Position of money strength or weakness? It's all a matter of perspective when it comes to Dem John Edwards and his campaign's decision to jump off the fundraising escalator and seek the sanctuary of matching funds. Of course, a cynical person might question the timing, so close to end of 3rd quarter fundraising deadline and all that. But Edwards campaign guru David Bonier insists that's not the case in a memo (posted below) to staff and supporters. In fact, Bonier makes a convincing case -- and spares the campaign from wasting time answering too many annoying questions about, well, fund raising. The mantra now can be -- "Hey, we've gone matching funds: how about you?" Even better they keep the option open for the general election against those filthy rich GOPers -- this may seem somewhat wishy-washy (situational political ethics) but they get credit for providing a solid rationale consistent with their campaign themes.

Bonier memo:

Yesterday, Sen. Edwards announced his decision to seek public financing for the primary
election. John himself thought long and hard about this decision and made it with the
firmest of convictions. He believes this is the right thing to do – not only for this campaign,
but for the American political process. The leadership of this campaign shares his
convictions and endorses his decision.
I want to assure you that we are doing this from a position of strength. I thought it would
be useful to cut through all the media speculation and outline as clearly and concisely as
possible exactly why we made this decision and why we believe it is a smart move
strategically for this campaign.
Why did we do this?
Quite simply, we did it because it is the right thing to do.
As you have heard John say many times over the years, elections should be about ideas – not
money. And the focus on money in this election is frankly obscene. Now, more than ever,
candidates for president should be judged on their vision, character and personal integrity –
not how much money they can throw at voters in the form of advertising and fancy
Washington consultants. And, in one of the most important elections in our lifetime,
candidates for president should be spending these last few months leading up to the primary
election focused on meeting with voters and discussing their ideas and their vision to change
America – not caught up in a fundraising contest.
The American people agree – and they want things to change. They want a president who is
accountable to them, not to big corporate interests and Washington lobbyists.
Why are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama not doing this?
It’s a good question, and one that the American people deserve to have answered. John
believes Senators Clinton and Obama, who often talk about their support for public
financing, should join him and prove that they mean what they say.
When John challenged Senator Clinton to join him in ending the practice of candidates
accepting money from Washington lobbyists, she said that wasn’t the answer – she said the
answer was public financing. And just last week, Senator Clinton said that she believes public
financing is the way to fix the broken system of corruption and buying influence in
Washington and should be the law of the land. Well, we already have a public financing
system for presidential campaigns. With this action, John is putting his money where his
mouth is. The question is: When are the other candidates going to do the same?
2
Why now?
It became clear if we didn’t lead the way by example, no one else would. There is too much
at stake in this election for the status quo to prevail.
Candidates can speak to the virtues of public financing – in theory – until they are blue in
the face. But until someone is willing to step up and lead the way toward changing the way
the system works, you can rest assured that things will remain the same.
John has never taken a dime of campaign money from PACs or Washington lobbyists – in
this campaign or in any other campaign. This gives him unmatched credibility in calling on
all Democratic presidential candidates and the Party itself to do the same. He supports
public financing of campaigns as a necessary step to reduce the influence of money in policy
making, so participating in the public financing system is simply the right thing to do.
What does it all mean?
Understand this: This in no way handicaps us in the early primary states, and it does not put
us at a disadvantage going into the general election. If anything, this decision will help us
win the nomination in two ways: our strength with the grassroots means we will get a boost
not available to candidates who depend on large contributions; and we will be running the
campaign in a way that reinforces John’s central campaign message.
Under the public financing system for presidential primaries, once a candidate demonstrates
broad-based public support by raising $5,000 of matchable contributions in each of at least
20 states, the government will match up to $250 of an individual’s contributions to that
candidate. In return, the candidate agrees to limit campaign spending for all primary
elections, limit campaign spending in each state and limit spending from personal funds to
$50,000.
The system of public financing was put in place after Watergate as a way to take power away
from the big money players and give it back to candidates who have strength in grassroots.
That’s what John’s campaign is all about. We have raised millions of dollars – more than any
other Democratic campaign at this point in any previous election. As I said, we have raised
this record amount without taking any money from PACs or Washington lobbyists. Just as
important, 90 percent of our contributions have come from donors giving $100 or less. This
is the type of real grassroots strength the public financing system was meant to encourage
and reward. By focusing on small contributions and the grassroots campaigning, the boost
we will get from being able to receive federal matching funds puts us in a better financial
position for the nomination campaign.
Does this change our strategy?
No. We are on track and moving forward with our four-state strategy, focused on winning
in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. We’ve said all along that we needed
3
to raise $40 million before Iowa. With public matching funds we are very likely to exceed
that goal.
But the key thing to remember is no candidate can buy votes in these states. You have to
earn them with bold vision and real ideas. Substance counts a lot more than money in the
places where voters can look you in the eye, judge you face to face, and question you in
detail about your plans for the country. And when it comes to substance, there’s no contest.
John has led this race on ideas – from universal health care, to the war in Iraq, to education,
global warming and helping American workers. With this decision, he extends his leadership
into the critical area of restoring the essence of our democratic government.
John’s leadership on issues is precisely why our momentum continues to grow in the states
where he has been campaigning. And this growing momentum will carry us through to the
general election.
What about the state spending limits?
As a campaign that has always had a plan to win with less money than its rival campaigns, we
were already working within a budget that makes it possible to achieve our goals and easily
stay within the spending limits. We have studied the numbers extensively, and we are
nowhere near exceeding these limits. The FEC rules are much more generous than many
seem to understand. For example, staff salaries and staff travel do not count against the
state limits – which is perfect for a grassroots campaign. Half of all expenditures in a state
don’t count against the state limit because they are treated as exempt fundraising costs. And
even the total cost of television and radio advertising does not count against the limits for
individual states. In short, the spending limits are actually quite manageable if you’re smart
about how you spend the money you are allowed to spend.
What happens between February 5th and the convention?
Rest assured, we are prepared for this campaign to go the distance. We have a
comprehensive campaign spending plan that is smart and targeted and based on a strategy to
ensure that we not only have enough money on hand to clinch the nomination but also have
a reserve to take the fight to the Republican nominee in the spring. To give you just one
example, part of this campaign is about restoring the power of the Democratic Party. Since
the party can spend money independently of its Presidential nominee, a stronger Democratic
Party will be in a position to meet the challenge of waging an effective campaign on behalf
of John Edwards and every other Democratic candidate.
What happens in the general election?
Make no mistake – we are taking a principled stand on this issue. John Edwards believes the
best thing and the right thing would be to operate the campaign under the public financing
rules for the entire presidential campaign. But he also understands that almost none of the
4
Republican candidates share this commitment. Accordingly, we will continue to raise money
for the general election so we will be ready to compete against the Republican nominee.
Once we win the nomination, John will challenge the Republican nominee to join him in
accepting public financing. Quite frankly, it’s a fight we’d welcome. If they refuse, we’ll
cross that bridge when we come to it and make the decision at that time about whether to
accept public financing. But you can be sure that we will run a campaign that is aggressive,
adequately funded, and successful.
I look forward to that day. And I know that this decision is the right way to get us there.

Posted by Michael McCord at 07:19 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

In the shameless promotion department: Read my Sunday Out on a Limb column in Seacoast Sunday and meet Capt. Joshua Denton, a University of New Hampshire grad and newly-planted Portsmouth resident who recently returned from a year-long tour in Iraq. Denton, who has joined untold numbers of fellow junior officers in leaving the Army in record numbers, has no shortage of ideas about the politics of the war, about what to do next, and why he considers the “support the troops” mantra by many politicians to be “insulting.” He also likes being here to witness first-hand our first-in-the-galaxy primary circus.
It seems appropriate that in a week when right-wing blowhard Rush Limbaugh lashed out against “phony soldiers,” those who have actually served in uniform (unlike the blowhard) and have turned against Bush’s war, I talked to Denton who gives lie to the nonsense spewed by Limbaugh and the rest of the know-nothing crowd.
Buffet thoughts:
While covering the MTV/MySpace event yesterday at UNH — and enjoying watching dem hopeful John Edwards answer an IM question from ‘LunarGoddess6B’ — I talked to Chris Cillizza, the writer and blogger for Washingtonpost.com, who was a co-moderator for the event. He seemed genuinely excited about the potential of events like this to draw younger voters into the political fray, to let them know that elections really matter.
He writes The Fix and today gives his assessment of the respective horse races — also check out his take on the MTV/MySpace forum.
Having as much trouble as me in figuring out the ebb and flow and general weirdness of the GOP presidential scramble? In my daily link, Roger Simon of Politico.com attempts to impose clarity onto fluid chaos.

Posted by Michael McCord at 11:23 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Pundit on the pod: I was interviewed earlier today by Matt Parker, a true political junkie, for a podcast at his politicalbuzz.com web site. You can hear me pontificate about what’s happening in the N.H. primary. Listen at your own risk and you too can disavow it quicker than Rudy did when a few of his thinking-challenged supporters came up with a $9.11 fund raising scheme. You can listen here.
Now on to other matters:
The latest UNH survey center poll on where the Dem hopefuls are standing (or sinking) should be required reading for all political junkies trying to figure out what voters are thinking out there in first-in-the-galaxy primary land. And just what are they thinking? Is Hillary an irresistible force of inevitability and immovable object who can’t be penetrated? Maybe, maybe not; it all depends on how you read the numbers. Thankfully, dear readers, your humble blogoscribe will offer a guide through the maze and boil it down to a simple pro and con formula:

Hillary Clinton -- PRO: Having a 43 to 20 lead over Obama among likely voters and spanking him around in the experience and change categories must warm your heart. CON: Only 17 percent have voters in the poll have definitely made up their minds (more than 80 percent are leaning or undecided) and Obama leaves you in the dust in the likability category by a 39 to 16 percent margin. This could prove to be your Achilles heel come election day when undecided voters often break for reasons that have nothing to do with political savvy..

Barack Obama -- PRO: You’re likable, have the highest favorability rating, you’ve managed to defy expectations and separate yourself from the rest of the pack and hang in there with Hillary. CON: Clinton really slaps you around among Dem voters as most likely to win (54 percent to 13 percent.) And you must wonder what kind of voodoo Clinton is performing to steal your message thunder and position herself as the change candidate. Ouch!

John Edwards -- PRO: Your hard work is paying off as you are rising back into double digits from July. You have high favorability ratings. CON: Your are in single digits among Democrats in the most likely to win category. I wouldn’t advertise this.

Bill Richardson -- PRO: You’ve worked hard to distinguish yourself with your ads, your campaign style and your stances on issues such as Iraq. CON: You’ve dropped from 10 percent in July to 6 percent in September and only 1 percent of NH voters believe you can win the general election. Can you sing ‘brother, can you spare some hope?’

Joe Biden -- PRO: You’ve maintained your position in the polls since July and your partition proposal for Iraq is gaining traction. CON: You peaked in April at 4 percent and despite 35 years in the Senate, only five percent of NH voters believe you have the right experience to be president. Maybe that’s not the right kind of experience.

Dennis Kucinich -- PRO: You’re tied with Joe Biden at 3 percent and you’ve been hailed by Pat Buchanan as a passionate and serious straight shooting liberal whose stances on the issues such as Iraq and universal health care has given you a small but dedicated cadre of followers. CON: Pat Buchanan is a Republican who worshipped Richard Nixon.

Chris Dodd -- PRO: You’re at 1 percent and the large firefighters union endorsed you. You have nowhere to go but up. CON: At this rate, your excellent new book ‘Letters from Nuremberg’ may prove more memorable than your campaign.

Posted by Michael McCord at 01:22 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

In the Darwinian struggle for position in the game called King of the Primary Mountain, one of the fastest ways to rise in stature is the ability to bring an opponent down. So far in this extended primary season, The Democrats haven’t been quite as insistent on this tried and true practice as the Republicans (I miss the regular snits between Sam Brownback and Mitt Romney) but we are starting to see some regular salvos (beyond Mike Gravel who is clearly just a loose cannon).
Dennis Kucinich is criticizing all his Democratic rivals (especially on Iraq and health care) and John Edwards has been particularly tough on Hillary Clinton (who, with the exception of few jabs at Obama, has been rather quiet in her quest to run an inevitability campaign), and there’s feisty Chris Dodd who keeps his communications people with a regular supply of statements and cirtical punches at almost of his rivals. His latest target is Bill Richardson who insists on pulling all the troops out of Iraq but leaving some behind to well, protect the civilians left behind.
Seems sensible but the Dodd folks jumped on this tactic as just the sort of thing that should disqualify Richardson from being the Dems nominee. Richardson’s sin, according to the press release I’ve pasted below is that he’s not smart enough to endorse Dodd’s "efforts in the Senate."
Surely this is a joke given that the "efforts" in the Senate are an exercise in political futility. Your humble Primary Pundit detects politics at play: namely the real reason for such outrage is that Richardson is rising to top three level in the polls. In an interesting story in the Oct. 8 Nation, John Nichols senses that Richardson may be surging at the right time — in part because of the combination of his strong anti-war stance and extensive diplomatic may be attracting more Democratic voters than the polls are reflecting. Read the story yourself here.

HERE’S THE DODD CAMPAIGN RELEASE FROM EARLIER TODAY
Today, the Richardson campaign launched a new website claiming that Bill Richardson was the only candidate that had a plan for Iraq that would leave “zero” troops behind. However, just last week it was reported that Richardson would leave troops behind to protect the embassy, and earlier in the summer he suggested that he would leave up to 5,000 troops to do so.
Richardson Claims He Would Leave “Zero” Troops in Iraq, But Just Last Week The Associated Press Reported that He Would Actually Leave Troops Behind to Protect the American Embassy in Iraq:
Richardson Claims He Would Leave “Zero” Troops in Iraq. According to Richardson’s new attack website, www.GetOurTroopsOut.com, Richardson would leave “zero” troops in Iraq. [Richardson Attack Website, www.GetOurTroopsOut.com, accessed 9/24/07]
Richardson Will Leave Troops in Iraq to Protect the Embassy. On September 20th, the Associated Press reported that Richardson would keep troops in Iraq to protect the American embassy: “Richardson criticized Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards - his leading rivals for the presidential nomination - for plans to pull out combat troops from Iraq but leave residual forces behind. He said he would keep the Marines that guard the U.S. embassy in Baghdad but would withdraw all other military personnel.” [Associated Press, 9/20/07]
Richardson Suggested that He Would Support Keeping Up to 5,000 Troops in Iraq to Guard the Embassy. In a July interview with Salon.com, Richardson suggested that he would support keeping up to 5,000 troops in Iraq to protect the American Embassy: “But if it said 1,000 [troops] to protect the American embassy, that’s fine with me. It’s a Marine detachment. It’s part of our diplomatic corps. I wouldn’t even consider that a residual force. Of course I would permit that. But residual forces -- 5,000 to guard an embassy -- that means that the embassy is not safe. I would pull the embassy if it is not safe.” [Salon.com, 7/20/07]
“Throwing up attack websites that try to draw false distinctions for political gain won’t end this war. Bill Richardson would be better served if he threw his support behind Senator Dodd’s efforts in the Senate that would actually end this war,” said Dodd spokesperson Colleen Flanagan.
END OF RELEASE

Posted by Michael McCord at 01:33 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Why Mitt Romney is such an inviting and rather substantial target may be a mystery to him but not to us media vampires: he has a public track record, a coif that Ronald Reagan would envy, and an evolutionary arc to his current strongly-held principles (which shouldn’t be confused with his former strongly-held principles). Oh yea, he’s also a front-runner here in the first-in-the-solar-system primary land and that’s always good for watching the slings and arrows fly.

In the ‘watch out, you might get what you ask for’ department, the Romney campaign asked folks to take part in a Internet video ad contest (his attempt to control YouTube passions) and the good folks at Slate complied. Their submission is one I’m sure the Romney cadres hope doesn’t see too much play (fat chance: see Tube, You). Titled “Five Brothers,” the video is, to put it mildly, a tough-love take on Romney’s foot-in-the-mouth observation about what constitutes patriotic service when it comes to sons.

Closer to home, Chris Stewart, the maestro of that always entertaining Monday Morning Clacker blog, has his own Romney juxtaposition expose today: the cover from a New England gay and lesbian newspaper in 1994 in which the Mittster proclaims “I’ll be better than Ted for gay rights.” The Ted in this case is Ted Kennedy. This must be a different Mitt because these days, as Stewart notes, the Mittster is all about “Republicans being Republicans” which translate into rather brutal gay-bashing. The Mittster even made a commercial about this latest strongly-held principle.

Try as we might, we can’t make this stuff up. We don’t need to.

Also: In my daily link Ron Paul’s supporters say they want more of him in New Hampshire. Is Paul, the GOP Internet dandy, listening? Or is the “unofficial” blogging site not so unofficial?

Posted by Michael McCord at 12:36 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

The best thing about talking to Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden is that he offers a wealth of opinion, fact, and color. The worst thing about talking to Joe Biden is that the wealth of opinion, fact and color comes at you like a landslide. I covered him a little in 1987 during his first run when he was the golden boy of that campaign; he can be full of it and worth listening to. Now he's older, wiser and frankly angrier. Iraq and almost seven years of George W. Bush does that to people.

During an interview Wednesday in between Senate votes on matters such as the Iraq war and habeas corpus (which Republicans defeated), Biden talked about his partition proposal for Iraq, why few can tell the truth about Iraq (including his Democratic rivals; which puts Biden in the politically convenient role of truth-teller), and why Bush may be even more of a mad hatter than we suspected. Here a few gems I gleaned:

While not big on conspiracy theories, the Delaware Senator (who recently returned from his eighth trip to Iraq) told me he thinks he's got a few rationales for the insane Iraq adventure nailed down: yes, if not completely about oil, keeping a close watch (monitoring and influencing if you like) on one of the world's largest oil reserves certainly did figure into Neocon fantasies; they were deluded into believing that you could have a war and plant liberal democracy in the desert like a perennial; and that they want permanent bases in Iraq to project power in the region.

After last week's Iraq war dog and pony show with Gen. David Petraeus, Biden is convinced that Bush has essentially given up on Iraq and is running out the clock with no plan or strategy or clue until the next guy or gal can clean up the mess. When I asked Biden if this wasn't morally reprehensible, he paused. "It is reprehensible," he said. (For an enlightening yet depressing perspective on Bush and the historical glory he covets -- while blissfully trashing the present; you can do that when God is on your side -- see this dissection by Sidney Blumenthal in Salon.)

You can read more about my interview with Biden and his take on the Iraq quagmire -- and what he would have done as Secretary of State in a John Kerry administration -- in my Sunday Out on a Limb column.

In my daily link, Daily Show host Jon Stewart is taken to task by a blogger for sucking up to Republican presidential hopeful John McCain. Fake news may never get old but in this Alice in Wonderland political environment, it ain’t what it used to be.

Posted by Michael McCord at 09:03 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

The latest poll numbers were out and when I ran across John Dickerson’s story in Slate today (“Time to Panic”), I was sure that the punditocracy was gearing up to imagine how the Barack Obama folks (and the other Democratic hopefuls) were being blown away by the awesome polling tornado of Hillary Clinton —and wanted to get the scoop on the sinking ship.
I was expecting the worst — mass mutiny, tears or perhaps even a few sobs at Obama offices across the state.
When I talked to a confidential source in the Obama campaign earlier today, this N.H. campaign advisor wasn’t drinking the horse race poison.
When said source considered the latest poll numbers that showed their guy stuck in the expectations swamp, he joked it was time to call “President Howard Dean, President Ed Muskie or President Phil Gramm,” former huge front runners who didn’t make it to the finish line, for advice (in the case of Republican Gramm in 1996, he dropped out even before Iowa.)
“I’m frankly stunned that it’s over,” he said half-mockingly.
My Obama contact enjoyed toying with the conventional wisdom being shoveled about by those writing the same nonsense for a select audience (D.C. based) while often having little clue what’s happening on the ground here in first-in-the-galaxy primary land, or in Iowa, or in Nevada, or in South Carolina or just about anywhere.
“We’re plowing the fields and they’re saying the harvest is over,” Obama man told me. This campaign veteran, not known for being excessively full of bullsh--, shared a story from the Gary Hart campaign in 1984 when Hart was polling in the single digits and was given a full media funeral with rites — a few weeks before the actual primary.
“Hart told me ‘the politicians and pundits in Washington drink from the same bath water and call it a sacrament,’” he said. Hart of course beat the establishment favorite Walter Mondale before eventually succumbing due to a lack of money and lack of a national campaign organization.
Obama man told me that Obama has the candidate gravity, a strong message, the money and the on-the-ground organization that remains mostly invisible (and under the media radar) until it counts — in the final few weeks before voters make up their minds.
“We have 11 field offices and have personally touched or contacted more than 100,000 voters in the state.” What matters today is that as many as 80 percent or more of voters haven’t made up their minds — and from the Obama’s camp perspective, the fact that so many independents haven’t decided bodes better for them than Clinton.
“The Clintons have been a household word here for almost two decades: if I was at nine percent (committed voters) with that much name recognition, I’d be concerned.” As a thoughtful parting gift he added that Clinton is "seeling nostalgia as change" which may not entice independents.
What matters Obama man told me is that a little more than nine months ago Obama was a relatively unknown politician. Since that time, a national campaign organization has been created, he’s raised more money than any primary Democrat ever, and he (and the campaign) is making the connection with voters. He’s even got the flavor of an insurgent.
Of course, all campaign surrogates say that. The best of them are wise about one matter, he said. “We can’t guarantee anything. We have the horses on the ground to influence the outcome but not guarantee it. They (the voters) will hear more when they are ready to hear it.”

Posted by Michael McCord at 05:31 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Give credit to Hillary Clinton for paying attention to her scars from her first tough tango with health care reform back in the 1990s — she has decided to enact a ‘big tent’ philosophy to either equally satisfy or equally annoy all the big players in the looming reform dance.
When I asked Clinton earlier today in a conference call with New Hampshire reporters — a day after she announced the final piece of her health care plan — if she was prepared for the political blowback she experienced during her first go around in 1993-1994 (remember the Harry and Louise commercials in which Clinton’s reform plan was compared to communists taking over and killing all the children), she sounded confident, like a politician who had all her bases covered in preparation for the “contortion” acts of the critics.
"They’re gonna have a much harder time,” she said about the long rhetorical knives her opponents are sharpening right now. The reason being is that those Americans happy with the status quo can stay that way and the rest will have choices to make.
Clinton released the plan in Iowa on Monday and it didn’t take long for the knives to come out. To borrow a movie title from the 1970s: ‘They shoot candidates with health care plans, don’t they?’
From the GOP side, Rudy Giuliani’s folks wanted me to know that their guy has no shortage of good, stand up material though his communications guru Katie Levinson pushed all the right political buttons in her rebuttal: “If you liked Michael Moore’s ‘Sicko,’ you’re going to love HillaryCare 2.0. Senator Clinton’s latest health scheme includes more government mandates, expensive federal subsidies and more big bureaucracy – in short, a prescription for an increase in wait times, a decrease in patient care and tax hikes to pay for it all.”
Not so, wrote Bill Hammond of the New York Daily News today, who chides Giuliani and Mitt Romney for drowning in their marketplace uber alles dogma — and compliments Clinton for making a broad attempt at political consensus.
Romney has derided the reform plans efforts of Clinton and other Dems as the “socialist” alternative: I mean really, Mitt, what century are you living in? And why do you run from the Massachusetts plan that you signed into law and looks remarkably similar in spirit to most Democratic reform plans? In this case, Romney isn’t so much a flip-flopper as an amnesiac.
Ah, but striving for that political consensus isn’t necessarily a virtue on the primary trail. Chris Dodd not-so-politely implies that Clinton lacks the leadership gravitas to get it done and John Edwards — well he essentially accuses her of being a bought and paid for lobbyist in disguise for the health care industry.
“If you’re going to negotiate universal health care with the same powerful interests that killed it before, your proposal isn’t a plan, it’s a starting point,” Edwards said Monday in Chicago in a health care reform speech of his own. “I’d like to know what a principled compromise looks like on universal health care. When you cut the deal on universal, who gets left out? And if you don’t compromise on the universal part, does that mean you compromise on the health care part? Lower quality? Higher costs? I don’t believe in it.”
Perhaps these Democratic sibligns should split the difference. Ezra Klein of The American Prospect writes today that what is changing is how the candidates are driving each other to offer more than yesterday’s cold reform soup.
Meanwhile, in true Clinton campaign fashion, the launch of this new product line (aka American Health Choices Plan) has been accompanied by a new TV ad in New Hampshire promoting her proposal and the unveiling of a new group, Granite State Health Corps to spread the gospel. But have no doubt about it: even if her plan leaves you yearning for more, she is serious and driven and determined to prevail.

Posted by Michael McCord at 12:28 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Who knew the moveon.org ad last week could prompt so many to say so much about so little? The ad in question that launched this so-to-speak controversy was in the NY Times edition of Sunday, Sept. 9...it was a factually correct, emotionally explosive shot across the bow before Gen. David Petraeus was to give his Congressional testimony and report on progress (real or imagined) in Iraq...the ad played on the general’s name (as in please don’t ‘Betray Us’ and it set off a firestorm of criticism among politicians and the mainstream media. When he was in first-in-the-solar-system primary land last week, Republican John McCain made it one of the rallying cries of his “No Surrender” tour and went out of his way to lambast moveon.org and Democratic presidential candidates for not repudiating the ad (the McCain campaign even went as far as to have a copy of the ad around in poster form to use as a righteous prop)...the sagging campaign of Saint Rudy Giuliani of 9/11 went even further and released his own ad condemning Clinton and moveon.org. At the NASCAR race in Loudon yesterday, Giuliani beat the drums hard according to an AP report:
“I know that MoveOn.org contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to Democratic campaigns. But it’s the way in which they contribute it, that’s really the offensive part. They contribute it, by and large, doing character assassination on Republican politicians and they get away with it,” Giuliani said.” But they should not be allowed to get away with it when they try to do character assassination on an American general who is putting his life at risk to protect America.”

Ironically, as a Talking Points Memo post from Saturday notes, Giuliani defended the honor of Gen. Patraeus by using his image without his permission a Pentagon no-no. And it was rich given the honored tradition of GOP character assassination in the past three decades to go after a citizen advocacy group but hey, all is fair in love and politics and unrestrained hypocrisy.

My own take on this as a former soldier is lighten up: this is a Democracy boys and girls and no one is above scrutiny, even a highly admired military officer. Petraeus, no doubt a talented and innovative commander who by every report I’ve read has shaken up the military status quo in Iraq, came to Washington to deliver what was at its core a political appearance to support the Bush administration’s policy. After all five years of war and bloodshed and with much more in sight, one has to ask: what’s the real controversy, an ad or another year of three or five years of war for reasons even President Bush can’t articulate with a straight face?

For more on the debate, check out Jane Hamsher’s take on Huffington Post and especially check out the comments by the so-called monolithic moveon.org mob.

Posted by Michael McCord at 12:10 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Here's a unique award and it goes to Democratic Presidential hopeful and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. Call it the first honor for ' localizing of a national issue by a presidential candidate during a football season while taking a big whack at the current occupants of the White House.' You might call it a witty grand slam on Richardson's part regarding the "spying" incident that snared New England Patriots' coach Bill Bilechick. Campaigning in Iowa today, Richardson sent out this statement:

"The President has been allowed to spy on Americans without a warrant, and our U.S. Senate is letting it continue. You know something is wrong when the New England Patriots face stiffer penalties for spying on innocent Americans than Dick Cheney and George Bush."

Ouch.

Out on a Limb preview: Read more about my "No Surrender" tour adventures and observations in the opinion section of Herald Sunday.

Posted by Michael McCord at 02:26 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

On Sen. John McCain’s current “No Surrender” swing through the state today and tomorrow -- including a stop in Rochester I will be covering later today -- his campaign is collecting care packages to ship to troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan (see the press release below).

Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray, 26, and Sgt. Omar Mora, 28, of the 82nd Airborne are two combat soldiers who will not be receiving those care packages. You may not know the two but I posted the New York Times OpEd piece they and five of their comrades wrote, “The war as we saw it” -- a powerful perspective from the ground level in Iraq. While Gen. David Petraeus gave his predictable tentatively optimistic testimony about progress to Congress earlier this week, the two died in a vehicle accident. Both left infant daughters. All of the soldiers questioned the inane assumptions and lack of policy reality in Iraq -- and about how the debate in Washington had become increasingly “surreal.”

I said on Aug. 20 and repeat it now: this brave sumbission (courtesy of a link through Salon) should be required reading for everyone who wants to understand what’s happening on the ground -- as opposed to the fantasies of George W. Bush -- and especially for those who talk about supporting the troops or the war they are fighting and dying in without knowing the cauldron of hell these brave soldiers face every day. Most of all, they offer a simple plea: what exactly are we dying and fighting for?

I've also added a thoughtful reflection by Fred Kaplan of Slate who hopes that their words will carry as much weight a sthose of Gen. Petraeus earlier this week -- or those of Bush tonight.

Here's the McCain campaign release about the care packages for the troops:
MCCAIN CAMPAIGN TO ASSIST NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS IN COLLECTING CARE PACKAGES FOR TROOPS

For Immediate Release
Contact: Press Office

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

MANCHESTER -- U.S. Senator John McCain's campaign announced today it will help non-profit organizations to collect care packages for troops overseas at all New Hampshire stops on the upcoming "No Surrender" Tour. Members of the public wishing to participate should pack a shoebox or similarly sized box of items that will be useful to the men and women of the Armed Forces and bring it with them to their local "No Surrender" event. A list of recommended items is provided below.

At the conclusion of the "No Surrender" Tour, all collected packages will be sent by non-profit organizations to troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

SNACKS, FOODS AND TREATS

Small packages of nuts, seeds, pretzels, cookies, chips, Cracker Jacks, crackers, Corn Nuts, fruit snacks and fruit leather, Gardettos

Trail Mix, energy bars, protein bars, breakfast and granola bars, nut bars, instant oatmeal, Kraft Easy Mac, ramen, Cup a Noodles

Individually wrapped hard candy (Twizzlers, Tootsie Rolls, Tootsie Pops, Skittles, lollipops, Life Savers, Sweet Tarts, etc), chewing and bubble gum, mints, breath strips (no chocolate or homemade items)

Powdered, sweetened drink mixes (Gatorade, Crystal Light, Kool-Aid), ground or instant coffee, tea bags, hot chocolate, cider mix, sugar, sweetener, Coffee Mate, and condiment packets

Canned meats (no pork), stews, chili, ravioli, soups, fruit, beef jerky, non-refrigerated microwavable meals

PERSONAL, HYGIENE AND TOILETRIES

Hotel/travel sized gel deodorant, shampoo, lotion, toothpaste and mouthwash, toothbrushes, dental floss and Brush Ups

Disposable razors, eye drops, nose drops, unscented baby wipes, wet wipes, small hand sanitizer, Mach III Turbo Razor Blades

Small Kleenex packets, Q-Tips, anti-fungal creams, band aids, foot powder, sunscreen

DVDs, AAA and AA batteries, pens, pencils, blank greeting cards and stationary, stickers, disposable cameras, AT&T phone cards

Handwritten cards and letters of encouragement for our troops

Posted by Michael McCord at 10:14 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Gotta give Fred Thompson credit for running so far the most unorthodox NH primary campaign ever seen by a so-called serious candidate. Perhaps the wicked thunder storm that preceded Thompson’s stop in Stratham on Saturday was a foreshadowing of stormy days ahead -- or an omen of other-wordly campaign bliss.

Is Thompson, like the Newsweek cover story of last week said, “lazy like a fox” or just plain unsure of why he’s running for president? Announcing his candidacy to Jay Leno last week on national television while fellow GOP rivals for the crown were suffering at the GOP debate in Durham was a master stroke of something: indifference or genius. Perhaps Thompson, the Southern lawyer and former Senator from Tennessee, has tapped into a zeitgeist current that Republicans and Americans want a president who really doesn’t want to be president but has been pushed into the role. He doesn’t want to be bothered with debates (can’t blame him on that point) or being specific about most everything or even why he’s running. He’s a black slate of ambition and ideas.

But he does know box office numbers and his standing in the polls (too high to be believed except as a sign of dissatisfaction with the McCain/ Romney/Giuliani frontrunner trio) makes him an intriguing presence. He can muck things up for a lot of campaigns (it was no accident that a Romney minion -- and former George W. Bush hit man -- created an anti-Fred web site to dish the dirt) because maybe, just maybe, a lot of folks can close their eyes and imagine his laconic Hollywood character as a savior -- which is odd because unlike Ronald Reagan (often the lead actor in B movies), Thompson was strictly a character role guy.

But that could be his strength: he fits in with any crowd, including the inmates in the D.C. asylum. He’s scary natural, according to Salon’s Michael Scherer who spent a few days in Iowa to check out the Thompson charm and phenomenon. He files an interesting report about why Thompson is a potential serious candidate -- and why anti-Fred web sites may not be a passing fad.

Posted by Michael McCord at 10:30 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

In the midst of carnage and doubt during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln is believed to have said that "events are in the saddle” to those who wondered about the future of the union. I thought of Lincoln’s stark remark as John McCain has embarked on a seven-day “No Surrender” bus tour of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina (he will be in Rochester on Thursday).

It’s no coincidence that McCain is piggybacking on the latest affirmation of the status quo in Iraq by General (and Chief Emissary from Delphi) David Petraeus. All year McCain has embraced the surge as a winning strategy. Yesterday, McCain attacked the moveon.org advertisement that questioned Petraeus’ credibility -- by using more than three years of his optimistic pronouncements that proved hallow at best -- as an example of left-wing McCarthyism though I think he’s forcing a fight that he can’t win; after all, McCain of all people should know what happens when military leaders make one optimistic statement after another that prove to have little to do with the reality on the ground (See Vietnam: Westmoreland, William, a general who was the heralded, impressive, and smart David Petraeus of that tragedy.)

But for now, as the Politico's Roger Simon reports today, McCain is rallying his campaign under the "No Surrender" banner in hopes of sparking a major revival. In last week's shameful charade of a debate in Durham, McCain made his stand by taking ownership of the surge as a winner while telling voters he wants to bring the troops home and "I want them home for the right reasons.” But sadly for McCain, he wants a short-term tactic to be a winning strategy when we can't even define what victory is -- except we know it's one that keeps changing, along with reasons for staying there.

While McCain can add definition to a needed debate about the course of this misguided foreign policy disaster, claiming the “No surrender” high ground seems dubious at best. Perhaps we should simply change the definition since we’ve done the same with victory at every sign post over the past five years. A war conceived in hubris, born of lies and raised in incompetence is riding in a saddle of tragedy and no amount of hopeful rhetoric can disguise the deadly quagmire the troops and the country are stuck in.

Having interviewed McCain numerous times about the war, I have no doubt he speaks from the heart of a warrior. But time will tell whether that will even matter in the slightest in the both the short and long run. When events are in the saddle, one never knows when the ride will end -- or even where it’s going.

What is certain is that has it becomes clear little will change regarding the war in Iraq until January 2009 when President Bush rides off into the sunset -- and that the New Hampshire primary will become a serious battleground of Iraq war ideas, proposals and emotions. Not unlike 1968 when the Vietnam tragedy continued to grind on and on.

Posted by Michael McCord at 12:13 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Your humble scribe will be off the blogging grid for the next week while I take a break from the action before the really big four-month primary push to come (which should not be confused for the eight previous months of a really big primary push ). I'm also pondering why I didn’t get an invitation to Oprah’s big Hollywood bash this weekend for Barack Obama. Some folks have all the connections.

Meanwhile, Mother Jones has an intriguing article about Hillary Clinton and her religious faith. The article has a whiff of the Da Vinci Code (including a regular prayer group called The Fellowship) but it’s worth reading not because it illuminates so much on Clinton but due to its excavation of the deep inroads, probably the deepest in American history, of strong religious faith among those who believe they have been called by God to lead the sheep (the rest of us.)

Posted by Michael McCord at 08:03 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)