The Last Laugh

Hillary Clinton’s wonderful September ends today. A wonderful Hillary Clinton birthday month of October is ahead.

Bill Clinton will be on NBC’s Meet The Press and on ABC’s This Week today.

Club 44 will convene in San Francisco, California today.

Today is also the last day of the third fundraising quarter for campaigns. Don’t forget the midnight deadline to contribute. Author John Grisham will join Bill Clinton and a contributor for a watch party of a Democratic debate.

Click HERE to contribute before Sunday’s FEC deadline:

Iowa and New Hampshire appear to be finalizing the voting schedule and filing deadlines.

Party leaders in Iowa are edging toward holding the state’s leadoff caucuses as early as Jan. 3, although they’ll hold off on a decision until New Hampshire selects a date for the nation’s first primary.

“There are only a couple of days that work, and we don’t want to go into December,” said Iowa GOP head Chuck Laudner, who mentioned Jan. 3, 4 and 5 as dates being considered.

Iowa and New Hampshire have made clear they won’t stand pat as states such as Michigan and Florida move up their election dates, but don’t expect a decision soon. New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner has the sole power to schedule his state’s primary, and he’s not talking.

“I’m not any closer,” Gardner said Thursday. “I can’t (pick a date) at the moment because I don’t know.” [snip]

Party officials in the two states have frequently discussed election scenarios, and most think Gardner will opt for Jan. 8 as long as Iowa doesn’t move to mid-December. That would give New Hampshire a week of breathing room before Michigan, one of several states that have ignored demands by both national parties that they not schedule contests before Feb. 5.

But some in New Hampshire speculate that Gardner could move the primary into December – perhaps Dec. 18 – to ensure plenty of time before the contests to follow. Iowa is committed to being first, but officials clearly shudder at the thought of a December caucus. As Iowa Gov. Chet Culver put it, “In this state, we’re still going to have Christmas.”

In a sign that the New Hampshire primary date is certain to move up, Gardner said Friday he was moving up the filing period for candidates three weeks, to Oct. 15. Candidates will be able to file to be on the ballot through Nov. 2. [snip]

In his 31 years as New Hampshire’s secretary of state, Gardner has waited as late as December before selecting a primary date. But New Hampshire state Rep. Jim Splaine, who has worked with Gardner on primary issues since 1980, said he expects an announcement in November.

The New Hampshire filing period is Oct. 15 to Nov. 2nd. This means that November 2, 2007 is the last date new candidates can file.

Meanwhile the Obama campaign has 31 field offices in Iowa (double the number for any other campaign) and spent millions there. The Obama campaign has made it clear via Michelle Obama and now David Plouffe that Iowa is do or die.

Recently, I visited Obama’s sprawling headquarters, located on the eleventh floor of a downtown Chicago high-rise that offers grand views of the city’s skyline. I ran into Obama’s wiry campaign manager, David Plouffe, chatting in a doorway. I mentioned to Plouffe that I had just returned from Iowa. “Iowa–that’s the whole shebang!” he said. Then he paused. “I guess I’m not supposed to say that,” he added with a grin. “But Iowa is very important.” In a recent memo e-mailed to campaign supporters, he all but predicted that an Iowa win would translate to victory in New Hampshire. “Clinton will pay a severe price for not winning Iowa,” Plouffe asserts

The New York Times is still waging its idiots war against Hillary and attempting an attack on Hillary very much like the attacks on Gore in 2000. Witches and hens cackle and apparently for the New York Times so do women presidential candidates. It’s a laugh riot from the ever bored Patrick Healy.

This was my first close encounter with Senator Clinton, and with The Cackle. At that moment, the laugh seemed like the equivalent of an eye-roll — she felt she was being nit-picked, so she shamed her inquisitors by chuckling at them (or their queries).

Friends of hers told a different story: She has this fantastic sense of humor, you see, but it’s too sarcastic to share with the general public because not everyone likes sarcasm. (An example from personal experience: Mrs. Clinton sometimes likes to tweak people for missing an obvious point by saying to them, “hello!”) So, instead of alienating Iowans who might not vote for edginess, Mrs. Clinton goes for the lowest-common-denominator display of her funny bone: She shows that she can laugh, and that her laugh has a fullness and depth.

Perhaps. The reality is, Mrs. Clinton is the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination right now, and the commensurate political attacks and criticism are coming at her from all sides. She needs ways to respond without appearing defensive or brittle, her advisers say. [snip]

And then, less often but more notably, she copes with the pressure by using The Cackle. At Wednesday’s Democratic debate, for instance, former Senator Mike Gravel complained about her vote on an Iran resolution and said he was “ashamed” of her. Asked to respond, Mrs. Clinton laughed before responding, as if to minimize the matter.

Maybe, Patrick, Hillary was laughing at the clownish and attention deprived and attention seeking Mike Gravel?

Last Sunday, meanwhile, she appeared on all five of the major morning talk shows. I don’t know what she had for breakfast, but her laughter was heavily caffeinated at times. Chris Wallace, of Fox News, first pressed Mrs. Clinton about why she was so “hyper-partisan,” and that drew a huge cackle. (Coming from Fox, that question is pretty funny, her aides said.) But at another point Mr. Wallace switched gears and said, “let me ask you about health care,” and she responded, “Yeah, I’d love you to ask me about health care” — and then let it rip, again, a bit quizzically.

The weirdest moment was with Bob Schieffer on the CBS News program “Face the Nation” when he said to Mrs. Clinton, “you rolled out your new health care plan, something Republicans immediately said is going to lead to socialized medicine.” She giggled, giggled some more, and then couldn’t seem to stop giggling — “Sorry, Bob,” she said — and finally unleashed the full Cackle.

Maybe, Patrick, the “socialized medicine” and “hyperpartisan” questions are so silly after the millionth time they deserve nothing more than a good hearty laugh?

For any New York Times readers missing the anti-woman angle, Dowd in yet another anti-Hillary screed from the New York Times, quotes Leon Wieseltier on Hillary as “some hellish housewife“.

As we wrote in our debut post, it is PINOs and Naderites and so-called liberal Big Media writers who will pose the biggest threat to Democrats in 2008. The New York Times is at war with Hillary in the same way the New York Times was at war with Bill Clinton. The New York Times stood silent while Bush trashed the country. When Bill Clinton was in office it was a daily barrage he faced from the New York Times editorial page. The common sense lacking “intellectuals” who know very little are still in charge and waging their war against Hillary at the New York Times and let’s not forget, the know-nothing Russert defenders at The Washington Post.

The smart Frank Rich also embarrasses himself by trashing Hillary today with every dull and false Naderite cliche about Gore in 2000. Paging Bob Somersby.

As we continously write, the danger to Democrats in 2008 comes not from the right wing and their many media outlets – the American public knows of their bias, the danger comes from our supposed own.

Newt Gingrinch who will not be entertaining us this election cycle had this to say about Hillary, whose policies he detests (Warning link is to right wing website):

The most effective candidate in the race is Hillary Clinton. She has done exactly what you asked. It’s just that her answers are wrong. Senator Clinton is a serious, competent, formidable person who works hard every day. She’s for too much government, she’s for too liberal a policy, she would appoint judges who are way too liberal. But she is a formidable person. No one on our side is going to beat her by the kind of cheap and nasty campaign that beat John Kerry.”

No candidate on the Democratic side will beat her either Newt.

Hillary and her supporters will enjoy the last laugh.

Share

54 thoughts on “The Last Laugh

  1. The New York Times and Washington Post are determined to prop up Obama.
    Obama will be absent from the Senate all next week. Not even “Present” votes.

    “The tour signals the intensification of Obama’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination and a commitment to spend more time in key early states such as Iowa and New Hampshire and fewer days in the Senate, where he will miss virtually all votes next week. And it will also mark increased engagement with his main rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. ”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/29/AR2007092901540.html?hpid=topnews

    Obama’s campaign also, after all the articles exposing the hypocrisy of his lobbyist connections and hires, might give up the lobbyist angle to Edwards:

    “Seeking to cast Clinton as a Washington insider, Obama has touted his non-Washington credentials to argue that he can reform a system dominated by lobbyists and special-interest money. But it’s not clear how effective that line of criticism has been.

    “The lobbyist stuff is inside baseball,” said Marilyn Katz, an Obama fundraiser. “The question remains: Who do you believe has the leadership capacity?”

  2. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2180303,00.html

    Yet the day after the rally – at which those attending surrendered their email addresses – a message from the Obama campaign popped into inboxes across New York. ‘Thanks for coming out last night,’ it said, before adding: ‘We’re still shy of our goal of 350,000 people giving to the campaign.’
    For the fact is Obama’s campaign appears to be caught in the doldrums. Beneath all the endless public appearances, television interviews and the hype of ‘Obama-mania’ lies a story of a campaign that has completely failed to budge Clinton out of her position as frontrunner. Indeed, Obama has barely moved in the polls since he exploded onto the political scene when he announced his candidacy earlier this year. It is Clinton’s poll numbers that have recently been nudging ever higher, not Obama’s.

    Last week Obama – and the other Democratic politicians vying for the presidential nomination – were widely expected to turn on Clinton at the latest public debate. Held in the key state of New Hampshire, it was seen as a chance to knock Clinton off her perch. Yet it passed largely without incident. ‘It’s extremely unlikely that Hillary will be denied her party’s nomination,’ said the influential New York Post columnist John Podhoretz.

    The story of the Democratic race since Obama entered the field has not been one of a fierce battle or the much expected roller-coaster ride. Instead it has been a long, steady march of the Clinton machine, keeping other candidates at arm’s length and building an ever larger lead in the polls. ‘There is a long way to go, but at this moment the race remains hers to lose,’ said Larry Haas, a political commentator and former official in the Clinton White House.

  3. Admin,

    I see your point; the ‘laugh’ is being taken out of context or over analyzed. But I have to say that I did find it, especially on the five news shows, to be forced and premeditated. It did look like a ‘cackle’ to me that borders on condescending and dismissive.

    So, I do hope that Hillary and her advisers take a serious (pun intended) look at this and at least reduce this aspect of her interaction style. Real or acting, it’s being looked at as disingenuous, which I know Hillary is certainly not.

  4. She doesn’y havea “cackle”. Just so you know pysmac, lot’s of other people’s supporters come here to use our comments for ammo. I can’t even believe anyone would suggest a laugh was premeditated.

  5. Hey Admin,

    Isn’t it a bummer that the NYTimes got rid of its pay fire wall to read their “money” columnists? It was so nice that for a year or so, I wouldnt have to read that numnuts nutroots hero, Frank Rich beat up on with sure idiocy, our leading Democrats.

    In his column today he seems to channel his foolish and false self from the 2000 election where he abused and battered and helped spread the lies about Al Gore all the way up till election day.

    This year, he has written columns now praising Al and he has made huge $ from his booksabot Dumbya…but these two self serving actions have come to late. In 2000, he and the Times helped make it seem fair and reasonable to use outragous falsehoods against Gore, which directly put Bush in the White House.

    Jist look up Rich in your friend the Daily Howlers archives to remind yourself of how bad this clown actually was. Please show your readers this and call out this faker.

    Let him know that we will not accept a repeat of 2000 in 2008.

    No way. Never again.

  6. Aw Jeeze…now Ive read “Mo” Dowd’s column today.

    My God. How can the “paper of record” be putting these next lines in print? I mean how many pixels and trees had to die to spread this catty cum sexist drivel

    ” Others do not underestimate her relentlessness. As Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor of The New Republic, once told me: “She’s never going to get out of our faces. … She’s like some hellish housewife who has seen something that she really, really wants and won’t stop nagging you about it until finally you say, fine, take it, be the damn president, just leave me alone.”

    That’s why Hillary is laughing a lot now, big belly laughs, in response to tough questions or comments, to soften her image as she confidently knocks her male opponents out of the way. From nag to wag.

    An earlier generation had

    I have just one thing to say, why o why did anyone ever tell Mr. Rosenthal….to tear down that Wall.

    It was better when I was on my way to forgetting just how stupid our “smartest” paper actually is..

  7. Hmmmmm…fewer of those laughs with the PRESS, more of that beautiful smile/grin, continue with your smart answers and Hillary will do fine………

    It is the press who cannot stand her….

  8. I have no problem with her laughing at the MSM, whether it’s condescending or not. They deserve it.

    I could be wrong, but I don’t think voters give a flying fig. They don’t like the press’ gotcha style any more than she does.

  9. BTW, those comments by Leon Whatshisname in Dowd’s column are sexist, but they’re right on a fundamental point:

    Hillary is relentless, and to me that’s a huge asset.

  10. It’s amazing how rampant sexism is, with people like Schiffer, Rich, Mathews, and Russert gunning for Hillary. I think her laugh is just fine, I think it was a great response to some of these ridiculous questions. Hillary’s campaign has really put a spotlight on sexism in this country, and it’s coming out of the closet. If the other “guys” had half as much scrutiny about their clothes, smile, etc..they wouldn’t be able to handle it. Edwards goes nuts when asked about his $400 haircut and the idiotic decision to build his mansion while speechifying on poverty! But Mr. Morality goes ape shit. Hillary proves every day she has the guts and strenght to deal with these attacks, and more courage than any of the other men to lead the country.

  11. I say, trademark the “laugh”! If they want to use it; let them pay for it!

    Know this, Russert was SOOOOO disappointed he didn’t receive the response he was looking for from Hillary to the supposed Bill’s quote. I’m also sure, they planned a new meme to BRAND the Clintons with had Hillary not stood her ground and publicly refused to waffle on her statement.

    Instead of talking about a laugh, Russert’s intention was to cut the cat away from the kitten.

    Today, Russert would have been espousing how Hillary’s politics are not like Bill’s at all!

    It would has been: “If you liked Bill’s politics; you won’t like Hillarys’ ”
    (flashing a remembrance of that statement across the screen 24/7.)

    Once again Hillary demonstrates she will be true to her self. She nailed Timmy good.

    In this morning’s MTP interview w/Bill, Russert was the kitty facing off with the BIG DOG…and talking in a slightly more than respectful monotone. Kiss off Tim!

    Mrs. S.

  12. Everyone in the roundtable on Meet the Press was making a big deal about the differences in the Newsweek poll between “ALL VOTERS” (Clinton 31%, Obama 25%, Edwards 21%) and “LIKELY CAUSES VOTERS” (Clinton 24%, Obama 28%, Edwards 22%), and then talking about how Obama was ahead.

    The Plus/Minus on the Democrat LIKELY VOTER polling is SEVEN PERCENT, therefore the poll is MEANINGLESS and not indicative of anything.

  13. Joe Friday:

    Stephenopolous used the same set of quotes without mentioning the huge moe with “LIKELY” voters. Which of course amounts to exactly that…a meaningless poll… while leaving out the ‘only Democrats’ poll of a plus or minus of 5% putting both polls in a dead heat which I fail to believe are in any way accurate.

    Obama is behind in every poll in the country except for Iowa. This does not compute in anyone’s mind as a remotely realistic picture of his viability as a serious presidential contender.

    One would ask, was this precursor of a false poll something to point to because there is a plan afoot (seeing there is deep involvement with Republican operatives) to steal the election for Obama in Iowa? Because….

    If Obama fails to win in Iowa, there will be no resurrecting his campaign afterwards. Obama will be buried until the next election cycle. Knowing the Republicans have little in the way of integrity when it’s their candidate their supporting. Are there measures in place that would prevent a subversion of the Iowa elections?

    If not, I can only hope, no one will take for granted the intention of Republican operatives to deal within the limits of a fair election and we need to be prepared for another election theft.

    Mrs. S.

  14. Joe, not only was Meet the Press in a bash Hillary mode but ABC This Week was also going negative. A commentator there (a women no less) said that Hillary didn’t “wear well”–that she is less likable than Obama and they could increase his appeal as we get closer to the primaries. Stephanopolis said he was talking with the Obama campaign this week (in fact he said they told him they are planning to go negative soon)–perhaps that’s why the overall negative Hillary tone to their discussion today.

  15. I have to respectfully disagree. I understand that there is a certain amount of sexism, but the story in this primary is that Hillary is exceeding expectations. She is running a near perfect campaign and they have no “gotcha” moments for soundbites. Instead of focusing on issues and how voters are responding to the central campaign themes and the differences, sometimes slight differences between candidates, they focus on personalities. Hillary is the leader- she will be our leader in 15 months, so they go after her. They make up a story rather than do the legwork and real journalism necessary to earn their paychecks. I call it- and forgive me for this- but circle jerk journalism. The reporters/pundits become the story. Folks on TV like staying their and it’s easy for them to confuse a like of the in-fighting for an endorsement of their own limited views. TV guys are just egos with a mic.

  16. Newt Gingrich appeared at the National Press Club a few months ago and wisely observed that there are two primary forces which drive mainstream media: i) a deep cynicism (which he traced back to H.L. Menchan), and ii) the desire to create a horse race, (as first identified by Theodore White).

    The New York Times articles by Rich, Dowd, Collins, Healey this weekend leave little doubt about the cynicism. The MSNBC and ABC morning talk shows which use a poll with a 7% margin of error to drive the narrative shows their desire for a horse race.

    The obvious question is what net benefit does this provide to the American People, and the truthful answer is very little. And when you throw in the laziness and group think you see in these narratives, the situation only gets worth. That is part of the reason why candidates and electorate are finding ways to go around the media filter.

  17. Lots of good commentary on this post. This laugh uproar in the media and on Big Blogs is an excellent tool to examine media behavior. Staff will now write another post, for tomorrow, delving into this topic of media behavior – particularly the New York Times. The post, is tentively titled “No Laughing Matter”.

    As silly and laughable as this topic might seem, there is an ugly agenda at work that needs to be exposed. We all, along with Hillary and the Hillary Team will have the last laugh.

  18. AmericanGal, Obama’s people have been promising to go negative for months. I say, bring it on. Since he’s promising a new kind of politics, he’ll undercut his whole campaign.

    Plus, Hillary thrives when the heat is on and the attacks are fiercest. The MSM has been hoping Obama will make a run at her, so the horse race gets closer. That’s why they’ve been propping him up for months.

    Also, who ever heard of telegraphing what you’re going to do? Does anyone here think Hillary’s camp would announce they’re going negative (if she were trailing)? I suspect the point of telling George S. that is to placate Obama’s antsy supporters, who’ve been begging him to attack Hillary forever.

  19. Hey folks, I wish ya’ll were the ones doing the Sunday mornin’ shows and editorials. I can’t watch Sunday mornin’ shows anymore; the doctor said it’s bad for my health. I can’t add much to the wisdom and practicality that’s already been provided by this group. I do think the “cackle” obsession is just “made up” commentary. As somebody, maybe Okie said, it’s essentially a way to keep from doing real homework/news. I do think there is some underlying sexism here that’s comin’ through. Most sexism, racism, homophobia in this country is committed by people who think this country’s “cured” itself of all its isms. But there is this inherent kind of “ism” against difference in our country that shows it’s head whenever change is on the cusp, like now. And about the goin’ negative business: I just hope not. Goin’ negative is not goin’ to help anybody, particularly the person who promised us that he was about bringin’ people together. I am proud of Hillary for keepin’ herself above the fray and refusing to talk against her opponents. You cannot take the moral high ground and then do the very thing that you say you’re not gonna do when you get into office. I am proud of Hillary and the campaign she’s runnin’ and I am proud of the way she’s her own person with her own credentials and experience. –mollyj

  20. AmericanGal,

    “Joe, not only was Meet the Press in a bash Hillary mode but ABC This Week was also going negative. A commentator there (a women no less) said that Hillary didn’t ‘wear well’…”

    I got around to watching ‘This Week’ this afternoon.

    That women was Torie Clark. She was with Chimpy’s administration and worked for his father before that. She’s a RightWing HACK. What she really MEANT was that Hillary doesn’t “wear well” with the American RightWing, because the Clinton’s have clearly demonstrated that the problem is not government, but who is incompetently operating the government. That doesn’t jive with their anti-government anti-tax agenda.

    I was surprised to see Newt saying that going after Hillary on personal grounds is not going to work. I’ve been saying that all along. It will backfire BIG TIME (to borrow a phrase from Uncle Dick). Hopefully the Republican nominee won’t listen to Gingrich.

    BTW, does ANYBODY buy Gingrich’s lame contrived excuse for not running ? I think it’s he same duck and run kind of excuse that Rudy used to not run against Hillary for the Senate seat.

    ~~

    wbboei,

    The MSNBC and ABC morning talk shows which use a poll with a 7% margin of error to drive the narrative shows their desire for a horse race.

    I was about to make that exact point. When do you ever see the MSM utilizing polling with 5% and 7% MOEs ??? They would never consider any poll with more than 3% or 4% tops Plus/Minus, as anything else would be unreliable.

    They want a horse race to cover, which is what they do best because they are lazy or incompetent or both, but there isn’t one. What else to do but invent one ?

  21. Bob Schieffer’s closing “Commentary” from ‘Face the Nation’:

    “Say what you want about her, Hillary Clinton had herself quite a week starting last Sunday when she showed up on all five of the Sunday talk shows …. As far as I could tell, she didn’t say one thing she didn’t want to say …. Same story during the Democratic debate. She came on strong and the other candidates were so polite, I came away wondering if they think she already has the nomination …. I have no idea who’ll wind up with the Republican nomination, but last week, the Democratic nomination looked like Hillary Clinton’s to lose.”

  22. Joe Friday, you are right about this.

    Some of these MSM pundits simply want the thrill and the narrative of a photo finish, whereas others have placed their bets on the wrong horse and have a professional reputation to protect. Either way they will become less and less objective as post time approaches, and that is why I will be interested to see what Admin says about this in tommow’s blog.

  23. hello folks,

    I’ve been out of loop for a while. Some ARG polls are coming out.

    Iowa
    Clinton 30
    Obama 24
    Edwards 19
    Richardson 10

    SC
    Clinton 41
    Obama 30
    Edwards 7

    NH
    Clinton 41
    Obama 22
    Edwards 10

  24. “I don’t think Hillary will have me.”
    — Former Republican presidential candidate Tommy Thompson, in response to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’s question about whether he would want to serve in the next president’s cabinet.

  25. Thanks, kostner. I suggest everyone go to americanresearchgroup.com and look at how Edwards is tanking in all three states. Yikes!

  26. I’ve Been Waiting For This:

    CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES CONSIDER THIRD-PARTY EFFORT

    Alarmed at the chance that the Republican party might pick Rudolph Giuliani as its presidential nominee despite his support for abortion rights, a coalition of influential Christian conservatives is threatening to back a third-party candidate in an attempt to stop him.

    The group making the threat, which came together Saturday in Salt Lake City during a break-away gathering during a meeting of the secretive Council for National Policy.

    (The ‘Council for National Policy’ is an EXTREME RightWing tax-exempt group, founded in 1981. It has
    more than 500 members, who were admitted by-invitation-only, including Republican senators and congressmen, and leaders of almost every national radical RightWing group in the nation.)

    More at NY TIMES

  27. Richardson hauled in 5.2 million this Q. It’s interesting to see whether Edwards is going to outpace this #. Trippi hinted they would haul in around 5-7 m.

  28. Check out Taylor Marsh today on Hillary. She raises some valid criticisms of the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment regarding Iran’s armed forces and the StopHerNow weirdos. http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26310

    I’d rather watch a Law & Order marathon than watch Russert after his hack attack on Hillary the other day. Meet the Press has been lousy for a number of years and that won’t change anytime soon so long as his producers allow him to be part of the story.

  29. MollyRichards..I agree on your take on the isms, I think that is hitting the nail on the head. The denial of the isms in itself is almost another ism. It’s just racism or sexism in another less tangible form. These days it is not PC to mention these things. We must pretend like they aren’t there. And Hillary does a great job making the race about her great leadership and experience. It’s only one theme here, but its real – don’t kid yourself. In a country where the average woman is still only making 70% of what men are, paternalism is alive and well. This change absolutely threatens the status quo in no small way. It’s not PC to discuss it – certainly by the media, or in many venues, but it is an unspoken undercurrent.

  30. Joe Friday, I find this interesting as well. At one level it is the kind of stuff you see from evangelicals like Dobson. He threatens like a dockside bully.

    But at a deeper level there is something more important going on. There is a deep schism between the small government wing of the party (hijacked by the evangelicals) and the big business wing.

    I have pondered the question of why they would ever nominate someone like George W. Bush to be
    President, when it was obvious to so many of them that there was no there there, and the consequences to their party, to say nothing of the nation were clear.

    The best answer I have been able to come up with is that he was acceptable to both wings of the party. To the business wing he was an oil man, a co-owner of the Texans Rangers, a major player in the pharmaceutical industry, in short one of them To the
    evangelicals he a born again Christian like them and willing to press their issues.

    There is very little enthusiasm in the Republican Party. They want a candidate who can satisfy both groups, and can’t find him. Jeb Bush was their first choice, but the failure of the current administration precludes that possiblility. George Allen was a fall-back option, until his macacca moment.

    The Democratic Party is in a position to exploit this schism. It will require the kind of leadership that Hillary alone can provide, and it will be good for the country.

  31. wbboei,

    Dobson is a member of the ‘Council for National Policy’. Here’s just a smattering of the members list:

    Sen. Trent Lott
    Former Sen. Don Nickles
    Former Sen. Lauch Faircloth

    Rep. Dan Burton
    Rep. John Doolittle
    Former Rep. Tom DeLay
    Former Rep. Dick Armey
    Former Rep. Ernest Istook

    Pat Robertson – Christian Broadcasting Network (700 Club)
    Gary Bauer – Family Research Council
    James Dobson – Focus on the Family
    Jerry Falwell – Liberty University (I assume he’s been replaced)
    Grover Norquist – Americans for Tax Reform
    Joseph Farah – Western Journalism Center & WorldNetDaily
    Reed Irvine – Accuracy In Media
    Larry Klayman – Judicial Watch
    Tim and Beverly LaHaye – Concerned Women for America
    Edwin Meese – former Attorney General for Reagan
    Ralph Reed – former Christian Coalition executive director
    Howard Phillips – U.S. Taxpayers Party founder
    Phyllis Schlafly – Eagle Forum
    Donald Wildmon – American Family Association
    Paul Weyrich – Free Congress Foundation
    Oliver North – Criminal
    John Whitehead – Rutherford Institute (financed Paula Jones scam)

    Then there’s my favorite:

    R.J. Rushdoony – Founder of the Chalcedon Foundation and president of Chalcedon, a Vallecito, California based nonprofit group, that teaches that every aspect of society must come under biblical law.

    (I thought Osama bin Laden was the only one advocating theocratic government ?)

    Pretty creepy, eh ?

  32. those arg polls from iowa and new hamphire look sweet. cold water on the newsweek poll for sure. watch the nutroots badmouth these polls on mydd. GO HILLARY GO!!!

  33. I have always loved Hillarys laugh 🙂
    At it’s loudest I can see how it can irritate some people, hehe, but usually those are the people I don’t mind that she irritate.

    And, if it is actually used on purpose, which I don’t believe as this is rather hard to do on cue, and her laugh is similar as when you KNOW she means it, so what? Every politician have some ‘tricks’.

    Either way, so as to not annoy too many people, she should at least bring out her smile a lot, she has a great smile, and many people have been melted and made to see her more humanly because of it!:)

    ps. if you go to youtube and see some of her appearances on D.Letterman from ’99 or 2000, she also has another kind of shy laugh, that is very sweet indeed, no cackle!

  34. hehe, check this out, I read an article on the coverage Hillary has been getting lately. And in there somewhere they mentioned the coverage of her laugh, and a Clinton aide speaking anonymously said this:

    “We do not believe that this is a race that’s going to be decided on which candidate has the more melodious laugh.”

    melodious!!! I LOVE it, her aides are good!
    Some want to ‘get’ her because of her ‘cackle’, and they neatly turn it in to a melodious laugh!!! 🙂 *Pay raise*

  35. Yes, Joe Friday it is creepy alright. You might even say incestuous. Thank you for supplying the list.

    I wish we had a similar list for the inner core of big business interests who control the other wing of the Ripublican party.

    When I watch people like Laura Ingraham, Mona Charen, Kate Bern and other true believers in the Robert Taft vision of their party sit around and talk about how their party has to change, or even Newt Gingrich offer the same prescription, I think back to the two wings who control the party and say to myself it won’t happen.

    I think that after the disasterous Bush presidency, the electorate has come to the same conclusion. Bush’s personal deficiencied notwithstanding, the probelm is larger than just one man.

  36. This is getting bizarre. Politico is reporting:

    Obama — gasp! — holds a press conference in Florida.

    Also, this exchange with the Florida press:

    St. Petersburg Times: “Senator, what’s your position on a national cat fund!” (No response) Senator, can we talk to you about the Everglades!. (No response, only uncomfortable silence from everyone in shouting distance) Senator! If you’ll only talk to people writing $1,000 checks, why should Florida Democrats support you?! (More silence) Will you take any questions!?”

    Obama (shouting back): “Why are you yelling?”

    Times: “Because you won’t let me talk to you! Will you talk about a national cat fund!?”

    Obama: “I’m not allowed to talk to the press, guys!”

    Times: “Isn’t it up to you?!”

    Obama: “Nope!”

    Times: “Aren’t you the guy trying to lead the country?!”

    Obama: “I signed a pledge!”

    Times: “Why?! (Silence) Why!?”

  37. By WILLIAM MARCH and ELAINE SILVESTRINI The Tampa Tribune

    Published: September 30, 2007

    TAMPA – Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he’s the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he’ll seat a Florida delegation at the party’s national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

    Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.

    Obama and others have pledged not to campaign in Florida until the Jan. 29 primary except for fundraising, which is what he was doing in Tampa.

    But after the fundraiser at the Hyde Park home of Tom and Linda Scarritt, Obama crossed the street to take half a dozen questions from reporters waiting there.

    The pledge covers anything referred to in Democratic National Committee rules as “campaigning,” and those include “holding news conferences.”

    Obama seemed unaware the pledge he signed prohibits news conferences. Asked whether he was violating it, he said, “I was just doing you guys a favor. … If that’s the case, then we won’t do it again.”

    Frank Sanchez, a Tampa Obama supporter who helped organize the fundraiser, said the encounter illustrates the awkward situation the candidates have been put in by the controversy over the state’s Jan. 29 presidential primary.

    That date – earlier than allowed by rules of both major political parties – has led to a threat of sanctions against both Florida Republicans and Democrats, and to the Democrats’ boycott pledge.

    “This wasn’t planned,” Sanchez said of the brief press availability. “He was going to the car, and he just went across the street for a moment.”

    According to Sanchez and Tom Scarritt, Obama was asked during the event about making sure Floridians have a role in the nomination, despite the DNC sanctions and the pledge. Scarritt said Obama responded that he’ll “do what’s right by Florida voters.”

    The DNC has threatened to refuse to seat a Florida convention delegation because of the too-early primary, which the Florida Legislature decided on last spring. But if a candidate amasses enough delegates before the primary to ensure the nomination, that candidate would take control of the convention, including the power to seat a delegation.

    State Democrats are considering asking all candidates to pledge they would seat the state’s delegation.

    The boycott pledge was demanded by the four states – Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina – which are allowed to hold primaries before Feb. 5.

  38. admin,

    The Nation is dissecting that ‘worthless’ Newsweek poll, they mentioned a veteran strategist Michael Whouley is tracking the second choice of many IA caucaus goers. Do you have any idea whom he is working for this cycle?

  39. That worthless Newsweek Poll was nothing more than an artistic ploy under the wording of “likely” Democrats Voting. My dog would qualify as a “likely Democrat”, if he wasn’t busy being a dog and if we could decipher and translate the meaning of his Aarfs into yeses and nos.

    I hope someone explains the ‘likely voters’ catagory for exactly what it is; a duping tool used to distort the public’s perception of a candidates support.

    Mrs. S.

  40. Joe Friday- one further point on the Ripublicans.

    If you look at the two groups that control their party, and a president who is too weak to protect the interests of the American people, you begin to see why government policies under this administration are so dysfunctional.

    In those circumstances, they are forced to result to the ad hominum attack in order to maintain power. If Karl Rove did not exist they would have to invent him because in the final analysis they have nothing else to sell. Put differently, just because he wears a Stetson hat and Tony Lama boots does not mean he represents American interests.

  41. Kostner, we always have our eyes set on Michael Whouley. A genius. THE Iowa expert. Last we heard he was working for the DCCC.

  42. yes, wbboei, agreed. Dog is man’s best friend, no doubt they are innately democrats.

    The likely voters thing is a play on words. Sounds like Mr Rove is already very busy in his state of retirement.

    Mrs. S.

  43. Matthews was on Oberman tonight and pretty much conceded that Hillary will win the nomination. Meanwhile, Fineman is still offering advice on how Obama can pull it out. As Frankfurter said: “we should never dispair when wisdom comes late, because too often it never comes at all.”

    Matthews also revealed something about himself which may explain why he has been so tough on Hillary. When he was in his 20’s he ran against the Philadelphia Democratic establishment, lost and
    never forgot it. Perhaps that is why he has been so inclined to lose objectivity in the current primary.

    On a personal note this was also ironic, because I knew some of the people in that establishment even though I’m not from that part of the country. They
    were good people.

Comments are closed.