'm not sure they recovered.

body language

once again...i just think hillary has the best body language. she is always engaged. always listening. others are scribbling down notes, shifting. but she's always listening and looking directly at the speaker.

when obama tried to defend his potential tax hike to help social security, he twice said "tax break." hillary came back and corrected him: "i think you mean tax increase, because that's what it would be." she listens.

after edwards gave his first attack - never looking at hillary but hillary looking directly at him - she delivered a great line about accepting "attacks on my record, on issues." but accused edwards of "slinging mud." you could tell it stung edwards... just the look on his face.

and there's a great camera angle from edwards at the edge of the stage to hillary delivering the line. in between them stood obama and dodd. as soon as she said "slinging mud" they both turned away from her and looked down. they didn't want any part of it.

smart move, boys.

driver's license stumble...again.

but fear not...this time it was obama. it was amazing how well he fucked up his response. all three responses he gave. the audience actually laughed at him twice....

byron york of the national review (yes, a republican) said, "obama's mistake was absolutely mystifying. a democratic strategist just said to me it's almost as if he had read her [clinton's] answer from the previous debate and thought it was the right thing to say."

amazing... surely somebody had prepped him for that question, yes?

okay...i could go on and on so let's skip to my quick hits from the debate:

• what was with all the pre-debate analysis during the beginning of the debate time? how many hours did cnn have beforehand? oh - that's right. 24 hours.
• edwards first statement of the debate was: "nobody on this stage is perfect." john, give it up.
• enough with the canned answers! richardson's first answer was so canned it was pathetic. and edwards' "is that a planted question" remark was so out of place it just fell flat. there was no laughter.
• the first question to biden was 10 minutes in. he was the first candidate besides obama, clinton and edwards to speak.
• 20 minutes in kucinich got a sentence into the conversation...but still no direct question.
• 28 minutes in - the first question went directly to dodd.
• 30 minutes in, wolf blitzer piggy-backed a question on unions to kucinich.
• 50 minutes in, kucinich is asked the first question initially directed specifically to him.
• john roberts asks some really good questions. maybe he should moderate a debate on his own?
• dodd gave a great response on teacher "merit pay."
• happy birthday, governor richardson. when you blew out your candles, i hope you wished for better stage presence.
• i still don't think obama should be allowed to make any comments on the iran vote when he didn't even bother to show up (and he gave such a weak answer to why he wasn't there. "umm... i was running for president." yeah - so are clinton, dodd and biden.)
• kucinich has it out for edwards. he nailed him all night long.
• richardson shut down kucinich light an annoying gnat when he told him to stop lumping him in with the other candidates. he's not in congress, he reminded dennis.
• kucinich was really angry this debate. came across more bizarre than usual.
• chris dodd has tiny feet.
• biden mentioned potential impeachment of bush if he invades iran.
• an hour and half in, kucinich mentioned impeachment.
• apparently obama watches nbc nightly news and saw brokaw's interview with warren buffett.
• the audience portion of the debate really dragged. lose it.
• dodd said "here" 25 times. i doubt he got 25 minutes worth of air time.

meet the press quote of the week (a catch up)

sunday, november 4th.

fred thompson was the guest for most of the hour. i liked him so much more in the hunt for red october and in the line of duty. it's great when he's playing an asshole... not just being one.

since ole pick-up truck fred is such a defender of the bush administration and the war in iraq, i found it particularly interesting when he said:

i don't think we should be armchair generals...when we have people on the ground who apparently now know what they're doing.

so...since the war began...we just now have people on the ground that know what the fuck they're doing? it's nice to know we wasted....how many years with dumbfucks running the show?

p.s. thompson has a very machiavellian view on foreign policy. he'd definitely rather be feared than respected.

sunday, november 11th

senator barack obama was tim's guest for the entire hour.

i think obama did well... but he certainly demonstrated that he can parse an answer just as well as the next politician. especially in his discussion of "precondition" vs. "preparation."

i found it interesting that he has the balls to say he can take lobbyist money and we should just all assume he can fight against the influence. why you and nobody else, sir?

i really wanted to make his quote of the week "i do not believe being gay or lesbian is a choice" because it's reassuring to know that even though he doesn't think us fags deserve equal marriage rights (only civil unions), at least he doesn't think we're all choosing to be this way. hmmm... then why do we not deserve equal rights "in god's eyes"?

but i loved his long summation of his campaign:

i have admiration for senator clinton. i think she's a fine public servant. the reason i'm running is because i think we're at a unique moment in history right now. the nation's at war, our planet is in peril. we've got a series of decisions that we're gonna have to make and i believe i can more effectively, than any other candidate in this race, bring the country together, overcome some of the same old arguments we've been having since the 1990's and that i can reach out to the republicans and independents more effectively...

i think he could have gone on for another ten minutes if russert hadn't interrupted him.

sunday, november 18th

just a quick interesting note from chuck todd about the debate and some interesting internal numbers concerning iowa polling.

i think the obama folks know they had a bad night. the edwards folks had a really bad night. and this is just one night, but if he starts fading too quickly...that's actually not good for clinton. the quicker this is a two person race, the better for obama.

apparently when asked about who their second choice might be...obama and edwards fare much better. if you're not voting for clinton first, you're probably not voting for her at all. so if edwards begins to fade greatly, the majority of voters will probably defect from him to obama. and in a tight race.... that's no so good for my hill.

but my quote of the week goes to ron brownstein of the national journal, who provided this nugget:

not a leaf will fall in the forest between now and iowa and new hampshire without obama and edwards looking for a way to make this into a contrast with hillary clinton because that is ultimately what you have to do against a frontrunner.

only 45 days until iowa.... anything can happen.

e.

Post Debate Analysis

well...it was an interesting, sometimes odd, debate this evening on msnbc.

i thought brian williams did a nice job of showing that his five nights behind the big desk has given him a wide range of information from which to mine questions.

tim russert continued to use quotes and statistics from the candidates themselves to frame his questions.

so who won? conventional wisdom says as long as hillary clinton doesn't make any major stumbles, she wins. but did she stumble? did obama draw the blood he promised in the times over the weekend?

let's break it down.

edwards wins
i think that was pretty clear... at least from my standpoint. he took the chris matthews approach and drew clear distinctions between himself and the front runner: hillary clinton.

his attacks were strong.... his distinctions clear.

he hammered and hammered and hammered away at clinton and took any spotlight away from obama.

will the attacks hurt him or help him?

i think his constant return to the theme of clinton's "double talk" may resonate. especially after something unforeseen happened with just a few moments remaining in the debate.

hillary stumbles
it was a simple question. only two minutes or so left in the debate. russert asked my girl about governor spitzer's plan to issue driver's license to illegal immigrants in new york. she said she supported his idea...or it seemed like a good plan.

then chris dodd went off....

then it happened. hillary backtracked and said she wouldn't necessarily support it.

why? why, hillary? you had this thing in the bag.....

edwards immediately pounced and said she just gave two different answers in a matter of two minutes. "double talk."

hillary had fended off attack after attack so well all night... she was particularly strong early in the evening. but as howard fineman of newsweek pointed out: she "came off like a politician."

a clinton stumble...... well, fuck me.

biden covered her ass a bit in the post analysis on msnbc saying she was clearly not decisive but held off on calling it "double talk."

amazing....

obama attacks...kinda
his attacks were there...but they were subtle. he had a particularly strong moment when he called out hillary to release all correspondence between she and bill clinton during his presidency from the clinton archives. he said we're coming out of the most secretive administration in history. americans want transparency. he also said if she's running on her experience in the white house as first lady - why not release the records?

it was a good point......

best line
no big surprise....joe biden. during a series of answers to a question about rudy giuliani doubting the experience of clinton and the other dem candidates.... biden said nobody is less experienced to run the country than bush but rudy giuliani.

then his great line: "rudy giuliani...there's only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11."

perfect.

most bizarre moment, i
first off...who knew shirley maclaine was a godmother to one of dennis kucinich's children? secondly, in all seriousness, russert asked kucinich about an episode maclaine recounts in her new book that he saw a UFO and it was a deeply moving experience for him.

kucinich? yep....he saw it. freely admits it.

jesus...the man can't win.

most bizarre moment, ii
bill richardson defended hillary. he said other candidates were acting "holier than thou" and the attacks were boardering on personal. he said he trusts hillary...but he disagrees with her on big issues.

that's where the debate should be, argues bill. save the attacks for the republicans... keep the democratic debate positive.

well done, sir. i hope you get the v.p. job (if obama doesn't want it).

best spontaneous moment
when asked if he believes in life beyond earth, obama chuckled and then said, "i don't know... but i do know there's life here on earth." and then went on about how we need to take care of people in the united states that have been ignored too long.

it was a strong moment... one of his best.

quick hits

• the first question went to obama - directly asking him about his plans to attack clinton.
• the next twenty minutes were spent on obama and edwards attacking hillary and she fighting them off.
• dodd also got in on attacking hillary. she handled it great...very strong in her answers.
• i still think hillary has the best body language. she's engaged when others answer. she nods and shakes her head. she smiles. i think it shows a great deal of confidence.
• the first question posed to bill richardson was 21 minutes into the debate.
• first question to kucinich? 22 minutes in.
• where was that ole kook, mike gravel?
• kucinich mentioned impeaching bush 3 times throughout the night.
• kucinich is very passionate about HR-676.
• bill richardson, bless him, just doesn't handle lightening rounds very well.
• this was clearly dodd's best performance in a debate.
• chris matthews clearly does not like hillary clinton and it's really starting to piss me off.

i'll probably have more later but, for now, i'm exhausted.

hillary...you're still my girl. now go clear up your stance on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

a state's issue.... causing hill to stumble....

who knew?

e.

Democratic Debate Drinking Game

you've been waiting for it... and here it is. at long last! my democratic debate drinking game. each player will need to pick a candidate. more than one person can pick the same candidate, but you should pick the candidate you plan to support.

first, however, i think we should set this thing up with some perspective.

recent polls

the latest la times/bloomberg national poll of democratic voters places clinton in the lead with 48% of the vote. obama trails with only 17% of the vote and edwards continues to bring up the rear with only 13%.

please note: obama is 31 points behind hillary.

the most recent university of iowa poll shows the potential voting in iowa as follows:

clinton 29%
obama 27%
edwards 20%
richardson 7%

richardson just can't seem to find any traction... but i think edwards is actually sliding in the must win state of iowa. the poll has a +/- of 5.5% but that still puts edwards out of even a statistical tie.

obama may be tracking up in the polls, but clinton does seem to be holding a slight lead.

gloves off?

perhaps this is why barack obama gave an interview to the new york times over the weekend where he promised to take off the gloves and start attacking hillary.

of course, he said the same thing back in august (i think) to the washington post.

i'm not sure attacking hillary now and abandoning his "politics of hope" will help at this point. doesn't it all just look desperate?

in fact....hill's camp has hit back to most attacks by edwards and obama by pointing out the desperation by the two camps who have appeared to stall in the polling.

i mean....let's look at edwards. he has attacked and attacked and attacked my girl. especially on lobbyist money. but as holly bailey of newsweek points out: "well, he's been saying this for months and it hasn't helped him in the numbers, poll-wise."

true, holly. so true.

so what does obama hope to gain? will this not turn off his NPR-listening supporters? is it too "politics as usual" for his crowd?

and will edwards possibly start attacking obama to try and take his legs out from underneath him? why shouldn't he go after both candidates leading him in the polls?

or will tonight be another all-against-one with everyone teaming up against hillary?

the media is practically begging for obama to attack hillary and draw blood? but will he ever land a real body blow?

and with that..... let's get to the game!

democratic debate drinking game rules

you may want to go ahead and call in sick for tomorrow now. i doubt tonight will be pretty. it's the first real debate everyone will be paying attention to and the candidates should be pulling out their full arsenal.

after all, only 65 days until iowa.

okay....once each person has picked their candidate... they must take a drink whenever the candidate uses any of the following words or phrases. it's that simple. your candidate utters these words, you chug my lovelies.

lets play!

hillary clinton: "leadership," "experience" or "girl."

any of these words....you drink, my fellow hillary supporters.

barack obama: "judgement" or any reference to hillary's vote on iraq or iran.

hell, you could probably get sloshed on the word "judgement" alone.

john edwards: "coal mine," "lobbyist" or any direct attack on hillary.

again...at the rate he's going: you could just go with "lobbyist."

bill richardson: "governor" or "as a governor i've done it."

or any discussion that "change and experience" come as a package with him. it might be fun to drink anytime he looks confused, as well.

joe biden: "truth" or "honest" (as in, "let's be honest" or "let me tell you the truth.")

you can also play for any time he goes off on troops dying and how he'll never vote to cut off funding as long as one american soldier is on the ground in iraq. you could also play with any mention of "body armor."

chris dodd: "here."

if you've ever heard the connecticut senator talk...trust me: you can get drunk simply playing with the word "here." the man uses it like punctuation. listen closely. you could get drunk after one answer from senator dodd when he's really worked up.

dennis kucinich: any time he finishes an answer with "that's what you'll get with a kucinich administration. thank you."

or any time he makes a joke about finally getting a question.

mike gravel: "follow the money."

and really...any time he goes off on some unintelligible answer....just drink. if you're voting for gravel, you're probably drunk anyway.

once the debate is over...you argue over who won. by now you should be well tanked so it should be a lot of fun. whoever is the last person standing or not in tears... wins!

enjoy.... and please: don't drink and drive.

leave that up to the cast of 'lost.'

e.

Post Vacation Catch-Up

it was not an easy ten days, my lovelies.... little time for news. no time to blog. my parents still have dial-up, for chrissakes.

but i'm back.... and there's a shitload to talk about. where to begin?

the grand ole party hates black people

or they at least have written them off as being worthy of inclusion. only 6 out of the ten GOP contenders for president bothered to show up at the tavis smiley forum on minority issues the other week. the top four contenders were those absent: giuliani, romney, thompson and mccain. they all claim scheduling conflicts.

but as buchanan pointed out... african american voters only make up ten percent of the electorate. only about 10% of that 10% vote republican. so why show up?

it's just insulting all around............. and embarrassing all around to the GOP. shit, even bush spoke out about it. and we know he doesn't care about black people. just ask kanye west.

what's most surprising in this....despite pat's reasoning..... bush won ohio in 2004 in large part because of the 16% african american vote he carried. that 16% won him the election.

who is running these campaigns? at least attempt to be competitive.

"well, he's not standing here"

perhaps the best moment during last wednesday's democratic debate in new hampshire came when that ole rascal tim russert surprised hillary with a quote from her hubby bill about a possible exception to using torture. she answered per her convictions. when russert revealed the speaker of the quote, hillary's response:

"well, he's not standing here right now."

"so there's a disagreement?" russert pressed.

"well...." hillary demured. "i'll talk to him later."

it was a beautiful moment and the one most discussed from the debate. my only concern for hillary: she needs to start being more direct in her answers. people are starting to really take notice and you can only dance around topics so long. i know she's afraid of pigeon-holing herself before the general election.... but people are tired of non-answers. we get enough of that from republicans.

giving props where props are due

i know john "hope is on the way" edwards has become my favorite punching bag as of late... but he did have a brilliant moment on wednesday. when discussing hillary's vote to list the iranian military as a terrorist entity (why the FUCK did you do that, hill?), johnny boy talked about the danger of conceding any territory to bush that might lead to more possible conflicts in the future.

quoting edwards:

we learned a very different lesson from that. ... what I learned in my vote on iraq was you cannot give this president the authority and you can't even give him the first step in that authority because he cannot be trusted.

amen, and bravo.

january 1, 2013

not one of the three front runners in the democratic field would promise to have all combat troops out of iraq by january 1, 2013 (the start of their second term). kiddies, i'm afraid we're in it for the long haul.

third quarter dollars

for the first time, senator clinton has out raised superstar barack obama. with estimated third quarter earnings being reported this week, obama raised $19 million in primary cash. a very impressive number.

hillary raised $22 million.

for the first time ever, hillary's individual number of new donors also topped obama's.

up, up and away........

on the GOP side, well, it's pretty pathetic really:

flip flop romney raised $10 million. "i spent more time at ground zero" giuliani raised $9 million. and fizzlin' out fred thompson raised only $8 million in his first quarter of official fundraising. mccain only raised $5 million.

perhaps the biggest surprise? texan congressman and all around anarchist ron paul raised $3 million. that is more than other, considered more serious candidates: biden, dodd and huckabee.

great obama quote

again...in the spirit of giving props where props are due:

some now seek to rewrite history. they argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors. or they were voting for diplomacy... you need to ask those who voted for the war how can you give the president a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?"

it's a great quote... but why is he so hesitant to name clinton by name? or even edwards? he's real tough on the campaign trail... but then sits on the back burner during debates. it's possible obama's campaign of hope has limited what he can do in terms of attacking other democratic candidates and really distinguishing himself from the rest of the field.

i know the attacks have hurt edwards.... and you have to be careful with them. but at some point - he needs to be more forceful if he wants to take this thing.

the forgotten war

the media is reporting that overall violent attacks in iraq were down in the month of september. violent attacks are up 20% in afghanistan. the highest since the war began.

just thought you should know....

$190 billion

the bush administration has asked congress for another $190 billion for the iraq war.

wow.

a new abc/washington post poll asked if congress should approve this latest request? 27% said yes. an overwhelming 67% of americans think they should not.

the poll also asks the all important job approval ratings.

while bush's approval rating stands at 33% (equal to its lowest point in this poll), congress continues to bottom out with an approval rating of only 29%.

what's behind this number? 55% of respondents feel the democrats in congress have not gone far enough in opposing the war.

i've heard a lot of talk about democrats wanting leaders in washington. they may or may not understand that the dems do not have enough votes to end the war.... but at least lead the discussion. bob herbert of the ny times said it was time for the democrats to stand up. he describes the dems as a "timid party."

make some noise, nancy and harry! hold votes. make the GOP accountable. do something. anything. just show us you're trying and you understand our frustration.

don't just make calls to clear channel. which brings us to....

comedian rush limbaugh

to steal a title from keith olbermann. ole blow hard limbaugh is in a heap of trouble after he called iraqi war vets who have returned to speak out against the war "phony soldiers."

and before anyone wants to defend rush... if there's nothing wrong with what he said - why did he edit out the phrase before it was rebroadcast on armed forces radio? as general wesley clark said: "he knew he made a mistake."

don't attack the soldiers, rush.... your party doesn't like it. nobody likes it. have we learned nothing from "nappy, headed hos"?

what really amazes me is watching the pundits dance around the question of "phony soldiers" vs. "general patraeus or general betray us."

that uber-dunce heidi harris made the comment that she's upset harry reid would take time on the floor of the senate to condemn limbaugh's comments. that she pays for that time....

well..... what about john cornyn and moveon.org? he introduced a goddamn senate resolution to condemn the patraeus ad.

of course....ask a democrat if what limbaugh said is wrong in attacking a soldier... was the moveon ad wrong in attacking an acting general. dems dance pretty well, too.

in the spirit of nonpartisanship. which i think is bullshit - but there ya go.

as ted rall once wrote.... we don't vote in candidates to be bipartisan. we vote in people because they hold our views and we want them to fight for them.

iowa

newsweek has some interesting poll numbers out. we'll take them one party at a time.

2008 iowa causus - republicans

all republican voters break down as follows: romney 25%, thompson 16%, giuliani 15%, mccain 7% (my, how the mighty have fallen) and huckabee 6%.

of likely caucus voters: romney 24%, thompson 16%, giuliani 13%, mccain 9% and huckabee tops mccain at 12%.

dan balz of the washington post describes any type of support for a republican candidate in iowa as "soft." he also agrees with me that there's an interesting potential for huckabee in iowa. a lot of people reference the high howard dean numbers before he bombed out in iowa and want to make that argument for the dems. but why not the republicans? could huckabee be the spoiler? he performs very well in debates. he's a true christian conservative and thompson has not skyrocketed as people had hoped. he also scored very high in the straw poll.

however....having said all this. i'm about ready to put my GOP prediction in print. i think it will be romney for president. but i'm not ready to quite stand by that statement 100%. not quite yet.

pat buchanan thinks somebody will have to take down romney and only rudy will have the cash to do it. thompson's only shot it in south carolina. if he doesn't win there - he's out.

2008 iowa causus - democrats

the breakdown for all democratic voters have clinton leading at 31% with obama at 25%, edwards at 21% and richardson bringing up the rear at 6%.

funny side story: my dad decided not to watch the debate last wednesday... not the majority of it, anyway. when i told him that richardson continued to make his grand, verbal mistakes and referred to barack obama as the "n" word.... i thought he had ignored me. but no.... he believed me. just goes to show what a verbal fuckup richardson can be. even a richardson supporter thought he was dumb enough to use the "n" word. ugh....

likely caucus voters is much more interesting. clinton drops to 24%. obama wins at 28%. edward remains steady at about 22% and richardson rises to 10%.

it's really interesting that obama leads with likely voters. as i've said several times before: iowa is the basket edwards has placed all his eggs. if he doesn't win iowa - he's out. but could obama win?

balz made an interesting point that bill clinton never had to run in iowa in 1992. harkin was running for president so everyone skipped the iowa caucus. so the clintons never really developed a network in iowa the way they did in new hampshire. and, according to balz, there's not a great affection for hillary in iowa the way there is in n.h.

david gregory of nbc news says "this should really show people that this is still a race and not hillary clinton running away with it."

yes....she is WAAAAAAAAY ahead in all national polls. (by the way - she's polling way ahead of the entire race in arkansas - dems and republicans alike. even against arkansas governor huckabee.) but you have to win those early states.

which brings us to.....

meet the press quote of the week

yes, yes...... i have been neglectful of my meet the press. two sundays ago - too busy in chicago. the sunday before that... prepping for my vacation.

but i return with a surprising choice. i never thought i'd see the day i would quote this gentleman, but i already have once or twice in this entry... so why not give him the grand honor?

i can't stand the man's politics.... but there's no arguing his political savvy.

this week's quote comes from former GOP candidate for president and current msnbc pundit, pat buchanan. allow me to preface this with his belief...and i tend to agree.... that obama has to win iowa or it's over. apparently, he agrees with michelle on this one. i would argue that edwards is in the same boat. says pat:

if hillary wins [iowa], she rolls right through new hampshire and the game is over. hillary is in the finals. these two are fighting to get into the semifinals, or get into the finals. and i don't think edwards, if he wins, can go the distance. i do think obama can go the distance but he can't get beat in iowa.

what's happened to my texans?

i know they're riddled with injuries.... ahman green is out. andre johnson is out.... but we looked like shit on sunday against atlanta. we lost to an 0-3 team! this week... we face miami. an 0-4 team.

please don't let the texans give miami their first W.

i hope our injured players are back.... and our defense can regain their mojo. the once hopeful playoff dreams are quickly fading from my friends (and from me). show us you got what it takes......

besides.....my dad's team is 4-0. i can't take his cowboys winning much longer. he gloats.

my boyfriend

by the way.... jake is hurt in carolina so david carr started for him on sunday. three sacks. lost the game.

come to mamele. i'll make it all better......

e.