During a campaign stop yesterday in Portsmouth, Dem Joe Biden got passionate and personal when he told folks at an Iraq war focused forum (hosted by my employer) that simply cutting off funding for Bush's deadly folly wasn't an easy option. "It's Bush's war but our future and my son," Biden thundered while explaining his votes on funding the war. His son Beau, the Delaware Attorney General, is a National Guard Captain whose unit has orders for Iraq. More than any candidate I've seen on the trail this year, Biden has shared real anger about the war and when he talked about the 14,000 soliders who will need "a lifetime" of medical care because of their permanent injuries, the audience was riveted.

Here comes the slime.
The right-wing Swift Boat Liars brigade from 2004 have spawned more imitators and sure enough the always obliging mainstream media dimwits (i.e., Washington Post) have jumped for the bait. See here for a quick expose about the slime campaign against Dem Barack Obama for being a subversive element. It matches a 50-point anonymous letter I received recently recycling the wingnut fantasies from the 90s against Hillary Clinton. It's easy to dismiss this trash until you encounter people who actually believe the political equivilant of alien abductions.

Posted by Michael McCord at 07:23 AM| Permalink | Comments (7)

In the 'Information I Can Really Use Department': Republican hopeful John McCain may not have much hope in Iowa and here in New Hampshire (where he's making an Alamo-like last stand) he's still trailing Mitt "No Muslims in my cabinet, thank you" Romney in all opinion polls but the campaign sent me this nice reminder that in other polls he's doing just fine. For example in national Zogby and Fox polls he's better than rival Rudy Giuliani in a face off with Dem Hillary Clinton. And if I wasn't convinced of the magnitude of this news, well by golly, McCain is doing ganbusters in Kanas, New Mexico and Kentucky in general election matchups with you know who (the latter two are considered vital swing states that could decide the 2008 election.) For those like me who are hard of hearing, the message to GOP voters is: "It's the electability, Stupid!"

On the heels of McCain's recent ad about why he's a sometimes angry pol (for the good of the country) and tonight's CNN/You Tube GOP faux debate, McCain is facing a more serious problem, according to Politico's Roger Simon -- he's not feeling the competitive anger towards him from Republican rivals. "In politics, you don’t draw attacks for only two reasons: You are a saint or you are irrelevant," Simon writes today (read here) and McCain is struggling every day to remain relevant in a wide-open GOP brawl. This may explain why he's been picking public fights with Dems Clinton and Joe Biden.

Me thinks McCain will do much better than the national pundit wise guys expect in New Hampshire but the larger question will be: can he do well enough to make it to Kansas, New Mexico and Kentucky?

Posted by Michael McCord at 12:05 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

With only 42 days to go, like a majority of voters, are you feeling left out and uninformed about the primary season so far? Don't worry. In my daily link, catch up fast courtesy of this pop quiz by Michael Sherer at Salon -- and then display your newfound primary knowledge to friends, family and coworkers!
Not campaign endorsed
As a follow up to my Sunday Out on a Limb about Rudy Giuliani, I was contacted by the folks at Brave New Films who have recently put out a devastating, short documentary on Giuliani and a long-dormant side of 9/11 that is starting to emerge -- and not one the Giuliani campaign will embrace. You can see the video here which is getting heavy play on You Tube as one of the top political viewings around.

42 days and counting...

Posted by Michael McCord at 12:53 PM| Permalink | Comments (2)

to D-Day here in first-in-the-galaxy primary land and the pace is predictably picking up.
First: ABC News, WMUR-TV in Manchester and Facebook announced today they will host back-to-back Democratic and Republican Presidential debates in New Hampshire on Saturday Jan. 5 -- two days after the Iowa Caucuses. ABC will televise the debates beginning at 7 p.m. which will coincide with the NFL playoffs which begin that day. ABC News said anchor Charles Gibson will moderate and will be joined in the questioning by WMUR Anchor and Political Director Scott Spradling. In another new media age twist, before, after and during the debates, Facebook users will be able to participate in Debate Groups, providing a companion to the televised debates.

In Portsmouth (New Hampshire that is), radio host and former state Sen. Burt Cohen asked me to spread this word: he wants to get a sense of the community regarding the presidential race. Let him know who you support, who you don't, and why. What do you think of the media coverage so far? He's looking for your calls from noon to one, at Portsmouth Community Radio, phone number 603-430-9722.

Meanwhile, back on the campaign trail: On the Republican side, after the noisy weekend of sparring between Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson -- in which the boys got real snippy about Rudy's record in NYC -- John McCain has launched a new ad to run in New Hampshire in which he talks about loving America so much he's willing to piss off a lot of people in D.C. and elsewhere to serve his country. The script is below and the you can see the 30- and 60-second versions of the ad here.
Script for "Love America Enough" (:60-TV)
JOHN MCCAIN: "Since I've been in Washington, I've made a lot of people angry.
"I made defense contractors angry when I blew the whistle on a $30 billion dollar boondoggle and the culprits were sent to jail.
"I upset the special interests and Washington lobbyists when I passed campaign finance reform.
"I made the Pentagon angry when I criticized Rumsfeld's Iraq strategy, and I upset the media when I supported the strategy that's now succeeding.
"I angered the big spenders in Congress when I called for earmark and spending reform. No more $233 million dollar bridges to nowhere or $74 million for peanut storage in a defense spending bill.
"I didn't go to Washington to win the Mr. Congeniality award.
"I went to Washington to serve my country.
"I might not like the business as usual crowd in Washington. But I love America. I love her enough to make some people angry.
"I'm John McCain and I approve this message."
Imagine that: John McCain not wanting to win Mr. Congeniality honors.

Like the Beatles song, on the Democratic side, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich and Barack Obama are here, there and everywhere in the state -- while Bill Richardson has enlisted auto racing legends Bill and Al Unser (the seniors) to campaign for him beginning tomorrow in Merrimack.

Posted by Michael McCord at 11:12 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Before heading off for a long weekend, I want to shamelessly encourage readers to check my Out on a Limb column this Sunday on seacoastonline.com -- from a purely selfish perspective, I'm considering the journalistic benefits and many story themes that come with a Rudy Giuliani candidacy.

Regarding last week's column on Ron Paul, I received an avalanche (82 and counting) of thoughtful replies and constructive criticism from across the country. I've included some of those messages below as a sampling. Thanks to all who responded.

A note to responders: I wish I could have written more because his candidacy raises a wide range of issues and ideas, there's only one thing I'd really clarify: I didn't mean to imply that Paul hadn't campaigned in New Hampshire or that he hadn't drawn large crowds. What I should have said was "more campaigning" because to be fair, compared to a majority of the candidates in both parties he hasn't campaigned here as often or as widely. I have no doubt about his growing grass roots popularity -- but it doesn't always translate into votes on election day if there hasn't been a substantial 'ground game' in effect for months. Perhaps Rep. Paul will rewrite conventional wisdom about what it takes to win here. But until he does, I'm a skeptic.

In my daily link, I've found the most worthy poll yet: who would you invite for Thanksgiving dinner. It seems most folks prefer family over potential presidents.

READER RESPONSES
******************
Thanks.
We are of course hoping Ron Paul is from THIS century too! :-) Nice article. And I think you are asking the correct questions about Ron Paul's policies by going after what you see as his weaknesses. Have you checked out the http://www.10questions.com/ web site sponsored by the NY Times? It is an on-line video question/answer format for all the candidates.
It will be a shame if Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul do not win. The issues debates between them would be something awesome to see. The trouble with most of the other candidates is the inconsistent hypocrisy. Did you know Ron Paul has been married to the same woman for 50 years!! I kind of like a guy who is consistent AND who can speak in declarative sentences, remember what he says, act on it, vote on it (sometimes 434 to 1) and not change his mind to please an audience or get votes. And keep doing it and winning elections for 30 years! And still be quite willing to discuss in a non-inflammatory manner the reasons he holds his beliefs. He does not run from controversy and realizes that at first blush, people may disagree with him. He has had lots of practice making his reasons clear. It is all so extraordinarily refreshing and seductive. Plus it makes sense to me after thinking about his explanations for a while. At least most of them!
In my opinion the top 3 candidates in each party are quite capable of changing their opinions and philosophies....weekly. Clinton, Romney and Giuliani are ridiculous about it yet NO one in the MSM calls them on it. It is perceived as a strength to not hold strong beliefs and be consistent. I wonder why that is.
I was surprised by one other thing you said. "It's too bad Paul didn't campaign here more, didn't take part in the house parties and town hall meetings and create a grassroots movement on the ground to equal its Internet power." This is not my impression at all from a distance. He seems to have had LOTS of rallies. Many visits. Large crowds. He even brought his entire LARGE extended family to NH to canvas door to door in Concord for one weekend. I wonder if some of this is the lack of MSM coverage he has received. One rally had several hundred people about 6 weeks ago. That should be changing in the next 5 weeks as he begins to spend money and moves up in the polls. We shall see. But perhaps there is something that I do not know about NH campaigning that you were referring to above.
Anyway thanks again for a nice article. I thing it would be neat if Ron Paul could meet with you and your editorial staff at the Seacoast Sunday and the Portsmouth Herald for an hour or so. He has done this with a few newspapers already in NH and around the country. Some are online. I think you might even like his answer to the Pell grant question!
Regards,
Dennis Lubahn, PhD
U. Missouri - Biochemistry

**************************************

Thanks for the balanced story on Ron Paul. MSM reporters like yourself really should think seriously about two things: 1). Why we need a Federal Reserve
and 2). A metal standard to back up our money
Regarding #1: Look into the history of how the FED was created - it was all done in the shadows and not out in the open. If the establishment of a private central bank to regulate the nation's money supply was such a good idea, why was the entire process conceived in secrecy? Why was the act passed at Christmas in 1913 when the majority of the senate was home for the holidays?
Why not debate and vote on the act in January or February 1914 when "everyone" was back in session and paying attention?
Why were the meetings to set up the FED held off shore at Jekyll Island, SC, where access was remote and members of the press were not invited?
There's way too much baggage associated with the establishment of the FED to believe that this was a good move for the country.
The ineptness of the FED helped cause the Great Depression and today our dollar is worth 4 cents of it's 1913 value. If that's a good thing, please explain why?
I think a lot of people who look askance at Ron Paul's ideas have never really thought deeply about the root causes of many of country's problems. Dr. Paul's contention that our constant disregard for the Constitution is at the root of many of our ill's is one that should be paid attention to and discussed.
Thanks,
Mark Carbonaro
Marina, Calif.

*******************************

I enjoyed reading it thoroughly.
His ideas are radical relative to the status-quo. I'm college educated... I took student loans. I didn't know any better. And neither do most Americans today.
Government and social studies in public school are weaker than mathematics and English. If you hail from the public school system -- funded with money confiscated from you and poured through a clogged bureaucracy in DC, you get less dollars back into the classrooms for your kids -- you know nothing about the Constitution.
And that is why Ron Paul seems so dang radical. But like your interviewee said... it is all connected. Foreign policy to spending to big government... it is a system of interrelated parts that if you believe one thing, you cannot logically go and support another.
This is why your Hillary's and your Mitts and your Rudys don't make any sense. They criss-cross the board on their stances. They are inconsistent, and I think that the people can smell that.
Thanks for your article,
Oliver

*****************

Dear Michael McCord,
My name is Shawn A.B. Clutter here at Fort Hood Texas and I have to say it seems that those who speak the truth are few and far between, but you yourself can see that there is hope for this country in Ron Paul. In your writing you see that our nation needs someone to step up to the mic and lead this country back to its roots before its too late. it is obvious our so called leaders early in the 1900's sold out our nations currency and complete destruction is imminent. War will accompnay this I believe. Our manufacturing base is shot. Our moral base is shot. Our foreign Policy is shot because of Empire Building, and to boot the American People are privy to the Al-Qaeda boogey men Bush has conjured up. Don't get me wrong there are terrorists, and they hate us, but also lets get real we employed Bin Laden in the 1970's when National Security Advisor to Carter Mr. Zibibniew Brezinski met with Bin Laden. The whole Taliban radical wahabists were created and or enhanced by the CIA. We are being setup for another false flag operation against our nation and they will blame the patriots of this country this time. The American People know that there were no wmd in Iraq and they know that the CIA trained Saddam and put him into power and he just stepped over his bounds so the usa had to get him straight. oh by the way the CIA in 1953 in Iran caused the havoc that was when they deposed mozedek because he wanted to nationalize his OIL and so they staged false operations where schools were hit kids killed and other ops to foment his overthrow and they put the shah in and the savak which is the iranian secret police and a reign of terror ensued, but no no no we can't have iran nationalizing oil said Bristish Patroleum, Dutch Royal Shell, etc. So we know the deal. This New World Order BS must be stopped. Our nation will be hit so we can be absorbed into this North American Union. go to spp.gov and read the treason. Also watch Alex Jones movies Terrorstorm:the history of government sponsored terror and his latest movie Endgame:Blueprint for global enslavement for free at google video. visit prisonplanet.com and infowars.com. thanks for your time. GO RON PAUL

*******************

Hi Michael,
Thank you for the delightful article on Ron Paul.
We always enjoy reading a well-written and well-researched article.
We are hoping Dr. Paul does well in the New Hampshire Primary, whenever it’s held. ;)
Yours in Truth and Freedom,
Karen Allport
Southern Oregon
For primary and voter registration information: http://www.VotusPotus.com

******************

Hello, I just wanted to send you a quick, "thank you," regarding your piece on Ron Paul. A dear friend of mine recently passed away in Fallujah, and since then I have vowed to work to prevent more Marines
and innocent Iraqis from being murdered in the name of imperialism.
It continues to amaze me to hear people who believe there is something profoundly wrong with our country ignore, ridicule, and resist an equally profound change in American political discourse. Thank you for your intellectually honest work.
Sincerely,
A Concerned, Patriotic American

***************

In your recent article, "Ron Paul's constitutional utopia," you say that "Paul doesn't have a party that will embrace much less tolerate him." If I understand this right, you are saying the Republican party would like to have him gone.
I disagree. If there is one thing that is a hallmark of the Republican party (and probably the Democratic party) leadership is that they are whores for winners. They were whores for the neocons and doing the wrong thing, and after Ron Paul shows there is much grassroots support and money, they can just as easily be whores for doing the right thing. I wish they'd have done the right thing all along, but we'll use them for what they are...yeah.
Case in point. Earlier on, after the SC debate, the Spartanburg, SC RP Chairman Rick Beltram said Paul wasn't welcome there. After getting deluged, he sniffed out the votes and money potentially behind Paul and stopped just short of rolling out the red carpet for him.
And this was a small-time hack, not a real pro.
About half of the public doesn't vote. Why? Noone knows...yet.
That's a lot of potential Paul supporters.
Thanks for your fair-minded article.
Andrew Sweeney
Graduate Student
Clemson University

********************

In your article you state:
"It's too bad Paul didn't campaign here more, didn't take part in the house parties and town hall meetings and create a grassroots movement on the ground to equal its Internet power."
I think you are wrong and he has done this. He's won every major straw poll by at least 60% in each case (CNHT, Strafford, Manchester) and has crowds of up to 800 where ever he goes. He has an army of volunteers that other candidates would give their right arm for...according to NH Insider blogger Ed Naile.
I think you have just been out of the loop.
Paul had his first house party in Pembroke, one of many to follow, in February of 2007 which I personally arranged. There were 200 attendees and we raised over $17,000 from that alone, later another $10,000 residually. This was even before he declared!
I think you perhaps have missed all the campaigning and support because up until now, the media refused to cover it. I know they refused to come to the party in February, but there are lengthy videos of it on YouTube.
He also had the MOST rally-goers (400) even at the first June 5th debate. Once again, CNN cut us out of the photo and no media would come to the reception after where we again had more people in attendance than Obama and broke the fire code rules of the restaurant we used. Video of that is also available.
So before you make statements like the above, you should do a little research.
Jane Aitken

********************************

Thank you for posting the marvelous column about Ron Paul. I especially appreciate that you delivered a perspective that obviously uniquely your own, and didn't rely solely on what you've read.
I will comment that although you may have observed a wide variety of supporters at the University of New Hampshire was a very colorful, eclectic group, there are MANY of us out here who are rather ordinary citizens who admire and believe in his extraordinary vision of an America that needs to be reborn.
Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to comment.
Darryl Schmitz
St. Johns, MI

**************************

Good article about Dr. Paul.
It seems weird to me that questions are often framed in such a way that they accentuate the negative rather than the positive aspects of Dr Paul’s positions. In Economics there are always the “unseen” implications of actions and that’s why certain aspects of stories published about Ron Paul often baffle his supporters. Perhaps you could have asked the poor girl if she thought it was fair to take money from students that decide to work for a living and don’t go to college in order to pay for her education. What is the right way to ask the question? It depends on what you want to hear as the outcome. Please look for the “unseen” as it sometimes matters more than the seen.

BTW, I live in Alabama and just bought a house & 115 acres in Lisbon, NH because I would rather have a shot at living free than “die” at the hands of politicians bent on destroying this great country. New Hampshire has an “unseen” competitive advantage in that regard.
Sincere good wishes,
Bob Moore

**************************

I agree with you that Ron Paul is running for office about 100 years too late. The constitutional republic that this nation once was (and, since the Constitution has never been amended, we are still - legally speaking) has long since morphed into a democratic socialist state. He is crying out in the wilderness.
I do support him, to the point where I've actually donated money. While I think his chances of winning anything are slim to none, I only hope that maybe his ideas of limiting the power of the politicians will one day take hold, so my son doesn't have to spend half of every working day to pay off the demands of the politicians.
Warm regards:
Cyd Malone

********************
Thank you for your article on Ron Paul, but could you please drop the "gadfly" label? Ron Paul is now a serious contender, and conservatives would argue there is nothing goofy about wanting to take our country back from big government.
Sincerely,
Carrie Duffield
Sewickley, Pa.

*********************

First of all I'd like to thank you for writing a pretty decent article about Dr. Paul and his campaign. However, I should probably respond to this specific statement:
When I mentioned to one student that Paul's policies would cut off her Pell grants and student loan guarantees, she replied, "Really?"'
Ron Paul, although an idealist, wouldn't do such a thing. I get the feeling that you think Ron Paul would get into office and automatically get rid of all aid and all departments, this is just simply not the case. He has realistic ways to get to a idealistic view. He'd cut foreign expenditures and put half into the deficit and half into programs like Social Security and Medicare since we have taught a generation or two to be dependent on the government. As far as Pell grants goes, that's probably one of the last places he'd cut if he ended up doing so, which would have to be with the consent of congress. In congress he introduce legislation that would eliminate the income tax for college students and their parents, as well as giving parents tax breaks ($3000 or so) to allow their kids to attend any school they want.
And as far as "virtually no government" goes, that isn't very true either. He believes in federalism, the Thomas Jefferson approach. If it isn't in the constitution, let state and local governments decide. That's why he supports states' rights to legalize medical marijuana. He finds it funny that our federal government, through the DEA, raid the sick and dying and through them into jail for smoking marijuana in a state where it is legal to smoke it under a doctors prescription. Just because he wants to end the federal war on drugs doesn't mean he wants to "legalize" it.
And just because you oppose the federal reserve doesn't mean you are an anarchist. I'm not very fond of a private bank printing money out of thin air when the government comes up short myself.
Brent Burk

**********

Thanks for your article on Ron Paul - I liked it, for the most part. But in the future please be careful to fully understand his policies - they affect things at the federal level only. So, states are absolutely free to provide public schools, grants and scholarships for college students, etc. It's just that I won't pay taxes (from Michigan) for somebody to go to school in California. I like that. What that means for us in Michigan, is that we're free to decide how much money we want to take from our residents' paychecks to fund public education - what works for us, what we need, to help people and help our local economy. This principle goes for everything that journalists often cite concerning Ron Paul - there may be state parks, but no federal parks. There may be state-funded crackdowns on child pornographers using the internet, but no federal funds for that purpose. Thanks again.
Deanne Hunt

Posted by Michael McCord at 11:32 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

You too can play for fun and wonk-status profit by keeping track of which candidate is launching what. For as of yet unexplained cosmic reasons (in our neck of the woods, we've had a report of an earthquake and snowfall) today is a heavy launch day for campaigns of all stripes as they make a mad holiday scramble to differentiate their brands, ah, candidacies, from the rest of their rivals.
Here are a few samples from today’s launch menu::
Green bayou: Republican John McCain -- who has jumped into second place among Republicans in the just released CNN/WMUR poll -- has launched a green-colored direct mail effort across the state to enhance, you guessed it, his green credentials which really does separate him from the rest of mostly indifferent GOP pack (something about letting that magical and always great and wonderful Oz of the marketplace handle climate change and potential environmental disaster).
Tough enough: Dem Hillary Clinton has launched a new television ad now running in New Hampshire -- the 625th new primary ad this month -- that portrays her as, you guessed it, the best Democrat that Republicans like Mitt Romney, McCain, and Rudy Giuliani love to hate but can’t beat. The 30-second ad is titled “Machine,” as in the Republican attack machine and one which Hillary has repulsed on numerous occasions. The bonus for us in the viewing audience is a sneak preview that blockbuster, General Election 2008. See the ad here.
Educate this: At Central High School in Manchester earlier today, Barack Obama launched his new education intitiative with a speech titled “Our Kids, Our Future” that would, you guessed it, provide a world class education for all kids. He also threw a few jabs at Dem rivals Clinton and John Edwards: “It’s pretty popular to bash No Child Left Behind out on the campaign trail, but when it was being debated in Congress four years ago, my colleague Dick Durbin offered everyone a chance to vote so that the law couldn’t be enforced unless it was fully funded. Senator Edwards and Senator Clinton passed on that chance, and I believe that was a serious mistake.” I’m sure they will have something to say about that observation. Read the complete plan here.
Primary home for the holidays: Dem Dennis Kucinich has launched himself in what appears to be the longest sustained campaign trip this season here in the first-in-the-galaxy primary land. Beginning today in Concord until Nov. 29 he will be here there and everywhere, criss-crossing the state. Kucinich would like to add some constitutional emphasis to your holiday and will tell folks “It’s important the people remember the job of their President is to protect and defend our Constitution. No one is above the law of the land and the rule of law must be applied equally. That’s the message I’m prepared to deliver and that’s the position I’ve always taken.” No word on whether he will manage to get some holiday shopping done.

In my daily link, an ambitious piece on Huffington Post shows the importance of having an ex-President husband named Bill Clinton as a major fund raising machine for your presidential candidacy. Especially when you need the money to buy the ads to fight against the machine that wants to destroy you. Defense doesn’t come cheap.

Posted by Michael McCord at 12:29 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Ask retired New York City Fired Department deputy chief Al Santora about Rudy Giuliani, you will get a heart and soul story about how the Mayor he knows has little or no resemblance to the campaign image being trumpeted by the Republican presidential candidate. Santora and his wife Maureen lost their firefighter son Christopher in the 9/11 attacks and have joined other folks from New York to speak out against Giuliani whom they feel betrayed their son and other fire fighters before 9/11 -- and then had gall to exploit it for personal and political gain, making tens of millions as a speaker and security consultant and now is a serious presidential candidate. (See UPDATE below.)

As far as Al Santora is concerned, Giuliani has made his reputation and fortune not for being heroic or even necessarily a good leader. “He’s the greatest spin doctor of all time,” Santora told me. Giuliani and the NYC administration failed the firefighters because they knew the radios were faulty and did nothing about it -- he says that the radio contract bidding process in 2001 was “unique” and wasn’t part of a regular process. Santora knows this because he was the head of R&D at the NYFD. He said as many as 123 firefighters perished in part because of bad communications and bristles at alternative theories offered by Giulian that the firefighters died because they were being heroic. Firefighters know when an evacuation order is given, it’s time to evacuate.

“On Sept. 10 (2001), he couldn’t be elected dog catcher,” said Santora who is part of a group traveling to Dartmouth College to share their views about the Mayor of 9/11. “He was no hero. He didn’t do anything but walk away from the pile. He spent more time at Yankee Stadium.” Santora, who retired a year before 9/11, said he worked at the WTC pile until mid-October and didn’t spend much time at Yankees Stadium rooting for the Yankees and increasing his national exposure.

Giuliani‘s campaign, which is taking on enough water to sink a lesser vessel and has essentially abandoned hope of victory in New Hampshire, can’t be happy about the Dartmouth appearance tonight of New York City firefighters and family members like Santora. Giuliani is running on the 9/11 platform, trumpeting his own leadership in the hours and days after the terrorist attacks that leveled the World Trade Center towers and promising to be a warrior in the fight against the wave of so-called “Islamofascism” that Giuliani now elevates to an apocalyptic threat (something about the end of civilization as we know it.)

The campaign, udnerstandable disputes this criticism of Giuliani and lampoons the International Association of Fire Fighters union (which clearly has it our for Rudy) as International Association of Partisan Politics Santora is a staunch Republican (he told me he will support any Republican nominee not named Giuliani) who voted for Giuliani twice and feels quite duped by the man he calls “the greatest spin doctor in the world.” He doesn’t blame Giuliani for his son’s death because Christopher died when the first tower collapsed onto other WTC facility. But he says the country needs to know there isn’t one official version of 9/11 and certainly not one Giuliani can trademark.

When I asked the campaign for a comment they released a one size fits all statement from Lee Ielpi, another retired New York City firefighter. "I understand the emotion surrounding Sept. 11, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that it was the terrorists who attacked New York City," Ielpi wrote. "On that day and the days following, New Yorkers and the rest of the country were fortunate to have the steady and strong leadership of Mayor Rudy Giuliani.”

Al Santora rejects the “strong and steady leadership” angelic chorus propagated by the Giuliani gang. He told me he and the other firefighters speaking out against him have no doubt Giuliani’s campaign will fight back with ‘Swift Boat’ like attacks against their character and motivations. He doesn’t care. “We know the truth about him.”

UPDATE 1:
Coincidentally or not, the Giuliani folks have launched a direct mail push and a new television ad titled "Leadership."
The script reads: “I believe I’ve had the most leadership experience of anyone that’s running. It’s not just holding executive positions, like Mayor of New York, or United States Attorney, or 3rd ranking official in the Reagan Justice Department. It’s having held those positions in time of crisis. I’ve been tested in a way in which the American people can look to me. They’re not going to find perfection, but they’re going to find somebody who has dealt with crisis almost on a regular basis and has had results. And in many cases, exceptional results. Results people thought weren’t possible. I’m Rudy Giuliani and I approve this message.”

In my daily link, Matt Tabai of Rolling Stone profiles the good, the bad and the religious nutty of Republican rising star Mike Huckabee (who pardoned Keith Richards and, Tabai found out, practiced a former of Arkansas political sleaze we are unaccustomed to here)

Posted by Michael McCord at 09:26 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

I had no shortage of material for my Sunday Out on a Limb column.
After all, there’s still plenty more to wring out of the “beat the bitch” question John McCain encountered in South Carolina that his campaign turned into a victimization campaign (against the liberal media) which then became a fund-rasing drive.
Or how about fake actor and TV star Chuck Norris endorsing Mike Huckabee.
Or push-polling in New Hampshire with someone saying nasty things about Mitt Romney and favorable remarks about John McCain — McCain has denied such nastiness and called for an NH state investigation while Romney found neither the high nor low road and strangely blamed the McCain-Feingold finance law for such underhanded activity (really?).
I mean this is Cold War espionage stuff -- someone is targeting candidate A while leading the trail to candidate B while candidate C or D, the real perpetrator, stays above the fray.
Or I could talk more about Rudy Giuliani and his decision not to try really hard in New Hampshire as his campaign is besieged by soap opera sleaze and closer media inspection.
Or I could ponder the deeper meaning of last night’s Dem debate in Las Vegas which proved that Wolf Blitzer is the most annoying TV journalist and debate moderator ever — and that Dem candidate Joe Biden has a great real-time wit.
After more than 15 minutes of a Blitzer-manufactured Obama/Clinton/Edwards smackdown, Biden declined to speak when asked a question. “No, no, no,” Biden said with the proper dash of sarcasm. “Don’t do it, no! Don’t make me speak!” (See my daily link for a highlight wrap up of this latest exercise in televised campaign torture — and further proof that candidates must be slightly unbalanced to subject themselves to such inane activity.)
Now for some shameless self-promotion. I chose instead to write about Internet favorite and Republican iconoclast Rep. Ron Paul. His brand of utopian constitutionalism makes him one of the more intriguing and unlikely presidential candidates around.
Most of all, he looks like a third-party candidate who could possibly make a dent in the Dem-Repub monopoly in the general election (me thinks the mood in the country is desperate enough) though he denies it’s in his plans — despite the reality that’s he’s a candidate without a party and likely can’t win the republican nomination. His fans around the country donating buckets of money to his campaign at a record pace over the Internet no doubt would like him to reconsider.

Posted by Michael McCord at 03:51 PM| Permalink | Comments (1)

Gotta give a hand to John McCain's campaign for making lemonade out of served-up lemons. As I noted yesterday, you could see it coming that the McCain folks would get as much mileage as they could out of the "bitch" swipe at Dem Hillary Clinton in South Carolina Monday. They didn't disappoint. They got a two-fer -- first they played victim to alleged liberal big media (in this case CNN or Clinton News Network in McCainspeak), always a tried and true Republican-approved ploy. And then they used it as a fund raising gambit asking for $25 to $2,300 to help slay the Hillary dragon in the general election (avoiding the fact that they may not make make it out of the primaries). You can't pay enough for campaign kismet like this. As the Guiness beer commerical says best: "Brilliant!"

My daily link has a good replay package including original video and campaign e-mails stoking the fire.

Wonder if Wolf Blitzer of the Clinton News Network will ask Hillary her perspective on McCain at tonight's Dem debate in Las Vegas.

Posted by Michael McCord at 08:42 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Goodness knows how many questions I've seen voters ask presidential candidates over the year and an overwhelming number of them are as predictable as sunrise and sunset schedules -- but they are legitimate questions for those asking the questions of politicians who make it their business to answer them with varying degrees of authenticity. It's a game of sorts and it's one that doesn't need tricking up especially when reporters are lurking around most of the time like vultures waiting for a glimpse of rare prey.

Yes, I stunned when I heard about the Clinton campaign plant in Iowa -- one because the campaign has been equally parts aggressive and oh so disciplined and two, there was no reason to do it because only rarely do the candidates get peppered with hostile questions. In my daily link and also in Salon today, a pair of road-weary veteran scribes say there’s no shortage of skullduggery on the campaign trail (plants and push polls to name a few), especially when it comes to those highly orchestrated inventions called “town hall meetings” -- I mean, if one was suspicious enough, one could imagine the McCain campaign egging on a pissed off South Carolina voter to ask McCain, as happened Monday, how to deal with the “bitch” (Clinton). After all, the ‘it rhymes with witch’ headline of the day makes for good media servings, especially among rabid Republicans.

I’ve always found a lot campaign events to be full of what I call organic plants -- namely, enthusiastic supporters who go out of their way to throw softballs at their candidates to make them look good. But to have a tone-deaf campaign staffer organize one so blatantly and get caught is more than a shot in the foot -- such artifice piled on the normal campaign BS is plain stupid.

Posted by Michael McCord at 08:36 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Last week, we got a last-minute call from the Rudy Giuliani campaign asking if we could talk to some favored surrogates who worked with Rudy in NYC and were in the Portsmouth neighborhood. We couldn’t due to previous scheduling but it leads one to wonder: for such a high profile candidate whose campaign never stops crowing about his lead in national polls, why hasn’t he bothered with much effort here in first-in-the-universe primary land?
It seems that Republican Rudy has a plan that entails if not quite stiffing Iowa and New Hampshire than to weather the storm and come out guns a blazing in less retail politic orientated states (see Michigan, Florida, New York, California). Slates’s Trailhead blog explains some of the reasoning and high risk in this strategy (namely for a couple of weeks he will be rendered irrelevant).
An excerpt from the blog: “This strategy borders on hubris, but it also wisely lowers the bar. If the press starts railing on Giuliani for poor showings in the first two contests he can just say, “I told you so.” But can a national front-runner really set expectations that low and expect to stay out front? If Giuliani finishes fourth in Iowa to Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and maybe even Ron Paul (gasp!), could his candidacy still be taken seriously? What if Romney, Paul, and McCain trump him again in New Hampshire?”
What I’ve seen on the trail here is that Rudy has brand name cache and Pat Robertson’s endorsement (we doubt he will be getting one from former indicted chum/limo driver/NYC police commissioner Bernard Kerik) but little passion or serious organization.
It’s a strategy that defies political gravity (you can’t calculate the amount of momentum generated by victories and strong efforts in Iowa and New Hampshire) and could send Rudy crashing to earth with a thud.

Posted by Michael McCord at 11:04 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

To the 48 (and counting) supporters of Rep. Ron Paul who wrote in from across the country about my Saturday (11/10) story: If I had any doubt about the power of the Internet to humble this truly humbled scribe, no doubts remains. In my story about Paul’s energetic appearance at the University of New Hampshire Friday, there was one typo and one missed word that turned this veteran reporter into a rookie in seconds. I wrote that Paul was 74 when I knew he was 72 (born the same year as my mother). And I had written time and again that Paul was the only Republican presidential candidate to oppose the Iraq war and had voted against authorizing the war in 2002. Alas, for this story the AGAINST was omitted by me.

To the good Paul supporters from sea to shining sea, most of whom were gracious enough to call these typos and omissions, and to those who were concerned that this was a “hit piece” or written with malicious intent, please take my assurance that it wasn’t. They were simple and frankly silly errors and I alone am the culprit.

And for any reporters, pundits or voters who doubt the potency of the decentralized Paul Internet network, let me stand as an example that it exists.

The corrected version is in my daily link.

Oh yea, it’s 53 and counting...

Posted by Michael McCord at 11:03 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

It's been ten days since the Dem debate that -- if you read a majority of breathless accounts by the pundit hordes -- changed everything in the universe and revealed Hillary Clinton to be a wounded front runner. I never bought that line completely because (1) while it was clear she wasn't at the top of her game, the debate showed she was a tough cookie and (2) I never believed the runaway front runner hogwash anyway, especially as it relates to New Hamsphire, because the race is far too volatile with too many unknown variables (can you say Pakistan? Or sinking economy? Or anything?).

When I talked to Clinton a few days after the debate when she visited the Portsmouth Herald editorial board I was impressed by her willingness not to linger at the scene of an accident. She was as thoughtful and measured as always. And while her campaign was in a defensive posture it didn't rise to the level of panic or jumping off a sinking ship (though there's no doubt some concern: Oddly, President Bill now takes the rap for the health care debacle in 1994, as the NY Times reported Thursday. Barack Obama smartly retorted that “My understanding is President Clinton’s not on the ballot.”)

The larger issue I thought from the debate was this: I tried to imagine being a first-time viewer, someone not familiar with the scores of proposals and speeches out there. I only partially succeeded in brainwashing myself but I did come away not having a good sense of what Clinton stood for at her core. That may be the greater sticking point as voters really begin thinking about their choices.

I ran across this level-headed, post-debate corrective by Eric Boehlert of Media Matters who wonders what all the hyperventilating was about. It was much ado about stirring up the pot.

Posted by Michael McCord at 06:46 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

How little do most Democratic voters trust the the Geoge (Bush) and Dick (Cheney) show in D.C.? I saw a Stangelovian moment on our first-in-our-solar-system primary trail reflective of our nervous (check: very nervous) times. It comes courtesy of gentleman in Portsmouth today who calmly asked New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson this eye-opening question: "What are you gonna do when George and Dick drop a bomb on Iran?" Richardson was momentarily taken aback and silent (no small feat given his style) before saying he would pray -- no doubt like the rest of us -- and saying he didn't believe it would come to that.

On the weird endorsement front there's nothing like Rudy Giuliani getting the wet kiss from Pat Robertson to set blogosphere tongues a wagging. I mean really: a pro-choice Mayor of America's most secular city who bunked with some gay friends while he was getting a divorce receiving a seal of approval from a religious fruitcake who believed that 9/11 was a lightening bolt from God to punish America for being tolerant of abortion, gays and our secular ways. Makes perfect sense to me.

In my daily link, Michael Weiss of Slate rounds up some spicy blog commentary about this marriage of convenience.

And speaking of Ron Paul, didn't Giuliani show his fury in a debate earlier this year when Paul had the gall to suggest that U.S. foreign policy choices could have contributed to 9/11? Maybe Paul would have gotten a pass if he'd blamed gays, pro-choice deviants or aliens from outer space.

(Early Thursday) Just in: Heard from a reliable source that Republican hopeful and Internet favorite Ron Paul of Texas will bring his campaign to the Unviersity of Hew hampshire Friday afternoon. His more freedom and liberty song list will play well to this freedom-loving crowd.

Posted by Michael McCord at 09:13 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Kansas Sen. Sam (We Hardly Knew You) Brownback is set to endorse former rival Sen John McCain as his top choice among Republicans -- what this means remains to be seen but it won't help McCain as much as it would have Mike Huckabee who would like to have a little establishment love.
Among Dems in NH, the latest Rasmussen poll will get pundit tongues a wagging as Hillary Clinton's inevitability charge took a slight hit. If you believe the polls (and I do a little; like third-hand gossip) Clinton has a 34 to 24 percent lead over rival Sen. Barack Obama. Rasmussen said her lead has shrunk. I say, it's just getting exciting.

Jeopardy: Generals for $200
Ironic, I guess, it was eight years ago in the fall of 1999, a few months before the NH Primary, when then candidate George W. Bush, an otherwise popular but undistinguished Governor of Texas, flunked a National Geographic quiz given by a Boston TV reporter. In particular, Bush showed his foreign policy acumen when he couldn’t give the name of the Pakistani general who had just taken over Pakistan in a coup. His name was Pervez Musharraf and he was in the headlines then because, well, a country with nukes that undergoes a coup tends to make a few headlines.
Fast forward to 2007 -- Musharraf is a valued ally (of sorts) in the so-called war on terror and he’s been a guest on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Bush even knows his name. Musharraf is even in the headlines again this time by playing the role he’s actually played all along -- dictator. Musharraf has even learned from Bush by using the threat of terror to declare a state of emergency -- though it’s funny how Musharraf has arrested political opponents, shut down television and radio stations, and essentially shut down the country’s legal system. Not unlike America, where Bush and other right-wing groupies whine about the traitors in our midst (Democrats, Republicans with an ounce of independence and, yes, American-hating media weasels) and offer a state of emergency mentality as part of their daily modus operandi.
Writing yesterday in Salon, Middle East expert and blogger Juan Cole sums up the devil’s bargain Bush made with General what’s his name and why it’s left us with yet another dilemma of options ranging from really bad to worse. In fact, it’s been reported that a Bush White House aide exuded a sigh of relief because compared to Pakistan, Iraq didn’t look so bad -- gotta leave it to the Bushies to find a ray of sunshine in a dark night especially since the tragedy of the Iraq obsession continues to play out badly across the globe, including with Pakistan which really has nukes (unlike Saddam Hussein in Iraq), really does have terrorists aplenty (unlike Iraq before our invasion), and is, well, slightly unstable.
Funny how history never seems too far away and shows up as a primary concern out of nowhere.
Dem presidential hopeful (emphasis on hopeful) Joe Biden has stepped up to the plate and offered his own analysis of the Pakistan bomb waiting to explode. He’s the first candidate to give it serious attention (and Joe, being Joe, couldn’t resist calling up Musharraf himself). We can’t wait to see what the Mayor of 9/11 (aka Rudy Giuliani) has to say. After all, Republican Rudy claims to be the foreign policy savant and accused Biden of being a foreign policy phony.
But the bigger question is this: do you think Jon Stewart will get another chance to ask Musharraf where Osama Bin Laden is?

.

Posted by Michael McCord at 10:19 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Who knew Ron Paul, the favorite of Libertarians and Internet seekers of political clarity (and who is mostly ignored by his own Republican party) could be a record setting fundraiser? Well, Paul, a relentless opponent of the Iraq war, has raised eyebrows when his campaign made a determined online push to raise as much moolah as possible and ended up with more than $4 million in ONE DAY -- which sets a record for GOP cash cropping in a single day during the primary season (and bested by a lot the well-publicized circus of Mitt Romney in January whcih garnered $3.1 million). Who knows how this will translate into actual votes -- the latest Franklin Pierce/WBZ poll here showed that 2 percent of Dems believed Paul could win the NH primary while 0 percent of Republicans believe he can win. Paul's web site is smartly playing up his goal of $12 million by Dec. 31 to fight it out in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- and includes a screen inclusion showing the names of contributors. Alas for Paul, many of the names I saw while watching over a few minutes weren't in the early primary states. So it's nice for his campaign coffer but not so good for votes: Can you say third-party candidate? Ross Douthat with Atlantic Online wonders the same thing -- and says Paul should take the third-party plunge to explore the depths of his phenomenon and give voice to the millions feeling unrepresented -- while applying a swift kick in the butt to the moribund establishment parties in the process.

In my daily link, there's an ode to Dem Dennis Kucinich for being the smart guy on the right side of all the right issues but who doesn't get much love or attention despite a dedicated cadre of supporters. In most Dem hearts, he may be their dream date. Or maybe not.

Posted by Michael McCord at 10:41 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

The web site of Dem Joe Biden is playing up the recent verbal match with Rudy Giuliani with prominent position and a headline of "Focusing on the Main Event." On Friday, the Biden folks said of Giuliani: “Today’s comments come from a guy—Rudy Giuliani—who said Dick Cheney, the architect of Bush’s failed policy in Iraq, was a great choice for vice president and who recommended the now discredited Bernie Kerik to be Secretary of Homeland Security. Once again, Rudy has demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge of U.S. foreign policy.” (In real news, Biden was in Iowa today releasing his "Online Nation" Internet and 21st Century education plan. He became the first presidential candidate I know of who would mandate connectivity speeds. Read more below.)

For his part, Rudy Giuliani was in Manchester talking it up with an AP reporter and continuing his Hamlet role of framing waterboarding as an philosophical issue of 'to be (torture) or not to be (torture)." Read more about the Mayor of 9/11's latest thinking -- including his defense of Kerik. Read more here.

Hillary Clinton was also in Iowa announcing what the campaign called a "Bold Plan To Tackle
Energy And Climate Crisis." Thank goodness it was bold, otherwise what would be the point. Be emboldened by reading this ambitious and fairly well detailed plan yourself.

We're not sure what Clinton rival John Edwards thinks of Hillary's "bold plan" on energy and climate change but we have a good idea what he thinks of her foreign policy stances. In a speech in Iowa today on Iran, Edwards leveled both rhetotircal barrels at the politcal firm of Bush & Clinton again -- and blasted her for being less than articulate or honest (take your pick) about her Iran policy. Edwards, who will be in NH Tuesday and Wednesday, said among other things "it’s clear that Senator Clinton and I learned very different lessons from the run up to the Iraq War. I learned that if you give this president an inch, he will take a mile—and launch a war. But Senator Clinton apparently learned a different lesson, and she’s giving the Administration exactly what it wants once again. Senator Clinton is voting like a hawk in Washington, while talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire." Read his latest public Hallmark card to Hillary here.

The Obama folks in NH released a list of 68 Republicans who have crossed partisan lines and now support the O-Man. Except similar reports of other defections from more campaigns in the coming days. As to why potentially significant numbers of Republicans may be taking the Obama plunge, writer and political wise guy Andrew Sullivan has an answer: because Obama matters in ways that may transcend traditional political thinking as we know it. Sullivan, an English transplant and Tory by nature, is not given to easy seductions by Democrats but he makes a lengthy and intriguing argument (along with plenty of historical context) that Obama's prisms are radically and generationally different from Clinton. Read Sullivan's essay here.

In my daily link, Time blogger Scott MacLeod in Cairo compares Obama's foreign policy ideas with those of Bush -- and sizes up how these are viewed overseas.

BIDEN'S ONLINE NATION plan

Joe Biden believes that to compete in a global economy we must become an Online Nation where every community, business and school has access to high-speed Internet connections. Expanding the nation’s high-speed Internet infrastructure will create hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next decade and increase the gross domestic product by as much as $180 billion. Simply put, becoming an on-line, high-speed nation will create jobs and grow the economy.

Although we led the world into the Internet age, the United States has now slipped to 16th in the world in high-speed Internet connections. In Japan, for example, connections are 8 times faster than in the United States. Millions of Americans – particularly in rural and low-income urban areas – do not have access to high-speed Internet connections. Less than 5 percent of towns of 10,000 or less have access to high-speed Internet connections. Just 12 percent of Internet users in rural areas have them. There is a digital divide between communities with access to high-speed Internet connections and those without.

The US should lead the world in access to the Internet. Access to high-speed Internet connections can open a world of opportunities and even save lives through tele-medicine and instant access to electronic medical records. It spurs economic growth, opens doors to high quality jobs and new markets, and expands educational opportunities.

A farmer in Iowa should be able to hold a video-conference with buyers in China over the Internet. A student in a rural community should have a real-time connection to a college class hundreds a miles away. A grandmother in a small town should be able to watch live video of new grandchild. Without high-speed connections, none of this is possible.

Joe Biden would develop a comprehensive national high-speed broadband policy that expands access to high-speed Internet connections by:

(1) Identifying Communities In Need And Creating A National Broadband Assessment: Joe Biden would direct the Federal Communications Commission to conduct a national assessment of the availability of high-speed Internet connections and he would provide grants to states to track availability and speed of services and connections. We must identify gaps in the communications infrastructure in order to target assistance.

(2) Increasing Speed of Connections: Joe Biden would require the Federal Communications Commission to revise its definition of “high speed” above 200 kilobits per second – to adequately assess whether connections are really high speed the FCC must use a realistic, 21st century definition.

(3) Expanding Investment In High-Speed Infrastructure: Joe Biden would provide grants to emergency responders and health care providers for high speed broadband; strengthen tax incentives to companies extending broadband to rural and underserved areas; and provide loan guarantees for investment in broadband infrastructure.

(4) Ensuring Affordable Access: Joe Biden would insure continued assistance for libraries and schools through the E-Rate program and expand the Universal Service Fund to assist low-income families in purchasing high-speed Internet connections.

(5) Supporting Public-Private Partnerships: Joe Biden would support public-private partnerships in states that expand access and utilization of broadband. Joe Biden’s home state, Delaware, is a leader in establishing such public-private partnerships. The Delaware Health Information Network (DHIN) is a state-wide health information and electronic data interchange network for public and private use. With funding from both the federal and state government, DHIN is building a Clinical Information Exchange Utility to provide secure, fast, and reliable exchange of health information among the many health care providers treating patients throughout Delaware. Joe Biden would expand investment in and support for these types of innovative partnerships -- especially partnerships that address health care, education and economic development.

Posted by Michael McCord at 04:42 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Ah, it must be the season to really pile it on — especially if your name is Hillary Clinton. It hasn’t taken long for the multi-media long knives to come out. In a remarkably quick response to an equally quicky Hillary sympathy ad (boy those boys are piling it on), the John Edwards campaign created a parsing how-to video complete with the Blue Danube Waltz in the background and portraying Clinton in a not very flattering light. Call it a YouTube session of tough love. You can experience it here.
Since Tuesday’s Thrilla in Phila debate, the Obama folks have worked hard as well to seize an avenue of hope: they even sent out a fund raising request wondering whether Hillary could work on a character flaw or two by being more open and honest. “Senator Clinton’s refusal to answer direct questions and disclose her records is a perfect example of what needs to change in Washington,” said the letter sent out to supporters in the name of campaign manager David Plouffe. Perhaps helpful therapy for Hillary could come in the form of $100 donations for Barack.
Today, I talked to Sen. Chrisopher Dodd who raised one of his eyebrows and smiled when I asked him (in jest) if he was going to send Hillary an apology card for piling on. His reply was essentially suck it up and get used to it.
Republicans haven’t shown much sympathy for Hillary either. Or as she might put it herself, their obsession with me continues unabated. On the day Hillary filed candidate papers in Concord, Mitt Romney graciously called her an intern in a new TV ad (that was rich coming from the overly experienced Mittster). And don’t think for a second the “internship” line was an accident. It was a golden oldie from impeachment days gone by and just as calculated as Romeny’s ‘Osama/Obama’ faux slip up.
(Kathleen Strand had the press spoeksperson comeback of the day. According to the AP: “Governor Romney is a very experienced flip-flopper who has taken different positions on nearly every important issue facing the nation,” Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand said. “Trying to diminish her service isn’t going to help Mr. Romney’s weak and rudderless campaign.”)
No Hillary pile on day would be complete without the Mayor of 9/11 stepping up with a few sucker punches of his own. Rudy Giuliani’s campaign had a greeting for Clinton by releasing a David Letterman-inspired Top Ten list dripping with fifth-grade level cliches:
“When Hillary Clinton goes to the State House today to put her name on the Democrat Primary ballot, here are the TOP TEN things she’ll FORGET to tell New Hampshire voters:
10) She’ll pack the courts with liberal, activist judges.
9) Her “Baby Bond” proposal will cost taxpayers $22 billion – before we pay to have Hillary’s picture printed on them.
8) Her government-mandated health care will be so convoluted, expensive and slow to provide care that even Canadians won’t come to the U.S. for treatment anymore.
7) She will take the unprecedented step of sending emissaries across the world before she is even sworn into office – undermining our current President.
6) She is against driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, or maybe she’s for them, but one way or the other she thinks it is a good idea, or maybe not. She’ll get back to you before 2012.
5) It will take a “willing suspension of disbelief” for her to deny that she joined MoveOn.org in attacking General David Petraeus – our top commanding officer in Iraq.
4) She has a Social Security plan. One’s public, one’s private. But she has a plan.
3) In 2011, Hillary will bring the Death Tax back to life.
2) She will raise taxes for most New Hampshire residents by at least $3,000.
And she definitely won’t repeat herself here:
1) “I have a million ideas. The country can’t afford them all.” (At last count, she has proposed $763 billion in new spending)”

Alas for Rudy, what goes around comes around and, lo and behold, it was pile on Giuliani today as well -- which may or may not bode well for his credibility. In my daily link, Joe Conason of Salon dissects the comedic factor of Rudy’s health care fright schemes (ah, he’s rather loose with the facts: in fact, he may be unacquainted with them). And then, Paul Krugman of the NY Times does the same.

Hold on folks: it’s starting to get a little turbulent out there.

Posted by Michael McCord at 07:03 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

In my daily link, a post by Dem Presidential hopeful Chris Dodd on Huffington Post shows some deft thinking by his campaign: namely, if you can’t get establishment moderators Brian Williams and Tim Russert to ask the questions you’d like asked (ones that play to your strengths), then ask them yourself. And Dodd did. He also brought up a valid campaign issue that few candidates bother to touch in any detail -- namely the not-so-silent constitutional crisis taking place before our very eyes.
It’s worth saying crisis and not Armageddon because as bad as the Bush administration has made a mess of things with their remarkable power grab for almost the past seven years (call it a de facto revising of the Constitution, or Big Brother knows best), it’s not a foregone conclusion that we will succumb entirely to the dark side of unchecked imperial power. But Dodd stands out not because he’s a lawyer (the Dems are stocked with them) but because he keeps talking about this vital but decidedly unsexy campaign topic.
Anyway, Dodd’s questions remind us how utterly vapid much of these debates can be. Imagine real talk about executive power or torture or secret spying. What a civic lesson that might be.
The Dodd campaign has also sent around an internal (and not so secret) e-mail talking up recent successes with on-line fund raising, web site traffic numbers (better than Biden or Richardson they say) and matters of stature -- namely that Dodd more than any candidate is using his Senate post as an actual asset while running for Prez. Gotta like the honest enthusiasm about this political multitasking.

In my daily link, a post by Dem Chris Dodd on Huffington Post shows some deft thinking by his campaign: namely, if you can't get establishment moderators Brian Williams and Tim Russert to ask the questions you'd like (ones that play to your strengths), then ask them yourself. And Dodd did. He also brought up a valid campaign issue that few candidates bother to touch in any detail -- namely the not-so-silent constitutional crisis taking place before our very eyes. It's worth saying crisis and not armegeddon because as bad as the Bush administration has made a mess of things with their remarkable power grab for almost the past seven years (call it a defacto revising of the Constitution, or Big Brother knows best), it's not a foregone conclusion that we will succumb entirely to the dark side of unchecked imperial power. But Dodd stands out not because he's a lawyer (the Dems are stocked with them) but because he talks about this vital but decidedly unsexy campaign topic.

Anyway, Dodd's questions remind us how utterly vapid much of these debates can be. Imagine real talk about executive power or torture or secret spying. What a civic lesson that might be.

The Dodd campaign has also sent around an internal (and not so secret) e-mail talking up recent successes with on-line fundraising, web site traffic numbers (better than Biden or Richardson they say) and matters of stature -- namely that Dodd more than any candidate is using his Senate post as an actual asset while running for Prez. Gotta like the honest enthusiasm about this political multitasking.

Posted by Michael McCord at 12:51 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)