Politico Swizzle Stick

Is a Clinton Candidacy a recipe for defeat?

2008-01-20T16:22:00.000-06:00

I cannot escape the feeling that the Democrats are about to pull steaming defeat from the jaws of victory again. Consider for a moment the republican race has chrystalized down into a two horse race --- John McCain and Mitt Romney. Neither candidate interests the evangelical segment of the republican party, in fact both are generally disliked by the this groups, McCain for undercutting blessed Bush and Romney for daring to be Mormon. There is only one name that will mobilize those people to vote for either candidate --- Hillary Clinton.

Additionally both Republican front-runners do well with moderates, while Hillary Clinton only polls well with the long-time Dem faithful and has the highest negative rating in the race.

This seems a recipe for disaster. Obama on the otherhand is the darling of independents and the disenfranchised. If he beats Hillary, the democratcic base falls in line behind him to give him the Dems 30% and a large portion of the independent vote ---say 20%. Now figuring that the evangelicals (say 10%) stay home or run their own candidate, the Republicans are at best going to get 25-30% republican + 15% Indy. That seems to be the only winning strategy vs. the republicans.

I have spent the last 24 hours considering the possibilities for my own vote. I am a regular voting, anti-Iraq war moderate with a strong liberal lean. I cannot envision a scenario that has me voting for Hillary Clinton as I find her the most morally questionable of the 4 likely finalists based on the cheap shots she has taken at Obama and the fact that she has not shown any leadership in this campaign when there were tons of opportunities for her to do so in this election. She has invariably taken the safe route to protect her candidacy from potential pitfalls and has shown herself to be the standard Democratic candidate. As of today I am thinking I will vote republican if Hillary is the Democratic candidate.

Clinton, Romney run away with nevada

2008-01-19T16:02:00.000-06:00

The results at the moment suggest Romney will destroy the feild, capturing 53% of the repulbican vote with the next candidates, RON PAUL (!!!) and John McCain, capturing a mere 13% of the vote. Landslide victories generate real momentum. If SC was next week for the republicans instead of today, Romney might run the table.

Clinton winning Nevada is damaging to Obama as Clinton has now won 3 states in a row and Obama is in danger of becoming a one-state wonder like Huckabee. Obama had prior to the election tried to downplay the Nevada election stating that Hillary's lead might be too much to overcome. On a promising note for Obama, Edwards got smoked, netting only 4% of the vote. That strongly suggests that Edwards is becoming irrelevant and will carry huge negative momentum into South Carolina. If Edwards doesn't win SC, he will drop out or become totally irrelevant and Obama will be the receipent of the Anti-Hillary vote en masse in the Democratic party and among the independents. My gut feeling is that Obama will win SC even though he is carrying negative momentum, due to his Oprah numbers in SC and because his back is to the wall there. I think Obama will win black votes for much the same reason Hilalry won NH --- because the black voters in SC won't want to kill his candidacy --- and will win the women voters becuase of the Oprah effect.

Considering this deeper, I think there is so much pressure on the Clinton and Obama camps, that Edwards will have an extremely difficult time winning more than 12% of the SC vote. He will be politically irrelevant in terms of being e legit candidate entering florida, with his only potential impact being a guy who can swing 4-5% of the vote in Florida against Obama. Will he deal? Hard to say. Obama and Edwards seem to legitimately not like each other. Edwards might think he has a little more pull with the Clinton camp, but IMO that would be incorrect. Clinton is a political opportunist trying to claim the title of change candidate and Edwards is yesterday's news. She may give him something, but it won't be high profile or important. My gut feeling is that is a lot more than Obama is personally willing to offer.

What does the Romney victory in Michigan mean?

2008-01-18T13:03:00.000-06:00

It could go either way. If Romney capitalizes on this and wins Nevada and finishes second or even a close third in SC, he could run away with the nomination. Romney's resume perfectly positions him to run as the economic "fix it" candidate. That's what he ran as in Michigan and frankly if that had been the focus of his campaign he'd probably have already secured the nomination. One would hope for his sake that he recognizes the message worked for him. He also got a healthy bounce by people loyal to his dad.

This could put John McCain nearing the rocks again. He will probably win SC. so he will be in top 3 entering SuperDuper Tuesday, but he cannot be considered the favorite anymore. In Michigan, McCain was unable to land much of the independent vote at all. It strongly suggests that his New Hampshire victory was more of an isolated phonomenon and that indys are tuning him out. That would make a McCain overall victory only possible if the vote is splt so much that the winners of most states are getting in the low 20's and the insiders push McCain. The problem for McCain is that the powerbrokers like Romney too.

Two other things to consider. Turnout in Michigan was extremely low. The indications are that only republicans voted, and at that in very small numbers. That suggests that independents are leaning againsts voting for a republican (not that they will vote democrat en masse -- they may not vote --- but if the economy continues to tank it certainly doesn't bode well for the republicans.) Secondly, There was a public call from the fringes of the democratic party for Michigan residents to vote for Romney to futher cloud the republican's choice of candidate. It is unclear that this did not give romney a little bump. It is possible that those independents that did vote were not as forcefully McCain voters as last time for that reason. I think the michigan results in themseleves mean almost nothing, but theyy do mean a ton in terms of neutralizing McCain's momentum and galvanizing Romney and his supporters into thinking they can win.

On the democratic side, do not be so quick to write off michigan. Since Hillary was the only candidate officially on the ballot, she won almost 2/3rds of the vote. Now the idea is that the Dems won't allow those votes to be cast since Obama and Edwards were not on the ballot, but do not be suprised if Hillary loses a narrow nationwide vote, if her people challenge the party's right to block those votes. If this election is close, IMO Hillary has the tie breaker in Michigan.

Romney should buck conventional wisdom and fight on

2008-01-14T11:23:00.000-06:00

Pundits have said that Romney is on his last legs. "If he loses Iowa and New Hampshire he is done." I was part of that group, but now I am convinced that is exactly the wrong advise. Under the radar, Romney quietly won Wyoming going away. Most candidates simply didn't have the money to campaign there and weren't all that interested in their small delegate count (12). Romney went in and took 8/12. Add in the fact that romney has had two disappointing finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire and now Romney has 19 delegates out of the 61 decided delegates, second only to Huckabee's 31 on the republican side. McCain has 7, Thompson 3, and Paul and Guiliani have none.

Romney has apparently taken this quite hard as he spent a ton of money trying to convince Iowa he was a freshly converted true conservative. I think that ended up hurting him in the more liberal Northeast, where voters really knew his history and he seemed especially disingenuous.

But Wyoming... Romney stepped in and media blitzed them to victory. They met him and then it was time to vote. No time for second thoughts. No time to meet the other candidates. And no other candidate had the money to advertise against him.

Why is that relevant? It is relevant because that is going to be the exact dynamic of Superduper tuesday. No candidate besides Romney on the republican side can affort to advertise in all 22 (or whatever states). His cheif rivals, Huckabee and McCain are financial peasants. Guiliani has had no positive momementum for the last 45 days and in politics as in sports you can't turn it on. His opponents will be focusing on the large states. Romney could easily win all of the smaller states with media blitzes and stay with the pack in the large states.

In the last few days Romney quietly pulled the plug on his future campaign spending. He clearly is feeling very rejected. He spent more time and money in Iowa than anyone and they tossed him away for a sexier suitor. He lost in his own back yard where people really knew him. It must feel like he was betrayed by family. And now it looks like he may lose the state in which he was born and where his dad served. This must be crushing to him.

That said, He really needs to rethink giving up, even if he comes in second in Michigan. If I were advising him, I'd try to get the vote out, but I would change the message being spread in Michigan to be one that states a firm belief that he will win. He should back that message with delegate numbers. He should state that in his post primary speech. He should say a win would have been ideal, but the goal was to get alone into second place at this point leading into SUper Duper Tuesday where our message will resonate with a national audience.

Consider what happens if he loses a close battle with McCain. If he loses a close battle to McCain say 27 to 29% with Huckabee getting 14%. I would think McCain would get 9 delegates, Romney 8, and Huckabee 4. That would give Huckabee 35, Romney 27, McCain 16 delegates. That is in GREAT shape considering his financial advantages and the compressed timeframe for super duper tuesday.

When you think about it is shows what an acceptable candidate he is to finish no lower than 2nd in any of the primaries. That should be part of the message. Romney is no Hillary Clintonesque lightning rod. His finishes strongly suggest the Mormon thing is not a campaign killer.

I think Romney and his advisors have wrongly evalutaed him as a candidate. By rejecting everything he stood for in the past, he actually does worse as people get to know him (which I am sure is not how he would like to think of himself.) In this compressed election, with these opponents, he is the kind of candidate who can steal victory.

I think he can start softening the social aspects of his platforms and focusing on the financial message and he will have a ton of growth potential.

But he has to stay in the race. He has to spead the delegate numbers message tomorrow and he has to start advertising in all of the smaller super tuesday states in the next week.

Wyoming GOP Primary results

2008-01-11T10:54:00.000-06:00

I didn't even know the Wyoming Republican primary happened. It is downright criminal for the media not be reporting this more.

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/

Republican Primary ResultsSaturday, January 5
Real-time Race Results: Updated January 5, 2008 - 7:37 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 100%
Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates Projected Winner
Romney 8 67% 8 Winner
Thompson 3 25% 3
Hunter 1 8% 1
McCain 0 0% 0
Paul 0 0% 0
Uncommitted 0 0% 0
Giuliani 0 0% 0
Huckabee 0 0% 0

First Letter to the Denton Chronicle editor

2008-01-10T12:17:00.000-06:00

"Bill Richardson finally dropped out of the Presidential race. Long overdue, IMO. His campaign had only lost momentum in the last 4 months. I wish fringe candidates like Duncan Hunter, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Alan Keyes would get out too and stop wasting government supplied matching funds.

I applaud candidates like Tom Tancredo and Joe Biden who got their issues out there and then dropped out of the race as soon as it became obvious they were not seen as viable candidates. (Tancredo wanted immigration discussed as a major issue. Once that came to pass, Tancredo left the race.)

Pollsters saw a chance for foreign relations expert Biden to have a very strong finish in Iowa that he could then use to become a legitimate player in New Hampshire. When it didn't happen in Iowa, Biden immediately got out. (I am personally sad to see Biden out, inspite of his non-candidate status. His analytical mind and sharp tongue made him the rare fringe candidate who could impact front runners. When Biden said “there’s only three things he [Guiliani] mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11.” he took the only oar from the Guiliani Campaign canoe. Since then, "Mayor 9/11" has not been able to mention 9/11 without media ridicule and has slid from soft front runner to fringe candidate).

IMO, the fringe candidates I listed have nothing to contribute to this race. They should quit wasting our time and taxpayer matching funds feeding their egos."

New Hampshire Primary Results

2008-01-09T11:50:00.000-06:00

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections

"Estimated Delegates: 30Democratic Primary ResultsTuesday, January 8
Real-time Race Results: Updated January 10, 2008 - 1:30 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 100%
Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates Projected Winner
Clinton 112,251 39% 11 Winner
Obama 104,772 37% 12
Edwards 48,681 17% 4
Richardson 13,249 5% 0
Kucinich 3,919 1% 0
Biden 628 0% 0
Gravel 402 0% 0
Dodd 202 0% 0
.
Estimated Delegates: 12Republican Primary ResultsTuesday, January 8
Real-time Race Results: Updated January 10, 2008 - 1:30 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 100%
Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates Projected Winner
McCain 88,466 37% 7 Winner
Romney 75,343 32% 4
Huckabee 26,768 11% 1
Giuliani 20,395 9% 0
Paul 18,303 8% 0
Thompson 2,886 1% 0
Hunter 1,220 0% 0"

I made it into the times article.

2008-01-08T22:28:00.000-06:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/us/politics/08bloomberg.htm

"Obama’s Surge Deflates Forum and Talk of a Bloomberg Run

By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ and NICHOLAS CONFESSORE (NY TIMES)
Published: January 8, 2008

NORMAN, Okla. — He arrived here for what seemed like it could be a big moment. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, eyeing a third-party presidential bid, joined Republican and Democratic elders at a forum to denounce the extreme partisanship of Washington and plot how to influence the campaign.

But even as the mayor gathered on Monday with the seasoned Washington hands on the campus of the University of Oklahoma, the surging presidential campaign of Senator Barack Obama seemed to steal energy from the event and set off worry elsewhere among Mr. Bloomberg’s supporters.

Mr. Obama has stressed that he wants to move beyond gridlocked politics and usher in an era of national unity. A key organizer of the effort to draft Mr. Bloomberg for a presidential run acknowledged in an interview on Monday that that Mr. Obama’s rise could be problematic.

“Obama is trying to reach out to independent voters, and that clearly would be the constituency that Mike Bloomberg would go after,” said Andrew MacRae, who heads the Washington chapter of Draft Mike Bloomberg for President 2008. “An Obama victory does not make it impossible, but it certainly makes it more difficult.”

The event was organized by former Senator Sam Nunn, Democrat of Georgia, with former Senator David L. Boren, Democrat of Oklahoma. In the days leading up the event here, just outside Oklahoma City, Mr. Boren suggested that he would encourage Mr. Bloomberg to run if the major party nominees failed to heed the call for bipartisanship.

But several leading participants took pains to say that they had no intention of abandoning their own parties in the election. Some even cast Mr. Obama’s success as evidence that the nation was yearning for the type of leadership they were offering.

“I believe he is demonstrating, in the support he is getting, that the American people share this concern about excessive partisanship,” said Bob Graham, a Democratic former senator from Florida, who said he would support a Democrat for president.

Gary Hart, a Democrat from Colorado who also served in the Senate, said he intended to endorse one of the Democratic presidential candidates in the next 48 hours, though he declined to identify the candidate.

“I am a Democrat, and I will endorse a Democratic president,” he said. “There are no independent candidates. I won’t endorse a Republican.”

The forum attracted students, faculty members and some who said they were intrigued by a third party approach. Still, they were also taking notice of the momentum Mr. Obama has been gaining since his victory in the Iowa caucuses last week.

“I wonder about all this,” said [Politico] who drove to the event from Texas. [Politico] said he believed the eventual nominees would be Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain, and “that sort of steals a lot of thunder, since they’re the two more moderate candidates.”

Despite public denials that he plans to run, aides close to Mr. Bloomberg have been laying the groundwork for a candidacy, should he declare one.

Mr. Bloomberg kept a low profile at the forum. In response to a question during the panel discussion about the Iowa caucuses, Mr. Bloomberg did not talk about Mr. Obama or the Republican winner, Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, but said that perhaps the discussion the group was looking for had already begun.

“I hope that all the candidates say to themselves that the public is tired of the partisanship and the special interests, and if I’m going to get elected, I’ve got to stand up and say what I believe, face the big issues, hold myself accountable, and maybe you are seeing that.”

As he usually has in recent weeks, Mr. Bloomberg played down the notion that he would be a candidate himself, saying during the forum that the goal he shared with others at the conference was to be a “catalyst” for a discussion of the nation’s problems.

But even Mr. Bloomberg’s effort to influence the debate in the presidential campaign has hit challenges. The mayor recently paid out of his own pocket for ads in Iowa and New Hampshire newspapers demanding, on behalf of mayors concerned about gun violence, that candidates complete a questionnaire detailing their positions on gun issues.

The candidates were given until Jan. 2 to respond, but none of the campaigns complied, and Mr. Bloomberg and his colleagues have now pushed back the deadline.

People close to the mayor say that he will probably decide in March whether he will run, assuming that Democrats and Republicans have settled on their presumptive nominees. His aides have been researching the cumbersome process for starting an independent campaign, and a crucial date is March 5, when third-party candidates can begin circulating petitions to get a spot on the ballot in Texas.

Mr. Bloomberg would have to decide, among other things, whether there was an opening for a self-styled progressive centrist like him. Aides have said that he would be prepared to spend $1 billion.

Other participants at the forum included John Danforth, a Republican former senator from Missouri; Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican from Nebraska; William Cohen, former secretary of defense; and Christie Whitman, former governor of New Jersey and a Republican.

Like other participants, Mrs. Whitman has been seeking to distance herself from any third-party bid by Mr. Bloomberg. In a recent blog post on the Web site of the Republican Leadership Council, a centrist group of which she is co-chairwoman, Mrs. Whitman wrote, “While other attendees may assert their personal interest in a third party, I am a Republican and will remain one.”

Asked Monday whether she would support an independent presidential bid by Mr. Bloomberg or anyone else, Mrs. Whitman echoed those comments, saying, “I’m focused on the Republican Leadership Council.” "

Bloomberg Bipartisan Forum, January 7th at OU

2008-01-07T18:02:00.000-06:00

I went to the Bi-partisan Forum at OU today. It was a little anti-climactic. The expectation was that Bloomberg would declare as a candidate, but he did not.

My impression was that he wants to see who the candidates will be first and that that is still very much in question. IMO, it looks like Obama and McCain although neither are stable front-runners. Obama says politically nieve things at in opportune times and McCain adopted the Iraq War. (Headline announces Obama says if he wins New Hampshire the race is over. A VERY stupid comment for a cnadidate who is reliant upon non-voters voting.)

I think McCain and Obama are consensus building moderates. That pulls the teeth from a Bloomberg candidacy.

That said, I had fun, the speakers were interesting and insighful, I was interviewed by a reporter from the NY times, and got to shake hands with a politician who's career accomplishments I admire--- Bob Graham, former Governor of Florida.

Iowa Primary results

2008-01-06T10:00:00.000-06:00

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/

"Estimated Delegates: 57Democratic Primary ResultsThursday, January 3
Real-time Race Results: Updated January 5, 2008 - 2:35 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 100%
Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates Projected Winner
Obama 940 38% 18 Winner
Edwards 744 30% 16
Clinton 737 29% 16
Richardson 53 2% 0
Biden 23 1% 0
Uncommitted 3 0% 0
Dodd 1 0% 0
Gravel 0 0% 0
Kucinich 0 0% 0
.
Estimated Delegates: 40Republican Primary ResultsThursday, January 3
Real-time Race Results: Updated January 5, 2008 - 2:35 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 98%
Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates Projected Winner
Huckabee 40,841 34% 30 Winner
Romney 29,949 25% 7
Thompson 15,904 13% 0
McCain 15,559 13% 0
Paul 11,817 10% 0
Giuliani 4,097 4% 0
Hunter 524 1% 0 "

You're Invited to a Bipartisan Forum, January 7th at OU

2008-01-04T11:44:00.000-06:00

http://www.ou.edu/web/landing/Articles/bipartisan_forum_january.html

Information provided by the Office of the President.
UPDATED on January 4, 2008.

OU students, faculty and staff as well as members of the general public are cordially invited to attend a bipartisan forum of national political leaders at OU on Monday, January 7, 2008 from 11:00 a.m. to noon at the Catlett Music Center. Ticketing or advance reservations are not required. Seating will be on a first come, first serve basis and no advance ticketing or reservation is required.

As you know, the university has extended an open invitation to all presidential candidates in both parties and to those actively involved in the presidential election process to speak to our students, faculty and staff as well as members of the community. Thus far, one candidate, Governor Mitt Romney, has accepted our invitation and spoke at the university earlier this year. Other invitations remain outstanding, and we hope that candidates will continue to accept our invitation. Last spring, the university welcomed former President George H.W. Bush to campus for a discussion on the history of the American presidency with presidential historian David McCullough as well as Ken Duberstein, chief of staff for President Ronald Reagan, and Jack Valenti, chief of staff to President Lyndon B. Johnson. Another renowned presidential historian and leading author, Michael Beschloss, spoke to the OU family this fall on the qualities which have been important to successful presidencies. Through these events, the university advances its goal of educating our students about the presidency as an institution and national issues that they are likely to face as the future leaders of our nation as well as encouraging their civic involvement.

In furthering this goal, the university is pleased to announce that we will be host to a panel of leaders who will be potentially influential in producing increased national discussion of fundamental issues in the upcoming presidential election. The panel’s discussion will include ways in which our nation can end divisive partisan polarization, create bipartisanship, and bring the country together after conclusion of the 2008 election.

Those national leaders who are expected to participate in the panel include:

David Abshire, President of the Center for the Study of the Presidency

Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City and founder of Bloomberg News

David Boren, Former U.S. Senator

Bill Brock, Former U.S. Senator

Bill Cohen, Former Secretary of Defense and U.S. Senator

Jack Danforth, Former U.S. Senator

Susan Eisenhower, Chairman Emeritus, The Eisenhower Institute

Bob Graham, Former U.S. Senator

Chuck Hagel, U.S. Senator

Gary Hart, Former U.S. Senator

Jim Leach, Former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives

Sam Nunn, Former U.S. Senator

Edward Perkins, Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

Chuck Robb, Former U.S. Senator

Christine Todd Whitman, Former New Jersey Governor

For more information about the bipartisan forum, please contact the Office of the President at (405) 325-3916 during normal business hours. Members of the media who plan to cover the forum should contact Catherine Bishop at (405) 620-1544 or cbishop@ou.edu to receive advance credentialing.

Biden and Dodd are out; Jesus and Oprah deliver; What else do the results mean?

2008-01-04T11:34:00.000-06:00

So lets look back at my predictions and what actually happened.

predictions
REP
Romney to edge Huckabee who has been revealed to be a bit of a jerk.
Guiliani & Thompson to do very poorly.
Ron Paul to do suprisingly well. Say 10 %.

Dems
Obama to edge hillary or Edwards.
Biden to suprise and finish 3rd based on his foreign policy experience and the situation in Pakistan.

Actual

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/

"Estimated Delegates: 57Democratic Primary ResultsThursday, January 3
Real-time Race Results: Updated January 5, 2008 - 2:35 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 100%
Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates Projected Winner
Obama 940 38% 18 Winner
Edwards 744 30% 16
Clinton 737 29% 16
Richardson 53 2% 0
Biden 23 1% 0
Uncommitted 3 0% 0
Dodd 1 0% 0
Gravel 0 0% 0
Kucinich 0 0% 0
.
Estimated Delegates: 40Republican Primary ResultsThursday, January 3
Real-time Race Results: Updated January 5, 2008 - 2:35 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 98%
Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates Projected Winner
Huckabee 40,841 34% 30 Winner
Romney 29,949 25% 7
Thompson 15,904 13% 0
McCain 15,559 13% 0
Paul 11,817 10% 0
Giuliani 4,097 4% 0
Hunter 524 1% 0 "

Huckabee joins Pat Robertson as a religious nutjob who swept through Iowa with hurricane force. Huckabee has a slim chance that he may not implode like Robertson. He is a very personable guy who spouts crazy in his free time and the next primaries will have very little time between each one, so someone who makes a good first impression can gain a lot of momentum quickly. That said, his political and religious views won't sell in New Hampshire (Primary #2). He could be seen as possibly irrelevant entering the Michigan Primary (Primary #3), which may really blunt any momentum he could have in South Carolina (Primary #4). On the positive side, having Ed Rollins on board guarantees he will meet his potential.

Romney started setting expectations that he would not win Iowa last week (I didn't know that) and that second was fine. That was IMO a political mistake. His people should have gotten agressive with Huckabee's past and his general cruel remarks to others. Romney easily could have cut the margin of victory in half or won if he hadn't written off Iowa. He also could have had Huckabee emerging as victorious, but permanently dogged by the Arkansas rape/murder scandal and not viable nationally, but he let him off the hook. Lesson to be learned, Mr. Romney, just because you might lose a race, doesn't mean you can't gain something of value by fighting. It is well known how much time and money Romney put into Iowa. A soft finish was not acceptable considering that. Now Romney has negative momentum entering a New Hampshire race that McCain is poised to win. It was fine for Romney to finish second in Iowa, but not by almost 10 percent. Romney could very well implode.

Thompson and McCain did suprisingly well drawing 13% of the vote each . Thompson lives for another week and McCain has momemtum going into New Hampshire where he is a strong second to the faltering Romney.

The radical Ron Paul has shown enough support to actually be entering VP consideration. Weird how the world works.

Guliani did much worse than I thought. He was expecting to get his 10-15% and fight another day. 4% when you were expecting 15% is to carry negative momentum into the next primary. He is in real trouble. He could implode with an unexpectedly bad showing in New Hampshire. He isn't likeable, and if he starts faltering, people will pile on.

Duncan Hunter should drop out of the race. He is done and unlike Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo he has no "issue to push".

On the Democratic side, WOW, what a night. The fact that Dem voter turnout for the primary (230K) was almost DOUBLE last election (124K)is hugely telling. For a long time now, Democratic analysts have smugly said that the Dems like their feild of candidates. I have long though that was overstated and that when push came to shove, one of the anti-hillary candidates would implode. Push came to shove last night and all 3 candidates drew record numbers. Hillary clinton's "disappointing" 29% third place finish would have netted her 54% of the vote in 2004. That is a landslide win!

The facts are Hillary drew her votes for who she is and should take pride in that. The troubling part of this is that her negative numbers made her vulnerable in this primary and would again do so in the national election --- especially against a likeable religious nutjob like Huckabee. This primary basically underscored "the problem with Hillary" for the Dem insiders. Hillary may deliver record numbers to the polls for her, but the more successful she is, ther more motivated the anti-Hillary voters will be to keep her out.

It looks VERY dark for Hillary. A big loss to Obama was possible and probably there was a contingency plan. Losing to Edwards as well changes the equation. The idea of Hillary as the inevitable candidate is gone forever. Hillary will have a dogfight from here on out and she does poorly in those, allowing her abrasive and evasive sides out, which reinforce the negative views people have of her. Additionally, she has already squandered all of her Obama "mud". I think she may be done.

Edwards ran a brilliant campaign on class struggle and being the anti-Hillary. Both campaign groups should look at that. Forget Obama for a second and look at the race as Hillary vs. Anti-Hillary (Edwards). Anti-hillary won like 69K vs. 67K. That should tell you all you need to know about edwards and clinton. That would be a high turnout in Iowa for normal but a heated race. These two candidates scooped up all of the established Dem Vote. And the anti-Hillary won.

Obama may not like him, but Edwards makes a world of sense as his VP today. He has really come into his own, is from the right region/background to compliment Obama, and as proven last election, he can handle a debate and attack a presidential candidate. All that said, Edwards is not done yet. He has 2-3 Primaries to make his case before he runs out of money. If the politically nieve Obama trips up in New Hampshire and Hillary continues to struggle, the door could open up again for Edwards and he could get some real traction.

Both candidates scraped up every vote they could, but the numbers don't lie, Double the turnout? Obama wins with women by 5%? This was the Goddess of Harpo gently touching Iowa on the map and the Obama phone support crew diligently recording every touch. Oprah is a political dynamo. Obama should have 2 people on his VP want list. Oprah, then Edwards.

Which finally leads me to the rest of the Democratic feild. Biden and Dodds rightly bailed. Dodds has been dead for months, but getting less than 1% finally opened his eyes. Biden (and a lot of prognosticators including myself) felt he would have a strong shouwing in Iowa ---probably in the teens. A lot of his strategy was based on proving himself viable in Iowa and making a move in New Hampshire. Without the first, the second became impossible. I am sad to see him get out this early because I think he was the one democrat capable of crushing a Republican candidate with criticism. (He did it to Guiliani earlier in the race. When he publically stated that Guiliani was running on 9/11 he cut off the Mayor's only means of positive momentum. This is the only time I have ever seen a fringe candidate take down an opponent's front runner.) I think Biden ultimately did little to show a domestic agenda and that killed him.

Gravel is in it to the bitter end. He has a message, but is not sending it clearly. Kucinich will probably get out in a few more races as he realizes that you can't get a race to adopt your platforms, at best you can hope that the race seizes on one issue you treasure like Tancredo was able to accomplish with his presidency. Richardson is in a similar boat to Kucinich and Biden. He hasn't seen what Biden did, that the big 3 have choked out all the sunlight.

"Iowa By the Numbers" by Tim Dickinson

2008-01-04T10:10:00.000-06:00

http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2008/01/04/iowa-by-the-numbers/

"Four statistics blew me away tonight:

1) Obama beat Hillary among women voters 35 to 30 percent.
2)Amid record Democratic turnout, as many people under 30 showed up to caucus as those over 65.
3) Sixty percent of the GOP electorate in Iowa were born-again Christians.
4) Rudy Giuliani finished with a mere 4,013 votes, in sixth place, with less than half of the support of Ron Paul.

Taking them in order:

One:
Hillary lost tonight to Barack Obama by 8 points — a margin just as wide as Mitt Romney catastrophic shortfall against Mike Huckabee.

And Obama beat her eight ways to Sunday. He edged her out among Democrats 32/31, and cleaned her clock among independents (44/17) and wayward Republicans (41/10). He beat her among people making less than $15,000 (37/30) and more than $100,000 (41/19). He beat her among health-care voters (34/30) and suburban voters (30/25).

Most astounding however, he beat her among her core supporters, women, by five points. What more can I say than — in a night of mind boggling statistics — that that’s the stat of the night.

A black man did this. In a state that’s 96 percent white. This is truly a historic night in America.

Two:
The turnout on the Democratic side was unreal. It soared from 124,000 in 2004 to 230,000 in 2008. And that’s all about the man who won.

Obama’s been drawing record crowds from San Francisco to Des Moines — but there was always the question of whether he could produce a similar effect among real live voters.

He did so in a way that no one predicted. 57 percent of the caucus goers tonight had never caucused before. Most impressive: As many people under thirty showed up as senior citizens.

That’s fucking nuts is what that is. That’s the Rock the Vote political wet dream that never ever comes true… actually coming true.

What this portends for Obama as a national candidate is something truly special. He’s not only proven that he can draw the support of independents and open-minded Republicans. He’s the one guy who can make the Democratic pie higher, bringing new, unlikely voters into the fold. If he could replicate this kind of support among young people in a general election, it’s game over.

Three:
The Religious Right has found their candidate. The evangelical vote in the Republican caucus is usually 40 percent. Tonight it was 60 percent.

I give Mike Huckabee a lot of credit. He’s run the kind of grassroots campaign that’s not supposed to be possible in this era. Outspent 15:1, his earthy, inclusive plain-spoken authenticity won hearts and minds — and his faith-based network of supporters turned out in droves, beating back the best organization money can buy.

With Romney effectively out of the way, I’m not sure anybody else can stop this guy. Certainly not in South Carolina, where, if the churched vote behaves the way they did tonight, he’ll clobber a John McCain, no matter what happens in New Hampshire.

Four:
Rudy Giluliani is done. His slot — the maverick warmonger — is going to be filled by John McCain by the time Florida comes around. He’s executing the most amazingly misguided electoral strategy I can remember. Bravo and good riddance.

Closing thoughts
Obama scored two huge victories tonight. He not only popped Clinton’s aura of inevitability, he also beat Edwards roundly enough to establish himself as the only true anti-Clinton. So not only is Clinton wounded heading into New Hampshire, but the ABC (anyone but Clinton) vote has found its standard bearer — and his name isn’t John Edwards.

Which is all to say that even if Clinton makes a miraculous recovery in the next five days, I think enough of Edwards’ vote is going to migrate to Obama that it’s not going to make a difference. New Hampshire is his to lose.

And fond goodbyes…
Part of me, here, is going to miss the grand patrician stylings of Chris Dodd, here.

And Joe Biden, I think I’ll miss you most of all. "

Biden and Dodd Leave the Race By Shailagh Murray

2008-01-04T09:52:00.000-06:00

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/04/biden_and_dodd_leave_the_race.html?hpid=topnews

"DES MOINES -- The two veteran lawmakers of the Democratic race, Sens. Joseph Biden (Del) and Christopher Dodd (Conn.), abandoned their candidacies after poor showings in last night's Iowa caucuses.

Biden, who was elected to the Senate in 1972 and serves as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, had hoped large crowds in recent weeks would help earn at least a fourth-place showing. But that support failed to materialize, and Biden netted only about 2 percent of delegates, about half what recent polls had predicted.

"There is nothing sad about tonight. We are so incredibly proud of you all," Biden told his supporters. "So many of you have sacrificed for me and I am so indebted to you. I feel no regret."

Dodd, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee and is serving his fifth term, posted a worse showing, registering just .02 percent of Democratic support.

"Let me assure you, we are not ending this race with our heads hanging but our heads held high," he told about 100 supporters at a rally in Des Moines. "I am not going anywhere."

Dodd moved his wife and two young daughters to Des Moines and built a sizable state-wide organization, including 13 offices and a large payroll of campaign professionals. Biden also blitzed the state, scooping up endorsements from state and local officials, and offering crowds intricate discourses on foreign policy.

But in a year when voters said they were seeking change, both veteran senators struck Iowans as a little too familiar, fixtures of a Washington establishment that had grown stale from years of gridlock and partisan infighting.

Biden's presidential bid was his second, having dropped out of the 1988 race before the Iowa caucuses."

"Iowa results shake establishment of both parties" By Patrick Healy

2008-01-04T09:41:00.001-06:00

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/04/america/assess.php

"DES MOINES, Iowa: The Democratic and Republican establishments and their presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Governor Mitt Romney, were brought low in Iowa, shaken seriously by two national newcomers who won decisively on messages of insurgency and change.

The victors in Iowa, Senator Barack Obama for the Democrats and former Governor Mike Huckabee for the Republicans, are as far from the status quo as possible. One is the son of a Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother who entered the United States Senate just three years ago. The other is a former Baptist minister who was best known until recently for losing more than 100 pounds, or 45 kilograms, and taking on the issue of childhood obesity.

The two winners Thursday night burst the aura of strength and confidence that Clinton and Romney had tried to cultivate for months and left both parties suddenly without a clear path to their nominating conventions, let alone November.

Clinton's loss was especially glaring: her central strategy for much of 2007 was to appear as the inevitable nominee, but Iowans shredded that notion. She tried in recent weeks to convince voters that another Clinton administration could be an agent of change, but Iowans clearly did not buy it.

Without question, Clinton and Romney have the money, the campaign apparatus and the legions of supporters to stay in the hunt for the nomination and to right their campaigns. But Clinton's lackluster finish raises anew questions about her electability, and whether independent voters - who flocked to Obama - will ever come around to her.

And Romney, who outspent Huckabee 6-to-1 in television advertising in Iowa, now faces a far more crowded field of rivals in the New Hampshire primary who are eager to tear into his wounded candidacy.

All the candidates now move to that primary on Tuesday, which Clinton had tried to make a fire wall for her campaign, as it was for her husband's presidential candidacy in 1992, when he finished strongly in second place.

"If Hillary doesn't stop Obama in New Hampshire, Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee," said Robert Shrum, a Democratic consultant who was John Kerry's senior strategist in 2004.

Clinton advisers declined to say on Thursday night whether she would now pursue a different strategy against Obama. But a shift seems likely now that Clinton's multilayered, sometimes contradictory message - offering an experienced hand but also an agent of change - fell flat in this first contest.

"We built a campaign for the long haul - we feel very good about our operation in New Hampshire, and polling has us up," said Howard Wolfson, a Clinton spokesman. The danger for Clinton, of course, is that those polls may not hold after the outcome in Iowa.

Further undercutting Clinton, Obama peeled away broad swaths of women from her base of support, and the political potency of baby boomers fell apart in Iowa. Half of the Democrats under 45 said their first choice was Obama, according to a poll by Edison/Mitofsky of voters entering caucus sites.

At the same time, the fact that so many Iowa Democrats voted for an African-American man and a white woman was historic as well. For Obama, especially, the ratification of his candidacy by Democrats and independents in a predominantly white and rural state suggests that he may be able to build a broad and multiracial coalition in his bid for the White House.

The nomination fights will only intensify from now, though the steel that Huckabee will deploy in the battle is unclear. He seemed to come out of nowhere - an ex-governor who was so little known among Republicans that many of them could not even name the state he once led (Arkansas) - and turned from asterisk-status to giant-slayer here in spite of a paltry political organization, slim dollars and a final week marked by gaffes.

As when Pat Robertson made a surprise second-place showing in the Iowa caucuses in 1988, Huckabee enjoyed substantial political support from evangelical Christians and took advantage of a muddled Republican presidential field to drive toward an 11th-hour victory over Romney, of Massachusetts.

For Romney, his loss here will register as a deep blow to his candidacy - a failure bound to worry establishment Republicans and wealthy donors who have viewed him as their man. It will also energize and inspire Republicans who are backing Senator John McCain in the New Hampshire primary.

Romney's drive to the Republican nomination was supposed to begin with him looking formidable and confident coming out of Iowa. Romney, his wife and his sons planted themselves here for months and poured in money, including millions of his own; he now heads to New Hampshire clearly wounded and a target for even more rivals, like Rudolph Giuliani, former Senator Fred Thompson and McCain.

Huckabee, a folksy and fairly plain-speaking politician with a sense of humor that many Iowans enjoyed, appealed to Republican caucusgoers who put a premium on a candidate's Christian faith - and who were deeply wary about seeing a Mormon, Romney, become president.

But Huckabee also struck many populist themes that have deep appeal to middle-class Iowans and farmers, promising to tailor his economic priorities to their needs and taking tough stands on a key issue here, immigration.

But Iowa voters are not New Hampshire voters, as Huckabee and his advisers are well aware. Devoutly religious voters do not exist in nearly the same numbers in the Granite State. And the fervent anti-tax sentiment among Republicans there is likely to clash with Huckabee's record of raising taxes in Arkansas.

"If Huckabee scares the Republican establishment and makes the party fear losing, you could see a rapid rallying around a second candidate," said Nelson Warfield, a Republican consultant not working for any candidate.

Indeed, Robertson's Iowa performance in 1988 - when he came in second to Bob Dole and edged out the ultimate nominee, the elder George Bush - gave him little bounce in New Hampshire, given the lack of a fervent evangelical base.

"I'm going to be the nominee," Robertson said right after his victory, crediting God in particular with his success, which faded after a drubbing soon after in New Hampshire.

Huckabee talked about God on the Iowa campaign trail, as well, but on Thursday night there was one other word that he - as well as Obama, Romney, Clinton and former Senator John Edwards - discussed especially and emphatically: "change."

As Edwards put it, "the status quo lost, and change won" in the caucuses. Obama and Huckabee repeated the words incessantly in their victory speeches, brandishing the word as a talisman that overcame Clinton's decades of experience and Romney's leadership bona fides.

Yet change was not only the political message; change was the two men themselves.

Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting from Des Moines."

"What do the Iowa results mean?" by the BBC

2008-01-04T09:25:00.000-06:00

"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7171057.stm

It was celebrations for Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama, who won the Republican and Democratic nominations respectively, as voters in Iowa turned out in force to make their selection.

The Iowa caucuses can give big boosts to candidates' campaigns in the long haul to reach the White House.

Which factors contributed to the success of Mr Obama and Mr Huckabee?

The key message for both, despite their very different political stances, was the promise of change.

The word cropped up regularly in Mr Obama's campaign speeches. And about half of the people attending the Democratic caucuses said a candidate's ability to bring change was the most important factor.

For Mr Huckabee, another key word was "values", with many Republican caucus-goers saying the former Baptist minister was someone "who shares my values".

His win was built on the support he got from evangelical voters. More than half of Republicans interviewed as they attended the caucuses said they were either born-again or evangelical Christians, the Associated Press news agency reported.

What about the turnout?

This was also another important factor.

The Republican turnout was about 115,000, up on the 2000 figure of 87,666. For the Democrats it was even higher, with some 239,000 turning out to register their choice, up from 124,000 four years ago.

This seems to reflect Mr Obama's success in reaching out to first-time caucus-goers and independents.

Many voters under 25 turned to him and he also outpolled his main rival Hillary Clinton among women.

Who were the biggest losers?

Without doubt the most glaring loss was for Senator Clinton, long considered the Democratic frontrunner and who once enjoyed a significant lead in the Iowa polls.

On the Republican side, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney saw the many millions of dollars he spent campaigning in Iowa translate only into second place.

In recent weeks he saw his advantage whittled down and shortly before the contest, his camp dampened down expectations, saying second place would be fine.

What about the other candidates?

John Edwards, who also campaigned on a theme of a break with the status quo, will be hoping his strong finish to secure second place in Iowa, ahead of Mrs Clinton, will boost his campaign.

Republican Senator John McCain, who came fourth behind Mr Huckabee, Mr Romney and Fred Thompson, spent little time in Iowa and has been much more focused on the next election stop of New Hampshire.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani did not mount a major campaign in Iowa and his showing of 3.5%, behind outsider Ron Paul who scored 10%, will be no surprise. His strategy is to target the larger states that hold their contests later in the electoral calendar.

"We're ahead in maybe 16, 18 of the 29 states that are coming up," was his reaction to the Iowa result.

Are any campaign changes likely?

Mrs Clinton and Mr Romney have the funds, the organisational backing and plenty of supporters. But it is clear they have both been wounded politically and need to regroup fast.

Mrs Clinton has tried to present herself as the candidate of change and experience, a feat it seems she was unable to pull off in Iowa.

But her campaign appeared to pursuing this line as they headed on to the next election stop of New Hampshire.

"This is an election that is really going to be about the choice that people have between an experienced leader for change versus leadership with less experience that talks about change," Mrs Clinton's chief strategist said.

What happens next?

The nomination battle is set to intensify further, with only a few days for the respective campaigns to gear up for New Hampshire's primary on Tuesday.

Polling data from there has indicated that Mrs Clinton's once-secure lead has been dented and it is virtually neck-and-neck between her and Mr Obama. Although Mrs Clinton has consistently led in the national polls, a defeat in New Hampshire would be a bitter blow to her campaign.

The polls for the Republicans show a much more open contest. Mr McCain, who has devoted much more time to campaigning in New Hampshire than Iowa, is doing well, surveys suggest.

New Hampshire polls put Mr Romney and Mr McCain about level.

Mr Huckabee will face a tougher test in this state where issues like taxation and national security are set to figure more prominently than in Iowa, where social and religious issues came to the fore.

He will be aiming to use his Iowa victory to boost his chances in New Hampshire, where he cannot count on the same level of Christian conservative support.

Are there any lessons from history?

Very often it is not so much about winning in Iowa but doing better or at least as well as expected.

Democrat Howard Dean was leading his party's polls in 2004 but after his third place in Iowa his campaign stuttered and never recovered.

But an Iowa victory, while important, is no guarantee of national success. The 1992 winner for the Democrats was Tom Harkin. Trailing way behind him was Bill Clinton, who went on to capture the presidency."

Iowa predictions

2008-01-03T19:42:00.000-06:00

I forgot to do this before work, but it is my lunch break now.

My predictions for Iowa:

REP
Romney to edge Huckabee who has been revealed to be a bit of a jerk.
Guiliani & Thompson to do very poorly.
Ron Paul to do suprisingly well. Say 10 %.

Dems
Obama to edge hillary or Edwards.
Biden to suprise and finish 3rd based on his foreign policy experience and the situation in Pakistan.

Let the games begin!

Bipartisan group to explore independent presidential bid at OU meeting

2008-01-01T11:35:00.000-06:00

"

http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=7558188

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - University of Oklahoma President David Boren is leading a bipartisan group of former U.S. senators, governors and party leaders who share concerns about "partisan polarization" in the presidential campaign.

Boren says the group will gather at OU on January 7th to urge an end to party squabbling and consider a possible independent candidate.

Boren -- a former Democratic U.S. senator from Oklahoma says the meeting will serve as a form of "shock therapy" to the major-party candidates to "stop the bickering" and provide Americans with a blueprint for bipartisanship in Washington.

Boren says New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a potential independent presidential candidate, is among a dozen political leaders who are likely to attend the meeting."

Bloomberg running regardless of the candidate.

2008-01-01T10:54:00.000-06:00

I am a McLaughlin Group junkie. Elanor Clift on that show has some contact with Bloomberg as do some of the other hosts. It has been stated repeatedly that Bloomberg might not run if certain candidates were selected by the Republican and Democratic parties. The jist is the guy is a career Dem. He has presidential aspirations, but doesn't want to throw the election to the republicans. The presumption has been if two widely disliked candidates like Guliani and Clinton were nominated, that would open the door for a "safe" bloomberg run. Both candaidates have very high negative approval ratings. That matchup would create 20-30+% of the populace who would be looking for a third option. And he doesn't like Guliani, so it makes a world of sense.

He would pull heavily from the same Guliani crowd and the people who dislike both candidates. Guiliani would get a no-show from the conservative crowd and either bloomberg or Hillary would win. But the pundits have said repeatedly that bloomberg would not be interested in challenging if his run might throw the election to the republicans.

This article is very interesting as it seems to strongly suggest that bloomberg has been seduced by the possiblity of being president and is running regardless of the opposition, by it's choice of candidates Bloomberg has mentioned. Obama has one of the lowest negative ratings in the race and that is only likely to be controversial at all if Bloomberg runs as a white man vs. Obama's black man. In that instance, Bloomberg is clearly running against the Democrats.

December 31, 2007
Bloomberg Moves Closer to Running for President
By SAM ROBERTS
Buoyed by the still unsettled field, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is growing increasingly enchanted with the idea of an independent presidential bid, and his aides are aggressively laying the groundwork for him to run.

On Sunday, the mayor will join Democratic and Republican elder statesmen at the University of Oklahoma in what the conveners are billing as an effort to pressure the major party candidates to renounce partisan gridlock.

Former Senator David L. Boren of Oklahoma, who organized the session with former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat of Georgia, suggested in an interview that if the prospective major party nominees failed within two months to formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation, “I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent.”

Next week’s meeting, reported on Sunday in The Washington Post, comes as the mayor’s advisers have been quietly canvassing potential campaign consultants about their availability in the coming months.

And Mr. Bloomberg himself has become more candid in conversations with friends and associates about his interest in running, according to participants in those talks. Despite public denials, the mayor has privately suggested scenarios in which he might be a viable candidate: for instance, if the opposing major party candidates are poles apart, like Mike Huckabee, a Republican, versus Barack Obama or John Edwards as the Democratic nominee.

A final decision by Mr. Bloomberg about whether to run is unlikely before February. Still, he and his closest advisers are positioning themselves so that if the mayor declares his candidacy, a turnkey campaign infrastructure will virtually be in place.

Bloomberg aides have studied the process for starting independent campaigns, which formally begins March 5, when third-party candidates can begin circulating nominating petitions in Texas. If Democrats and Republicans have settled on their presumptive nominees at that point, Mr. Bloomberg will have to decide whether he believes those candidates are vulnerable to a challenge from a pragmatic, progressive centrist, which is how he would promote himself.

The filing deadline for the petitions, which must be signed by approximately 74,000 Texas voters who did not participate in the state’s Democratic or Republican primaries, is May 12.

Among the other participants invited to the session next Sunday and Monday is Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, who has said he would consider being Mr. Bloomberg’s running mate on an independent ticket.

Mr. Boren declined to say which candidate would be strongest, but suggested “some kind of combination of those three: Bloomberg-Hagel, Bloomberg-Nunn.” He said Mr. Bloomberg would “not have to spend a lot of time raising money and he would not have to make deals with special interest groups to raise money.”

“Normally I don’t think an independent candidacy would have a chance” said Mr. Boren, who is the University of Oklahoma’s president. “I don’t think these are normal times.”

Mr. Bloomberg, who has tried to seize a national platform on gun control, the environment and other issues, has been regularly briefed in recent months on foreign policy by, among others, Henry A. Kissinger, his friend and the former secretary of state, and Nancy Soderberg, an ambassador to the United Nations in the Clinton administration.

Advisers have said Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire many times over, might invest as much as $1 billion of his own fortune (he spent about $160 million on his two mayoral races) on a presidential campaign.

But they warned that while they were confident of getting on the ballot in every state, the process was complicated and fraught with legal challenges, and that Mr. Bloomberg would begin with an organizational disadvantage, competing against rivals who have been campaigning full time for years.

Still, the mayor said this month at a news conference, “Last I looked — and I’m not a candidate — but last time I checked reading about the Constitution, the Electoral College has nothing to do with parties, has absolutely nothing to do with parties. It’s most states are winners take all. The popular vote assigns electoral votes to the candidate, and I don’t think it says in there that you have to be a member of one party or another.”

The key players — virtually the only players — in Mr. Bloomberg’s embryonic campaign are three of his deputy mayors, Kevin Sheekey, Edward Skyler and Patricia E. Harris. Another aide, Patrick Brennan, who was the political director of Mr. Bloomberg’s 2005 re-election campaign, resigned as commissioner of the city’s Community Assistance Unit earlier this year to spend more time exploring the mayor’s possible national campaign.

One concern among Mr. Bloomberg’s inner circle is whether a loss would label him a spoiler — “a rich Ralph Nader” — who cost a more viable candidate the presidency in a watershed political year. One person close to the mayor, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to be seen discussing internal strategy, stressed that Mr. Bloomberg would run only if he believed he could win.

“He’s not going to do it to influence the debate,” the person said.

The mayor was asked last week at a news conference whether a Bloomberg campaign would cost the Democratic or Republican nominee more votes.

“You know,” he replied, “if it’s a three-way race, the public has more choice than if it’s a two-way race, and has more choice in a two-way race than a one-way race. Why shouldn’t you have lots of people running, and what’s magical about people who happen to be a member of a party?”

Sam Waterston, the actor whose former co-star on “Law and Order,” Fred D. Thompson, is a Republican presidential candidate, is a founder of Unity08. That group also hopes to advance a nonpartisan ticket, and Mr. Waterston says the mayor is often mentioned on the group’s Web site as a prospective nominee.

“If he formally embraced Unity08’s principal goals of a bipartisan, nonpartisan, postpartisan ticket — which he’s almost in a position to do all by himself, having been a Democrat, a Republican, and now an independent — and of an administration dedicated to ending partisanship within itself and in Washington, then it’s hard to think of anyone better placed to win Unity08’s support if he sought it,” Mr. Waterston said. “And, of course, there’s nothing that says Unity08 couldn’t draft him.”

Some associates said that after six years as mayor, Mr. Bloomberg was itching for a new challenge — much like he was in 2000 when, as chief executive of Bloomberg L.P., he was flirting with running for mayor.

But Mr. Bloomberg will also have to weigh several intangibles: Can he run for president and serve as mayor of a combustible metropolis simultaneously for eight months? (He believes he can, and would not resign as mayor to run.) Does he want to be president badly enough to sacrifice his zealously guarded personal privacy? (He’s not completely convinced.)

Meanwhile, he thoroughly enjoys the attention, and despite the public denials, suggests that he is poised to run if the political stars align themselves for a long-shot, but credible, independent campaign. During a private reception this month, Mr. Bloomberg playfully presided over a personal variation of bingo, in which guests could win by correctly guessing the significance of the numbers on a printed card.

“Two hundred seventy-one?” Mr. Bloomberg asked.

One guest guessed correctly: It was George W. Bush’s bare electoral-vote majority in 2000."

Politico's political "Juice" rankings 12/19

2007-12-19T22:15:00.000-06:00

Politico's political "Juice" rankings:

1) Hil Clinton --- The frontrunner in the elections, but a very soft frontrunner. SHe doesn't campaign well in close races.
2) Barak Obama --- A blessing from the good witch of Harpo has Obama primed to win Iowa and New Hampshire. If he takes both, edwards supporters (who are strongly anti-hillary, could easily join the swell and overtake Hillary.
3) Mitt Romney --- rising in Iowa lately and may pass the falling Huckabee. Only Huckabee and Romney are considered "politically acceptable" by the confeild faithful.
4) Mayor 9/11 --- Current GOP national frontrunner, but IMO a joke of one. He has no momentum at all. Biden's wicked tongue has ripped the only platform out from the former Mayor of NY; silencing Guilani's 911 mantra and leaving his faithful with no reason to vote for him. I expect a Dean-like implosion after Iowa.
5) Mike Huckabee --- Scandals and general meanness will cut Huckabee with both his conservative faithful and his moderate supporters. He still has little money to campaign beyond Iowa and, as such, remains a longshot in a national race. He has to win Iowa to get the "bounce to relevancy" whereas the filthy rich Romney can take a close second in Iowa and a media fueled win in New Hampshire and become the Rep. frontrunner...unless...
6) The Zombie John McCain --- Simple math. If Mayor 911 slumps following a Romney win in Iowa, Huckabee can't gain momentum outside of the state due to financial limitations, Fred Thompson proves a failed candidate and doesn't break say 10% in Iowa....that is darned near 50% of the republican nomination in play. The Religious Reich consider Mormonism a cult and Rudy G a male Hillary Clinton. If Huckabee and Thompson are proven financially and politically unviable, where else can that support go? Do not be suprised to see a lazarius-style resurrection of John McCain in New Hampshire. The McCain Zombie could come out of nowhere to steal the nomination.
7) John Edwards --- He has to win Iowa to have even a slim shot at this. I cannot see him overcoming Oprah, even with the help of kung fu fighter Chuck Norris. Technically, Edwards is surging, but Obama and Hil have more juice, so it doesn't show. Look for his implosion after Iowa to fuel anti-Clinton Dems joining Obama.
8) Joe Biden -- Biden is surging. Do not be suprised if he finishes 3rd in Iowa. The state has been bombarded with messages for almost a full year. Biden has the advantage of being a known commodity in the state. Logically he will do a little better than he has been polling for that reason. I think that, his strong knowelged of foreigh policy, and his total dismantling of Rudy Guilani might make him the perfect foil/attack dog for an Obama presidency. Peaking at the right time.
9)Richardson --- technically has less support than Thomspon, but is theoretically holding firm in Iowa. I would not be suprised to see him lose about half of his support to Biden on election day though. Biden has been through the state campaigning before. In a way Biden is "family"; That will be a hard pull vs. a guy who is showing no momentum. Still he has to be the front runner to be Hillary's VP.
10) Fred Thompson --- D.O.A. He really hasn't shown anything at all since declaring. He was brought in to be a ringer. His supporters support frontrunners. By the end of the Iowa race, it will be abundantly clear that he is not a frontrunner. His followers will have a choice of being politically irrelevant and letting two reprehensible candidates (romney and Guiliani, in their opinion) vie for the GOP slot or chose a viable 3rd candidate -- McCain or the imploding Huckabee.

Huckabee: Flawed candidate on verge of implosion?

2007-12-19T20:31:00.000-06:00

I have been a watcher of Mike Huckabee and a general fan of him personally, even if his politics fall on the other side of the fence from my normal comfort zone. he seems a fiancial realist and a practical politician.

How about this populist gem from Huckabee?
“Do you realize that if we could increase just by 50 percent the number of adults who have a college degree, it would add $5 billion to the economy and it would result in a net income to the state of Arkansas of $340 million a year?” --- That is someone who financially thinks like I do. Government can invest in its people to a good return.

I have watched him grab ahold of the the Religious Reich and the Gun Nut rank and file (against the wishes of the ruling elite of those political blocks) and turn himself into a legitimate political candidate in Iowa.

He seemed like an honest, straight-forward guy who was religious, but didn't wrap himself in the cloak of moral superiority. He has said some crazy things in currying the gun-nut/rr vote*, but in the primaries you campaing to your base, in the elections you campaign to the middle. I don't hold that agaisnt him, but...

(* "I'm pretty sure there's gonna be duck hunting in heaven... and I can't wait!")

I am inclined to think his metoric rise is over, in spite of him recently adding the excellent Ed Rollins as his campaign manager. I think Huckabee is being outed as a candidate with just as many skeletons in the closet as Mayor 911. When you figure in the fact that Huckabee's base are the folks who's leadership declined to endorse Huckabee to begin with (presumably they saw these skeletons in the closet and decided he was unelectable), it seems likely that he may find a lot of these leaders jumping over to McCain or Romney in the next 2 weeks. It is, afterall, in their interest to say to their consituency, "you backsed the wrong horse this time, stick with me and we will get the right one next time." rather than sitting back and being seem as impotent or irrelevant in this race. Deals will be cut.

Huckabee has shown himeslf to be mean-spirited in the last 45 days or so, he has gone out of his way to be unneccessarily hateful to gays and Mormons. He has moved from being devoutly, and righteously pro-life to dogmatically pro-life. Huckabee's momentum was based on his positive message and his general likeability. He has shown his petty side over the last 3 weeks and has seen a couple of missteps from the past (his AIDS ideas, women's subserviant roles, and the rape scandal) come back to haunt him. His upwards momentum has stalled and his negative numbers have gone way up. That can't be corrected in 3 weeks. I think Huckabee is going to lose Iowa to Romney or McCain and I think he may have also lost out on the VP job if Romney (or perhaps McCain) gets the nod.

--------------

What is the rape issue floating over Huckabee's head?

Well, this is it in a nutshell. I got the story from the McGlocklin group. I make no pronouncements over whether this is a justified criticism or a fair one, but this is it. A rapist in Arkansas was granted an early release. His victim begged the Governor not to allow him to be pardoned. The Governor says he had nothing to do with the pardon and says it was all the parole board, but a member of the parole board has come out and said they pardoned the guy because the governor wanted him pardoned. He put it all on Huckabee.

Anyway, this is where it gets really seedy. The political insiders on the M.G. said there is some thought that the release of this guy may have been a political slap at the Clintons as the victim was a cousin of Bill's.

Anyway this guy got out and raped 2 women and killed them. Their families are mad as hell and will make a world of stink to keep Huckabee out of the presidency.

Now there are scandals and there are SCANDALS. If even half of this is true, Huckabee is going to have a very hard time rallying voters who favor strong sentancing. Republicans don't want to escape the primaries with a lame duck candidate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/04/documents-expose-huckabee_n_75362.html

Huckabee falling back as Romney narrows lead.

2007-12-18T20:29:00.000-06:00

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html

Guiliani, Edwards, Thomspon -- put a fork in them

2007-12-14T09:35:00.000-06:00

I am prononuncing Mayor 911 as D.O.A. effective today. His strategy was to accept a few defeats in the early states comfortable in the knowledge that he would win NY, FL, CA, and do well in most of the states where he has campaigned for most of his supporters. Now it is looking like he may be swept in the early primary states and worst of all he has NO momentum.

He's done kids. This is going to be a Howard Dean-type implosion.

And while I'm at it, put a fork in Fred Thompson and John Edwards as well. Neither candidate has any momentum and both will see their suport vanish overnight after Iowa.

Now that support will redistribute itself in what may seem strange ways. Look for the McCain Zombie to rememege on the republican side and either take New Hampshire or run a strong second as Thompson, (in spite of the dreams of the GOP power brokers) was in essence, a leech of McCain supporters. With his lack of clothes being revealed in Iowa, McCain will probably get a second wind.

Remember kids, hard work does pay off. Look at Uncle John!

Edward's base is the liberal left of the party. They don't like Hillary because they see her for what she is, the left hand of the power elite. They prefer Edwards over Obama, but they are in the 40% of America that doesn't like Hillary. Look for Edwards' support to fall off a cliff after Iowa and Obama to be neck and neck with Hillary. Also don't be suprised to see political Vet Biden take some of the anti-hillary vote and make a strong case to be Biden's VP. Biden can be a very effective attack dog and his knowledge of foreign relations would erase many questions on an Obama ticket. Plus they see to genuinely like each other.

Hurricane Oprah sweeping Obama into office?

2007-12-10T19:17:00.000-06:00

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/09/oprah.obama/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7134895.stm

I think in general terms people don't really get how influential Oprah is. If I could name one person who's political touch could potentially swing an election, it is Oprah. With the right candidate, Winfrey could put them over the top as amuch as any religious powerbroker. Obama might be that candidate.

I say this only partially tongue-in-cheek, but a stirringly heartfelt endorsement like oprah is giving Obama may be second only to an endorsement by Jesus Christ himself.

Hardball political power rankings are just nuts.

2007-11-09T18:13:00.001-06:00

their rankings:

1) Hil Clinton
2) Barak Obama
3) Mayor 9/11
4) John Edwards
5) Mitt Romney
6) John McCain
7) Fred Thompson
8) Mike Huckabee
9) Richardson
10)Biden/Dodd

I can only speculate that they based those rankings off the "candidate vs. candidate" polls --- IMO a very flawed bit of polling as it doesn't take into account the realities of the electoral college. I think you really have to put these candidates in order by political juice --- share of the current audience, how solid it appears to be, and what kind of momentum potential they seem to have.

Politico's political "Juice" rankings:

1) Hil Clinton --- The frontrunner by 7-20% in all primaries.
2) Mitt Romney --- Could double Guliani in Iowa riding it into the GOP frontrunner position.
3) Mayor 9/11 --- Current GOP frontrunner, but IMO a very soft front runner. Under fire from Biden and beset by scandals; could finish 4th in Iowa and implode.
4) Barak Obama --- 20% of the vote is nothing to sneeze at, but has no idea how to attack and opponent. Dead in the water.
5) John McCain --- Everytime I want to throw dirt on McCain's grave he gets another endorsement. If Thompson implodes or quits before the election, the McCain Zombie could come out of nowhere to steal the nomination.
6) Mike Huckabee --- He may be topped out, but 12% is a heck of an accomplishment with no one giving him money. That is a very solid 12%. He owns the religious and gun nut vote.
7) John Edwards --- I do not think he is a real candidate. I think he is campaigning hard, but again the message is good, but I think a lot of people doubt the messenger.
8) Fred Thompson --- Slowly bleeding candidates. I think he has a very soft 17%. He could lose large chunks of his support in the next 2 months as his followers realize he has no forward momentum and they could get squeezed out of the ear of the incoming president.
9) Richardson --- The only reason I don't have richardson 10th is because I have a feeling he has sewn up the VP job for Hillary. His polling numbers have slid as it became apparent to his supporters that he wasn't going to crack the big 3.
10)Biden -- Biden is gaining momentum, but the big 3 are too settled in as frontrunners in the minds of national Dems. I would guess that if they held all of the primaries today he MIGHT finish 4th. There is no question he is miles ahead of Dodd.

Joe Biden for Secretary of State!

2007-11-09T13:25:00.000-06:00

Ok, so my boy Joe Biden is not going to win the election. Check out his interview on the troubles in Pakistan, a nuclear power, and you'll understand why I like the guy for his views on foreign policy.

http://www.joebiden.com/contribution/2?id=0014

zeitgeist movie, very well made, mind-blowing expose' movie

2007-11-09T12:44:00.000-06:00

www.zeitgeistmovie.com

This is an excellent, high quality piece of editorial work that investigates the role of the rich elite in American war efforts and the manipulation of our economy. It also delves into the similarities between religions --- which may or may not interest the readers of this blog --- fast forward through that if it doesn't interest you.

I encourage you to watch the movie critically and draw your own conclusions. There are many compelling arguements made in the movie, but a critical mind will do its own research and make its own determinations.

It is a very well-made documentary with high production values. It is 2 hours long and has a 5 minute introduction to set a very moody tone, so watch it when you have the time and inclination.

from the site:

"Zeitgeist, produced by Peter Joseph, was created as a nonprofit filmiac expression to inspire people to start looking at the world from a more critical perspective and to understand that very often things are not what the population at large think they are. The information in Zeitgeist was established over a year long period of research and the current Source page on this site lists the basic sources used / referenced and the Interactive Transcript includes exact source references and further information.

Now, it's important to point out that there is a tendency to simply disbelieve things that are counter to our understanding, without the necessary research performed. For example, some information contained in Part 1 and Part 3, specifically, is not obtained by simple keyword searches on the Internet. You have to dig deeper. For instance, very often people who look up "Horus" or "The Federal Reserve" on the Internet draw their conclusions from very general or biased sources. Online encyclopedias or text book Encyclopedias often do not contain the information contained in Zeitgeist. However, if one takes the time to read the sources provided, they will find that what is being presented is based on documented evidence. Any corrections, clarifications & further points regarding the film are found on the Clarifications page. Non-Profit DVDs / Free Video Downloads are available through the Downloads page.

That being said, It is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized.

Thank You"

Hillary is in the lead in Iowa; is it time for Edwards to cut a deal?

2007-11-07T13:01:00.000-06:00

Hillary surged up to 30% of the Iowa vote in the latest polls, up from 19.5% in April. Edwards on the other hand has slowly lost momemntum in Iowa, falling from state best high of 31.3% in April down to 19.6%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

It has been said that if Edwards loses Iowa to Hillary, he likely is out of the race nationwide. I agree with that assessement.

What happens then? Is Hillary likely to name him her VP? I would doubt it. Edward's base is not going to vote for a republican and among the Democrats out there they are the most angry with the republicans and their policies. They are going to vote in numbers for the democratic candidate come hell or high water.

Would Obama invite him to be his VP if Obama gets the vote? I happen to think Edwards would be a decent foil, but that Obama would not offer him the position. The body language I have seen between the two suggests to me that Obama despises the guy. My take on it is that Edwards is a political opportunist and Obama hates that.

(Plus, honestly Obama, like Clinton, would have a better chance of getting elected with Governor Richardson as his VP, and he would deliver New Mexico and give Obama a bump with voters in key large swing states with heavy Mexican populations like Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and Florida. Heck, if the GOP runs Guliani --- A NEW YORKER!!! :P --- with a yankee VP, even my home state of Texas that gets out of bed conservative each morning could be in play in that scenario due to Republican apathy.)

Anyway, as it stands Edwards appears to be on his way to falling out of the race in about 2 months.

What if he cuts a deal?

Supposing Edwards backs out of the race and endorses Obama. I recognize that not all of Edward's supporters will jump to Obama, but I suspect most of them will. They are, afterall, in part supporting Edwards because they are dissatisfied with Hillary's conservative, pro-war stance. Hillary has the highest negative rating in the race, Obama among the lowest.

If Edwards dropped out of the race now and endorsed Obama, it is entirely possible that overnight Obama would become the democratic frontrunner nationwide and in Iowa. As the frontrunner, his campaign philosophy works. In a Clinton/Obama dogfight, Clinton is hamstrung. Obama pulls as much or more money than her. She cannot just bury him under ads. In that scenario, she is clearly the establishment vs. the new blood. She is the war candidate vs. the peace candidate. She has to then fight to max out her potential voting block. The problem is that she doesn't fight well --- often becoming quite catty ---which only further adds to her negative rating.

Edwards could re-enter the race as Obama's VP in a marriage of convenience. Edwards as a southern white man, would help make a black candidate tolerable in less progressive states. Or perhaps to further help the odds of success, the deal could be that Edwards would be Obama's high profile secretary of state for the next 4 years allowing Richardson to be VP and allowing Edwards a lot more freedom in gearing up his next presidential run.

...So, will Edwards deal?

The apparent goals of the candidates in the last quarter before primary season

2007-11-07T11:44:00.000-06:00

Democratic Candidates

Candidates:

Joe Biden, U.S. Senator from Delaware - Biden is clearly hoping that Mrs. Clinton spontaneously combusts, because the only way he will be on the democratic ticket in the spring is as the Democratic Nominee or Obama's VP. The odds of either are ridiculously long. all that said, it was a good election race to enter for him IMO. He really blew the races with his off-the-cuff day 1 Obama comment. Quite honestly, If that had not happened and if Elizabeth Edwards (who I think DESERVES to be the first lady through her excellent campaigning) did not have health issues that have bonded a portion of the Dem electorate to her husband, Biden could very well have displaced Edwards as the voice of the left in this race and he might be sitting at 20% and trying to make a move past the limp Obama. Although some of it is his own making, with all respect to Mrs. Edwards, I think Biden has had some crap political luck. I think Biden recognizes that he is too much of a high risk candidate with too little political muscle to be a front runner in the race to be Hillary's VP. He is smartly focusing his attacks on Republican front runner Rudy Guliani. That does two things, 1) It legitimizes the moderate Guliani as the frontrunner 2) It points out his weaknesses just as the primaries are beginning. Large constituencies of the Republican party will bail on a likely loser. Biden's strategy really helps the Democratic candidate's chances long term. Biden is probably angling for the Secretary of State job. It should be noted that Hillary did include him in the piling on ad. A warning to ease up?...

Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator from New York and former First Lady - She spiked in Iowa last week even with her debate trouble. If she wins Iowa, the nomination is hers.

Christopher Dodd, U.S. Senator from Connecticut - He is also a possibility for the Secretary of state job, but would also do well in most cabinet positions. I think he had the same strategy as Biden. It is very difficult for a senator from a small state to make the jump to the presidency.

John Edwards, former U.S. Senator from North Carolina and 2004 Democratic Vice Presidential candidate - He has been a pest to both Obama and CLinton and I think is not in either of their plans. THey both realize that his voters are protest voters who see Obama and Clinton as moderate poseurs and frauds who are not about liberal values. Ultimately his voters will vote Democrat because of a deep hatred of the republican party.

Mike Gravel, former U.S. Senator from Alaska - If this were Survivor, Gravel would have been voted off the island in week one. TO know him as a candidate is to discount or dislike him. It is telling that he has something like 1-3% of the democratic vote and yet his negative rating is not far of hillary's.

Dennis Kucinich, U.S. Representative from Ohio - If only Kucinich was half as hot as his wife. If Kucinich looked like Gary Hart instead of Alfred E. Newman, he would have probably won this nomination. He will get a nice cabinet position under hillary, but if he wants to be a President one day, he needs to do some investing in his physical looks. (I am not hating. American voters are superficial.)He can't do anything about his height, but there are several things he can do. He needs to get his ears done, possibly get braces, to hire a personal trainer, and get a better haircut. His stances are almost as hot as his wife. He just falls short. For America's benefit, I hope he takes the advice.

Barack Obama, U.S. Senator from Illinois - Michelle Obama is the only one on that campaign who "gets it". She said months ago that if they were going to win the election, they had to win Iowa. It appears that they are in the process of losing Iowa. Obama falls in the middleground. He has too much of a shot to take it easy on Hillary in case she falters, but at the same token with each attack falls further out of consideration for the VP spot. I have said this before, Bill Clinton delivers the black vote better than Obama, so why would Hillary need Obama? Barring BIll's health faltering, she doesn't. And why would she reward someone who has been kind of a jerk to her over the Iraq war vote with a cabinet position. IMO, there is no reason for that. He has to attack until the end and hope for a CLinton meltdown.

Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico and former Secretary of Energy - Richardson has been faltering in the polls, but I suspect it is mainly an acknowlegement that he isn't going to pass edwards and become a serious candidate. He has smartly been taking Hillary's defense lately. I have said for months that a Clinton/Richardson ticket is a winning ticket. I think Richardson gets that and is trying to get Hillary on board with it.

Republican Party

Candidates:

Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York City - Mayor 9/11 has about a 5-12 point lead in the national polls over the other republican contenders. In simple terms, he is a soft frontrunner. I think his inexperience in national campaigns is hurting him. He doesn't seem to get how important Iowa will be in this election. Romney has a real shot of doubling him in Iowa. Guiliani might finish 4th there. That will cause some re-evaluaion. I do not expect a Dean-like implosion, but it is VERY possible.

Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas - Huckabee has had to talk crazy to land the gun and religious nut vote, but he has done it. In spite leaders in those movement's desires to endorse "serious" candidates, huckabee has wooed the rank and file. He has IMO moved to the head of the list of vice presidential candidates.

Duncan Hunter, U.S. Representative from California - In terms of the race, he should have dropped out months ago. He seems an angry crazy man and I am glad THompson is running to block him from any serious impact on this race.

Alan Keyes, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council - Sigh. You know what role he plays in the Republican Party. Not worth dwelling on.

John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona - McCain dug his own hole by embracing Iraq and trying to push through that fiercely unpopular immigration legislation. He has no one to blame but himself. Bush fucked him in 2000 and in return McCain had Bush's back on the war and immigration in 2007? WTF!?!?!? You don't cost yourself an election propping up the current president. AMerican Hero. Man of honor. Sadly, I have to pronounce him an idiot when it comes to running a presidential campaign. As a VP, I think he is a high risk as Biden is for the Dems as a VP. McCain is done as a mover and shaker in the Republican Party and may want to seriously consider jumping to the Dems in a year or so.

Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas and 1988 Libertarian Presidential nominee - The Republican version of Gravel.

Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts - Romney really needs to start his media blitz in the other early primary states now. Project Iowa has gone swimmingly, but once you study Romney's history, you understand why. Guy is a top notch executive.

Tom Tancredo, U.S. Representative from Colorado - He needed to get out of the race yesterday. I think Tancredo is too much of a centralist to fit into today's Republican Party. I think if he had come out stronger against the war at the opening of the campaign season he might have gotten a bounce to relevence on his immigration stance, but as it is now he seems to just be upsetting the republican base. He has very high negative numbers. I think he'd do best to get out of the race now rather than trying to attack Hillary. Everyone does that. It won't give him the bump that Biden is getting in people's minds. (I do recognize that Biden isn't getting a push in the polls, but I think both the Dem candidates and the Dem voters think positively about him.) Tancredo should seriously consider jumping to the Dems. He is young enough to be a strong Presidential candidate in future elections, but there is a strong body of evidence that the GOP has no place for him in that position.

Fred Thompson, former U.S. Senator from Tennessee - I said that Fred want to lose this primary and I think his recent joking with a reporter about how he doesn't think he will win speaks volumes. He wants to get back to his retirement.

Debate Fallout: Round Two for Clinton by wonkette

2007-11-06T11:34:00.000-06:00

http://wonkette.com/politics/debate-fallout/round-two-for-clinton-317619.php

Debate Fallout: Round Two for Clinton
by Wonkette

In a matter of 24 hours, Sen. Hillary Clinton went from referring to her presidency as done deal to acting like the victim of a schoolyard beat down. She’s kept a low profile since Tuesday night’s trouncing in the debates, where even her closest allies and advisers said she dropped the ball (“As someone who loves her,” said former Clinton adviser James Carville. “This was not her best performance.”). As she regrouped, Clinton went on the offensive (or defensive?) producing a video titled “The Politics of Pile-On.” And honestly, it just doesn’t work.
Clinton Regroups As Rivals Pounce [WP]
The Politics of Pile-On [YouTube]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zk16oxb4Ck4

In the surface, it appears that this is about liberal crybabies in the Hillary camp putting out something to point out that Hillary is being treated unfairly by the other candidates -- the men in this race -- and maybe that was their goal, but I'd argue the end result is something entirely different than what Wonkette sees.

By putting this out, the Clinton Camp has changed the debate from being about hillary being a flip-flopper to be being about Hillary playing the "victim" card.

Frankly that change in focus has snuffed out much of the momentum that debate COULD have generated. By putting Hillary back under critique by Fox News over playing the victim card, Fox News has in essence normalized Hillary's realtionship with America.

Fox News has been routinely attacking hillary over playing the victim card when she hasn't, so now that her camp actually HAS played it, their criticism lacks teeth. They have, in effect, cried wolf too many times.

I think Hillary has essentially played this get out of jail free card to get out of her debate faux pas. She can't use this one again, but there are other criticisms Fox News has put against her that she can use in the future.

At this point, barring a SERIES of gaffes of equal measure, I am about 99% sure she will win the Democratic nomination.

The Iowa Primary: polling result update.

2007-11-05T09:31:00.000-06:00

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

clinton pulling away in Iowa after debate trouble? --- More proof that debates don't give rise to instant momentum, more that they only open the door to new strategies. Neither Obama or Edwards really are applying new strategies, so they won't win.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html

Romney maintains commanding lead in Iowa, Huckabee destined to hold on to second?

Hillary weathers "driver's license" storm? It appears so...

2007-11-04T11:03:00.000-06:00

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/weekly_presidential_tracking_polling_history

The new national polls are out.

10/28/07 (before Hillary's debate debacle)

Clinton - 44% (down 2% from the polls on the 15th and 22nd)
Obama - 20% (down 4% from the poll on the 22nd)
Edwards - 14%(up 3% from the polls on the 15th and 22nd)

11/4/07 (after the debate debacle)

Clinton - 42% (down 2%)
Obama - 22% (up 2%)
Edwards - 12% (down 2%)

When you consider the margin of error, it appears that -- like most debates -- this debate had little to no immediate affect. Debates can have long term effects though by introducing concepts that can be played out over time. It appears to me that this will most likely hurt hillary in the general election by opening the door to "flip-flopper" criticisms.

I think ultimately, the democratic feild has made up it's mind on the top 3 for now. Movement is only going to come if Edwards or Obama run away with Iowa and force a reconsideration.

On the republican side, Huckabee and Romney continue to chip away at Thompson and Guliani. I am not prepared to crown Romney the front-runner yet, but I think if Guliani's numbers stay floating in the 23-25% range he will be in real trouble after Romney destroys him in Iowa. There will be a reconsideration there.

10/28/07

Guliani -21% (down from 29% on the 15th and 25% on the 22nd)
Thompson - 18% (down from 19% on the 22nd)
Romney - 12% (down from 15% on the 22nd)
McCain - 14% (up from 12% on the 22nd)
Huckabee - 12% (up from 8% on the 22nd)

11/4/07
Guliani -23% (up 2%)
Thompson - 17% (down 1%)
Romney - 13% (up 1%)
McCain - 13% (down 1%)
Huckabee - 12% (no change)

I think Guiliani and Huckabee are moving and everyone else is more or less staying in place. I think Huckabee has taken a jump in Republican voter's minds to "serious candidate and IMO the front runner to be vice president. I think all 5 candidates had a solid core of 10-15% of the republican voters who love them and the rest are people leaning their way. Guliani should be considered the frontrunner, but this race will be a dogfight.

"Border control Nazi" Lou Dobbs weighs in

2007-11-03T09:47:00.000-06:00

For those of you who don't know Lou Dobbs, he is an economist who interprets the news in economic terms on his show on CNN. He is a little full of himself, IMO, but the man is clearly a patriot who says things because he believes they are in the best interest of America. Unlike other editorialists on TV, he is not a political shill for one of the parties.

He is against NAFTA and open borders because they drop the effective wages of the middle and lower classes --- the majority of America --- and contribute to an eventual loss of national identity and autonomy. If our borders with Canada and Mexico are slowly being dissolved, how can we efficiently make the financial corrections to the US economy that history has shown us we have to make from time to time?

Anyway, illegal immegration is his hot button and the idea of NY giving driver's licenses (a legal document) to illegal immegrants sets him on fire, so it is no suprise that he would be one of Hillary Clinton (and the Democrats) harshest critics on these issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3AUf7zUP00

The wolves are out on Hillary

2007-11-01T11:35:00.000-06:00

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6634.html

"Obama, Edwards attack; Clinton bombs debate
By: Roger Simon
Oct 31, 2007 06:02 AM EST

PHILADELPHIA — We now know something that we did not know before: When Hillary Clinton has a bad night, she really has a bad night.

In a debate against six Democratic opponents at Drexel University here Tuesday, Clinton gave the worst performance of her entire campaign.

It was not just that her answer about whether illegal immigrants should be issued driver's licenses was at best incomprehensible and at worst misleading.

It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.

And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says.

And she gave them plenty of ammunition Tuesday night.

Asked whether she still agrees with New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, Clinton launched into a long, complicated defense of it.

But when Chris Dodd attacked the idea a moment later, Clinton quickly said: “I did not say that it should be done.”

NBC’s Tim Russert, one of the debate moderators, jumped in and said to her: “You told (a) New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?”

”You know, Tim,” Clinton replied, “this is where everybody plays ‘gotcha.’”

John Edwards immediately went for the jugular. “Unless I missed something,” he said, “Sen. Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes. America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them.”

Barack Obama added: “I was confused [by] Sen. Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it. One of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face.”

Earlier, when Clinton was asked whether she had made one statement on Social Security publicly and a conflicting answer privately, she ducked the question, saying she believed in “fiscal responsibility.”

And when Russert asked her if she would make public certain communications between herself and President Clinton when she was first lady, she responded weakly: “Well, that’s not my decision to make.”

Perhaps just as bad was her general tone and demeanor. All of her opponents seemed passionate about one issue or another. But Clinton seemed largely emotionless and detached, often just mouthing rehearsed answers from her briefing book.

True, she was relentlessly attacked all night. But she can’t claim that she was stabbed in the back. She was stabbed in the front.

“Who is honest? Who is sincere? Who has integrity?” Edwards asked and then provided the answer: Not Hillary.

“She has not been truthful and clear,” Obama said at one point.

Hillary Clinton will certainly live to fight another day. She still has a huge lead in the national polls, a good staff and a ton of money.

But, in the past, Clinton could always depend on her opponents to lose these debates. All she had to do was stay above the fray to win.

Those days seem to be over."

RIchardson defends Clinton; 1st step to Vice Presidency?

2007-11-01T10:01:00.000-06:00

http://haussamen.blogspot.com/2007/10/guv-defends-clinton-as-his-poll-numbers.html

"Guv defends Clinton as his poll numbers drop
by Heath Haussamen

The bad news continues for Gov. Bill Richardson’s presidential campaign. I wrote on Monday about his decline in the polls. Today, three new polls further confirm his sinking support.

To top it off, the National Journal has moved Richardson from fourth in its rankings among Democratic presidential contenders to sixth. In addition to being behind Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, he’s now also ranked by the publication behind Chris Dodd and Joe Biden.

“The issue we have with Richardson is that he’s a terrible liberal; it’s not in the guy’s DNA,” the National Journal states. “He’s trying to become the anti-war candidate but doesn’t seem like a credible messenger.”

Three American Research Group polls released today have Richardson at 7 percent in Iowa, 5 percent in New Hampshire and 1 percent in South Carolina. All three are drops from the group’s September polls. Meanwhile, Biden has climbed to 5 percent in Iowa, 4 percent in New Hampshire and 6 percent in South Carolina in the new polls.

In the face of all the bad news, Richardson came to Clinton’s defense today, saying he regrets the “negative tone” Obama and Edwards have taken in accusing her of being too close to lobbyists, according to the Associated Press.

“I think that Senators Obama and Edwards should concentrate on the issues and not on attacking Senator Clinton,” the news service quoted Richardson as saying. “It’s OK to get aggressive on the issues, but to make personal attacks on somebody’s attachments to lobbyists, that’s not the kind of positive tone I want to see.”

Richardson – a guy who has accused all three frontrunners in recent months of deceiving the American people with their Iraq plans – also predicted he’ll win the nomination because he’s running a positive campaign.

But his defense of Clinton is raising eyebrows in part because it comes on the same day that Clinton, on her campaign’s official news Web site, took the unusual step of putting up video of and information about the attacks by Obama and Edwards. Clinton also included a link to a news release from her campaign that essentially says she’s being unfairly attacked.

Richardson and Clinton defending Clinton from attacks on the same day? While Richardson is sinking in the polls? What does it mean?

Maybe nothing. Maybe much more than that. It will be interesting to see whether the two are chummy at tonight’s debate."

I think a lot of politicians see the writing on the wall. As of today, I think the movement and tactics of the various politicans say a lot about how they perceive their chances.

Hillary Clinton debate gaffe video

2007-11-01T09:32:00.000-06:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B0uHybfmmY

-----------------------------------------------------

Above is the video that shows clinton struggling with whether she supports the legislation the Governor of NY has proposed that would grant illegal immigrants driver's licenses.

I personally feel that she did bungle the answer by not answering it in politico speech, but that the answer DOES actually make sense. She is IMO not being treated fairly as a candidate on this, but that is life in the fast lane when you are the presidential front runner.

She clearly states in her inital attempt to answer the question that the issue is a failing of national policy, closing with the statements "No state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immegration reform." The words "well intentioned" clearly betray simpathy to the writers of that legislation and also a belief that it in spite of their efforts it may not be an ideal law conceptually.

That is a point that is not reported in any of the accounts. Why is that? Well, in part, because the media is always looking for something to bring in reader and viewers and reporting it in the stilted fashion that they did, did bring in more viewers. Additionally, Clinton and the media have an adversial relationship dating back to her first Health Care legislative effort. When Clinton went back and said the line about "gotcha" it was stating that the media would take this out of context as they would finally have something on her. That does presuppose a lack of professionalism. It should come as little suprise that was what was delivered.

The correct answer IMO would have been to challenge the initial loaded question. (And by loaded, I do not fault Tim Russert. A loaded question is a fair tool for a debate because every candidate will voice an opinion from time to time that they might want back. A loaded question often digs up these statements and forces a candidate to weigh their answer. The question is a fair one for a reporter to ask of a candidate.)

Tim Russert: "Senator Clinton, Governor of NY Elliott Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immegrants, you told the national new hampshire editorial board 'it makes a lot of sense', why does it 'make a lot of sense' to give an illegal immegrant a driver's license?"

IMO the correct answer: "Tim, that is taken out of context. The truth is the National government has failed the state governments by failing to enact a coherent and sensible immigration policy. This puts our states in the awkward situation of having to write laws to cover issues that come out of that. Gov. Spitzer is doing his best to address the immediate concerns of New Yorkers because the national Government under Bush has failed to address the issue in a sensible fashion. It would be irresponsible for him not to try to come up with a stopgap solution to protect NY citizens. If I am elected we will have that coherent national immegration policy and we will free the states from having to take action on immigration law."

That's probably a 60 second answer for a supposed 30 second slot, but she took about 50 seconds anyway.

Hillary was not sharp, she spent about 15 seconds of her time revealing that we have illegal immegrants. You have to get into the meat of a question like that a lot quicker. Additionally, she attempted to back up the Governor's policy on this and took a big hit over it. She should not have backed the policy as it is halfbaked liberal garbage. She should have backed the man instead, by bemoaning the fact that he is being forced to write halfbaked liberal garbage to offer a minimum of protetction for his citzens to cover the failings of the Bush administration.

Ultimately her defense of the governor's policies cost her. Maybe he will help her land NY and the surrounding states in the election. He clearly owes her. Time will tell if this worked out for her, but for now we all want to know if this is the gaffe that drops her back into a real race with Obama and Edwards.

Who should each candidate chose as their running mate?

2007-10-23T11:45:00.000-06:00

If Guilani is the Republican candidate:

He is weak with the religous groups.
He has a scandal waiting to break that will make voter's question his thoroughness.
As a New Yorker, he will be a weak conservative in the south.
While he has name recognition, he doesn't have enough of the republican groups buying into him to win an election. If those outside his supporters are not motivated to vote or worse yet, splinter and deft to clinton who they see as MORE CONSERVATE!!! he could lose in a landslide. His choice of running mate is crucial.

If Clinton is the Democratic candidate:

She had the highest negative opinion rating in the election in the early days of the race.
She is seen as a pant-suit wearing, feminazi ball-breaker who looks down on housewives. (If I ran her campaign she'd be weaing dresses almost every day from here on out and the media would "luck on to" Chelsea getting a carepackage in the mail of cookies baked by mom.)
Her "inner harpy" emerges in close races.
She is capable of rallying the Republican regligious faithful against her if she pushes too many liberal agendas in the campaign.
She should do well in Kerry's states and might be somewhat strong in the mid-continent corridor (Arkansas, Missouri).
She might be able to pull +5-10% of the voting populace on their "chance to be a part of history".

Clinton Vs. Guiliani

Clinton's running mates:
1) Richardson - The governor of New Mexico would be an ideal running mate for Clinton. Like Clinton, Richardson will draw votes because of his unique status --- a Mexican American. Mexican Americans are, to some degree, a tough sell as voters. They have not committed to a party. They generally vote as a block on issues or local candidates, but rarely national ones and often don't vote at all. But they haven't been offered a Mexican candidate at this level. If they have a chance to vote for a Mexican VP though, IMO they will organize and vote in blocks. Politics aside, he could be good for a gain of +3-5% nationwide just on his status as a Mexican American. That would be enough to swing states that could go either way and more importantly really helps in large states with large mexican populations that can singlehandedly decide the election --- Florida and Ohio. He would deliver New Mexico and might deliver a state or more in the southwest. Great resume. Grateful to President Bill Clinton for his career. Good team player. Delivers exceptional political value. An optimal VP choice. I don't this ticket losing barring a major Hillary gaffe.

2) Obama - I don't know campaign finance law, but if Hillary can take in Obama's money, it might be worthwhile to bring him in as a VP candidate so you can advertise more, but if I were advising Hillary, I would tell her not to do it. Bill Clinton delivers the black vote better than Obama can. Obama would be an anchor dragging her down in the deep south and would kill any push she has in Arkansas and Missouri. Obama can only deliver states Hillary already has.

3) Edwards - Once the Primaries are over, the motivated liberal base will flock to whoever wins the nomination. Right now that is edward's core. In that respect he doesn't really give Hillary a bounce from his current constituency --- those people were definitely going to vote and were definitely voting for Democrat. That said, Edwards might help Clinton in smaller southeastern states by recruiting new voters. He'd help in Arkansas and possibly Missouri. With Rudy being a true yankee, an Edwards Vice Presidency might swing southern independents to clinton. That said, most beleive this election is about change. Thowing out Kerry's failed VP says "business as usual". Additionally, while it isn't a given, Edwards might pull Hillary too far left. Could be a workable VP candidate, but far from optimal.

4) Biden - I think with more face time, Biden would sell well in all regions -- even if he is a northeasterner. He is very personable and seems to carry himself with the dignity of a president or vice president. That said, he doesn't deliver any state Hillary isn't already favored to win and he does have a knack for putting his foot in his mouth every 3-4 months. The risk to reward measure is just not there.

Guiliani's running mates vs. Hillary
1)Gingrich - Gingrich would solidify Guliani in the midwest and south by roping in corporate and christian conservatives, but would cost Rudy on the west coast. Loyalty means a ton to corporate and christian conservatives and they have a ton of loyalty to Gingrich. Gingrich might be able to sell them Guilini based on Rudy's loyalty to the party as well. That would be a winning continuation of RudyG's recent "you have noting to fear from me" speil. Gingrich would be a combination of Dick Cheyene and Bush political mastermind Karl Rove. He would be a ruthless and brilliant pit bull in attacking Hillary. (On the flip side, telling America, "if you vote Guliani you are a heartbeat away from having Newt Gingrich as President" is a chilling thought to most of America, but come on --- these are the Democrats. They probably wouldn't think of that, and if they did, would not have a clue how to get that concept out there without shooting themselves in the butt.) The Guliani/Gingrich team would once more divide America decisively red and blue and that alone might be enough vs. a candidate with high negative numbers --- especially if she choses a bad VP.

2) Huckabee - Huckabee is coming on strongly and the religous rank and file adore him. He would dramatically strengthen Guliani accross all states, especially the deep south. He is a very clever and personable guy who can be an attack dog and slip the return fire. He again makes the election quite similar to the last one in how the states would likely fall.

3) Romney - not a good choice. That would be two guys who are very recent and dubious converts to conservative beleifs. Additionally, I think he makes a good presidential candidate, but would be a poor Hillary attack dog --- what Rudy needs from his VP.

4) Tancredo - I don't think he helps deliver the corporate or christian conservative.

5) Paul - I think he is a freak and may be unyokable, but he could be a workable VP.

"Flip-flopper" concept kills Thomspon; Romney wins straw poll at Values Voters Summit

2007-10-23T09:46:00.000-06:00

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/20/romney.values/

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney narrowly won a straw poll of mostly Christian conservative voters at the Family Research Council's Values Voters Summit held this weekend in the nation's capital.

The former Massachusetts governor won almost 28 percent of the 5,776 votes cast, edging out former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who finished 30 votes behind him.

"The vote is a validation of Governor Romney's core message to grass-roots Republican activists," Romney campaign spokesman Kevin Madden said at the close of the two-day conference.

"His is a campaign built on the important issues of national security, economic security and stronger families."

Texas Rep. Ron Paul finished in third place, with 15 percent of the vote, and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson finished in fourth place with 10 percent.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani finished with 107 votes, just under 2 percent of all ballots cast, and Arizona Sen. John McCain was just behind Giuliani, with 81 votes.

"It's hard to gauge how big a victory this is for Romney because we're not entirely sure whether these voters represent the larger Christian conservative constituency," CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider said.

"Romney won the Ames, Iowa, straw poll in August by spending a lot of money. We don't know how much of an organizational effort was behind this victory," he said.

"Romney's true acceptability to Christian conservatives will not become clear until we see how he does in January in the Iowa Republican caucuses and the South Carolina Republican Primary.

"But the results suggest that being a Mormon may be a barrier for winning the support of Christian conservatives," Schneider said.

A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows that Americans' attitudes toward Mormonism appear to be changing.

Half of those surveyed last weekend considered Mormons Christian, up from 34 percent last year.

Far fewer people voted in person at the conference than participated online or by mail.

Huckabee was the clear winner of the in-person balloting, with 488 of the 952 votes. Romney was second with 99 on-site votes.

Only members of the council's political arm could vote.

During the voting period, which began in August, the conservative organization saw its membership increase from about 5,000 members to 8,500, said Tony Perkins, council president.

"The straw vote is a setback for Fred Thompson, a Southerner who is trying to lock up the conservative wing of the party. Thompson's 10 percent is an embarrassingly weak showing," Schneider said.

But Thompson's spokeswoman saw the results in a different light.

"Fred Thompson was happy to have received an enthusiastic response and standing ovation from attendees at the Values Voters Summit," Karen Hanretty said.

"While it's easy for a candidate to buy votes in an unscientific straw poll, what matters more is that Christian conservative voters favor Fred over the other candidates, as evidenced in a recent CBS poll," she said.

Powerful voting bloc

Christian conservatives carry a lot of clout within the Republican Party.

They vote in great numbers in the Republican primaries, especially in the crucial early presidential contest states of Iowa and South Carolina. That's one reason all of the GOP presidential candidates came to Washington to court their vote.

Coming into the Values Voters Summit, Christian conservatives appeared to have problems with all of the top-tier GOP White House hopefuls.

The front-runner in the national polls, thrice-married Giuliani, supports the legal right to an abortion.

Romney -- the leader in Iowa and New Hampshire, which will hold the first primary -- supported the legal right to abortions before changing his stance.

His Mormon faith may be a problem for some values voters.

Thompson -- who is second in most national polls -- is against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He believes the states should decide. Some top Christian conservative leaders have questioned Thompson's commitment to their core issues.

McCain also opposes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and he's had a rocky relationship over the years with Christian conservative leaders.

Huckabee could be considered the ideal candidate for evangelical voters -- he's the only minister.

But he's not well known, and regardless of his strong performances in the Republican presidential debates so far this year, few think he has a shot at winning the GOP nomination.

The other presidential hopeful who also saw eye-to-eye with the religious right is no longer a candidate. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas dropped out of the race for the White House on Friday due to a lack of campaign cash.

While Giuliani received only polite applause from the audience after his comments, Huckabee won several ovations.

The former Baptist preacher called legalized abortion a "holocaust."

"Sometimes we talk about why we're importing so many people in our work force," he said.

"It might be for the last 35 years, we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our work force had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortion under a flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1973."

Huckabee also spoke adamantly of the need for conservative lawmakers to show no compromise on fighting for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

"I'm very tired of hearing people who are unwilling to change the Constitution, but seem more than willing to change the holy word of God as it relates to the definition of marriage," he said."

--------------------------------------------------------------

A lot of interesting stuff happened at the Values Voters Summit. People inside the building voted overwhelmingly for Huckabee after hearing him speak, while internet voters voted for Romney. What does that mean?

IMO, it means the plain spoken Huckabee has resonance with values voters, even if the leaders or the Religious Reich do not feel he is a sexy enough candidate and as such are not prepared to endorse him.

It should trouble all of the other republican candidates, because if you look at the polls, the ONLY republican who appears to be surging is Huckabee. To me, it appears that the religious vote is starting to accept the candidates in the race, even if their leadership only last month suggested that none of the candidates were up to snuff.

The individual rank and file of the religious right see a 2 horse race: Romney and Huckabee. That says a LOT.

It suggests that Romney's message is speading, seeping out of Iowa. Voters may not know point for point what his stances are, but they know that everytime they hear about him, he is being knocked because he is saying what conservatives want to hear. Conservatives gravitate to politicians who are under media seige for spouting conservative rhetoric.

This is a textbook case of how to leverage an early primary properly. People in Iowa are probably sick of hearing what he thinks, but the fact is it has been national news for 4 months that Romney is destroying the feild in Iowa. That makes people think, "Hey this guy is campaigning mostly in Iowa and the conservatives out there LOVE him over the feild. He must be the real deal."

If you can create that kind of assumption, you can leverage an early primary win into a national movement.

Romney's internet values voters suggests that IF he wins big in Iowa, he will almost certainly get the "bounce to relevancy" I have mentioned before. Internet voters are younger and read a lot on line. Their overwhelming selection of Romney seems like of the big three Republicans (Guliani,Thompson, and Romney) in their mind Romney is the hands down choice. The internet crowd seems to be a little ahead of the game in revealing new trends, I don't think politics is an exception.

This spells HUGE trouble for Fred Thompson, who looks like like a legless duck today. Thompson was the guy the corporate tax evaders' power brokers sold the religious conservative power brokers on early in the race. The plan was for Thompson to pull both audiences and TV fans and garner about 35-40% of the vote to secure the nomination, but IMO Thompson waited far too long to get into the race --- making the republican base question his resolve (they hate flip-floppers, remember?*) --- and on top of that, he failed his interview with the leaders of the Religious Reich.

* I think this is a real gem of a factoid in this election. The corporate tax evaders are the real power in the republican party, even though the Evangelicals get the credit. The facts are, the Evangelical base is the tail of the party, not the dog. They are a willing and useful tool. The Coporations have their agenda. The Corporations select candidates that support their policies and are controllable.

The Corporations wanted a candidate who would do what they wanted. They considered Romney and Huckabee long shots and too likely to raise taxes if the good of the country depended on it (ie. liberal). They liked McCain's voting record overall, but considered McCain too much of an unpredictable and uncontrollable maverick.

I think as a whole they question the electablity of Guliani --- Is Guiliani's lack of care in directing the citizenry of NYC into moving back into areas poisoned by the toxic fallout from the collapse of the twin tower --- an act that has lead to many deaths --- what amounts to a crippling scandal waiting to break and crush his candidacy? Even if he survives that, will the Mayor of New York motivate residents in Oklahoma to vote? Will religous voters even show up if the choice is Guliani vs. Clinton? Or will they put a 3rd party candidate out there who will further hurt Guiliani's chances by forcing the issue at the polls.

So they dug Fred Thomspon out of his political grave telling him the nomination was his to collect. Thompson, who's voting record reportedly almost identically mirrors McCain's, recinded his support for McCain (effectively killing McCain's front runner status and reducing McCain to a darkhorse candidate) and promptly publically mulled running. Thompson took his recruiter's words to heart and didn't bother to even announce his candidacy officially for months on end. As he hemmed and hawwed about when to accept his Presidential rubber stamp, the republican voters on the fringes of the various groups within the party looked at him and subconsciously categorized him. They knew smarter people who ran the republican Party who had warned them in 2004 about voting for a candidate who lacked consistency. There was a word for that... a "Flip-flopper".

And the people who came up with that strategy? Not the religous right --- they aren't politically savy --- The Corporate Tax Evaders.

So now, with the election looming, the Corporate Tax Evaders find themselves riding a dead horse. They have sunk a lot of money into Thompson that looks like lost money. They have killed McCain as a viable candidate. I am sure they'd love a do-over today. (If you add McCain and Thompson's numbers together you probably have McCain's numbers in a race without Thompson.)

Looking at this as a business decision, their best bet may be to find a viable candidate and cut a deal with him. They promise to usher Thompson out of the race and throw their support behind the new candidate in time for the primaries and in return they get a choice seat at the white house table.

The problem is Thompson is fueled by honeriness. If they support him with kind words he will continue to laze about and lose the election. If his supporters bail on him and try to get him out of the race, Thompson would essentially lose face. He would prove correct everyone who questioned his heart and he would piss off his power- and fame-hungry trophy wife who(IMO) appears to despirately want to be the first lady. If put into that position, his wife will insist he resist and Thompson might campaign a lot harder and smarter. A motivated abandoned Thompson might actually pull this out, which would again put the corporate power brokers on the outside looking in.

(My personal opinion is Thomspson is an old man who just wants to be married to his trophy wife, father to his kids, and an actor. The Presidency sounded like a hassel but it was something he was willing to pursue for his wife when it was going to be given to him, but --- admittedly looking from the outside --- I suspect the campaign has quickly ruined his percieved quality of life and become an issue in his marriage. I think he wants out, but the only way he can get out of this quickly and back to his comfortable life with his marriage intact is to come in 2nd or 3rd in the primaries. And that is why you have a lackluster Fred.)

It is a funny little trap for themselves the corporations have made of the republican primaries. It seems clear if Thompson doesn't win the nomination, they are going to have to pony up a LOT of money next year to get the nominee to forget their dismissiveness in the early days of the race. If they lose the primaries you might see a real splinterring of that group, with certain parts of that group throwing most of their money to the Dems --- joining the stockbrokers in trading large campaign contributions to the Clintons for the creation and protection of promised tax loopholes.

"It Takes an Agenda: Conservatives cannot live by Hillary-hate alone" by David Weigel

2007-10-23T09:04:00.000-06:00

http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_10_22/cover.html

"October 22, 2007 Issue
Copyright © 2007 The American Conservative

"It Takes an Agenda: Conservatives cannot live by Hillary-hate alone" by David Weigel

It’s a balmy, beer-drinking evening in the middle of August, and the conservatives trickling in to a meeting of the Robert A. Taft Club can’t enjoy it. They’re mostly under-30 Washington professionals, and they’re fed up with the Republican Party. They think George W. Bush’s bumbling and ideological hat-trading have reduced the conservative movement to a pitiable, piddling state. If Karl Rove stepped inside, he’d come out looking like Oscar de la Hoya after a bout gone wrong.

They settle into a debate about the future of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Panelists take turns whipping the party for its sins. “We beat them on immigration,” says Richard Viguerie, the direct-mail pioneer, “but right now, we just don’t have the strength or the resources to affect public policy the way we want to.” He beseeches the crowd to help save the movement, but that gets a muted reaction. So he steps it up: “I still think that in the short term, as many problems as we have right now, Hillary Clinton can bring conservatives back together.”

The name does the trick: soft laughter moves around the room. Keeping Hillary out of the White House is literally the only motivation some conservatives have to pull the Republican lever in 2008, especially if their party nominates a pro-choice candidate for the first time since 1976. “Just enough people might go to the polls next November nursing one conviction that trumps all others,” Terence Jeffrey wrote a few weeks after the panel (which he also appeared on). “There’s no way they would vote for Hillary Clinton.” Fred Barnes, the Weekly Standard executive editor and a sturdy weathervane for Republican popular opinion, expressed the same thing in a late-September column: “Nearly all Republicans, plus a lot of independents, rally around the need to defeat Senator Hillary Clinton and keep her away from the presidency. So it follows, not entirely logically, that they wish for her to win the Democratic nomination.”

Is this wishful thinking from a party and a movement on the ropes? Not according to pollsters. There are voters who have given up on the GOP over the last few years and utterly loathe the Clintons in general or Hillary in particular. Americans are aching to vote Democratic, and polls that test a generic Republican candidate against a generic Democrat give Clinton’s party a double-digit lead. But their enthusiasm flags when they ponder the flesh-and-blood Democratic frontrunner. Pollster Scott Rasmussen points out that at least 45 percent of Americans don’t like Clinton personally. She simply rubs them the wrong way—in every way. Despite that generic lead, she only ties or narrowly outpaces Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and John McCain.

“Of the top three Democratic candidates, she’s absolutely the weakest in the general election,” Rasmussen says. “Hillary is a unifying factor for Republicans, and Republicans aren’t otherwise unified. If Hillary is the nominee, this is a competitive race.”

But see if you can spot the problem. Conservatives are fraught, angry at their traditional party, unable to decide on a standard-bearer, unsure even what they stand for. They don’t think this is the year to sort those problems out. They’re counting on a short-cut when the Democrats nominate an unelectable cold fish who has infuriated the Right for a decade and a half. Millions remember how they felt when she belittled other wives for “staying home and baking cookies,” and Bill Clinton promised voters “two for the price of one” if they sent his family to the White House.

On the Right, the list of grievances was even longer. Both Clintons were seen as ambassadors of 1960s radicalism and cultural decadence, and Hillary was the worse of the two: a pro-choice feminist who didn’t take her husband’s name until pollsters told her it would help him make a political comeback.

Yet for all of that outrage, Republicans lost that election to the Clintons. And the hope that voters will see what they see and reject what the Clintons stand for resembles the plan Democrats clung to in 2004. They choose John Kerry on the theory he would be the least controversial general-election candidate, then counted on an electorate fed up with George W. Bush to deliver the election.

In the nearly three years since, Hillary has been the de facto Democratic candidate. The Right’s efforts to attack her have fallen completely, pathetically flat. Her popularity is low, but not much lower than Bush’s was in 2004. If the linchpin of a 2008 campaign is unifying Republicans in the cause of defeating Hillary, it might be enough to stitch together most of the conservative movement—but not enough to win.

Compare the efforts of 2007 to the efforts of 1999 and 2000. After First Lady Hillary Clinton started seeking a Senate seat, Republican donors practically sprained their wrists signing checks. Rudy Giuliani, a social liberal whom Republicans weren’t as comfortable with then as now, raised more than $20 million. When Giuliani left the race, Rep. Rick Lazio raised $4.5 million in six weeks.

That wasn’t the limit of the Hillary effect. The National Republican Senatorial Committee saw its donations surge when it asked supporters to banish the Clintons from Washington once and for all. By the middle of 2000, the committee raised $20 million, twice as much as it had raised in 1998 and triple what it raised in 1996. “She’s now the Republican Party’s No. 1 fundraiser,” said a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee to a reporter from The Hill.

It was a simpler time. This past July, the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent out a “quiz” to donors that warned, “Hillary Clinton is calling Senate Democrats to push a passage of measures to institute government-run healthcare.” Imagine, a President Hillary Clinton with a massive Senate majority to do her bidding! But appeals like that have done nothing for the NRSC: their Democratic counterparts have out-raised them by $34.1 to $18.1 million. The month of the quiz letter, the Democrats beat them by $2.7 to $2.2 million.

It’s the same story in the presidential race. Since the start of the year, the nine remaining Republican candidates have raised about $104 million. The Democrats, including Clinton, have raised $144.3 million. When John McCain campaign manager Rick Davis sent out an 11th-hour fundraising e-mail, he played what he thought was his strongest card: “There are many reasons to support John McCain, but as we approach this quarter’s fundraising deadline Saturday at midnight, let me remind you of just one of them: John McCain is the only candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton.” That was the prelude to a weak finance report and a staff purge that completed McCain’s descent to hobbled dark horse.

And those efforts have been absolute triumphs compared to the third-party anti-Hillary efforts and PACs. The first sign that conservative donors were growing less animated about the Clintons was the launch of Stop Her Now in February 2005. Republican strategist Arthur Finkelstein planned on raising $10 million for a campaign along the lines of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the 2004 group that raised $27 million to attack John Kerry’s Vietnam service and his homeland antiwar activism.

Finkelstein failed. The group recorded a radio ad that was never broadcast and from its founding through June 2005, reported only one $500 donation. Over the next year, Clinton glided to her Senate re-election as the group raised only $25,000, and she out-raised her opponent by nearly ten to one.

Stop Her Now actually survived that election after Texas philanthropist Richard Collins (a Swift Boat donor) bought it and hired a new crop of media consultants. Now the group offers a news feed that collates Hillary headlines and a series of cartoons that mock the senator as a humorless, power-mad talk-show host. Collins wants to raise about $8 million before the end of the race—a much more modest goal than Finkelstein’s $10 million for a race in New York—but there will be no mention of family problems or sex scandals. “We want to define the radical ideas of Hillary Clinton,” he says, “but not in a mean-spirited way.”

What changed between 2000 and 2007? Why isn’t the mention of Hillary Clinton’s name the motivating factor it used to be for conservatives? Some activists argue that the GOP and the movement are distracted. In Rudy Giuliani, there’s a Republican frontrunner who defies decades of party stances on social issues and personal mores. Conservative donors are too busy sorting out the party’s future to cohere and battle Hillary.

“Back in 2000 we had a plan,” says Viguerie. “It was a simple plan: beat Hillary. Keep Hillary out of the Senate. And at first we had Rudy Giuliani as the focus of that, but after he dropped out, you could help out Rick Lazio. We’ll get a presidential candidate, and then we’ll get focused.”

That might be one reason the Right can’t rally against Hillary. Conservative division has led to depression, a sense that a Clinton restoration is inevitable, and that the best plan going ahead is to wait for her election and watch as, like her husband, she stumbles and seeds a GOP comeback. A mid-July CBS News poll revealed that 53 percent of Republicans thought it was very or somewhat likely that Clinton would win the presidency. Few Republicans think the party can win back Congress in 2008. Combine that with the anger that between one-third and one-quarter of the GOP base feels toward George W. Bush, and the relentless negativity starts to make sense.

“There’s a big difference between 2000 and 2007,” says John LeBoutillier, a former Republican congressman from New York and the head of Stop Hillary PAC. “In 2000, everyone on the Right hated Clinton and Gore, and we rallied to the guy we didn’t know: Bush. It’s different now. We hate Bush, and we hate the Bushes. We hate watching the Clintons palling around with the Bushes on goodwill tours and the like.”

There is another reason conservatives can’t count on Hillary: she offends and irritates them so deeply that they have trouble actually strategizing against her. They launch attacks, but compared to the carefully plotted Swift Boat strike on John Kerry or the years-long effort to spotlight Al Gore’s strange bragging and fibbing, the anti-Hillary attacks are erratic, grabbing early media attention and then fading out of the picture. Conservatives fixate on long-dormant scandals, like Bill Clinton’s treatment of Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, without appreciating that reporters no longer want to chase those stories and that their very mention stokes sympathy for Clinton’s wife.

But it’s all some anti-Hillary agitators know how to do. In July, Sean Hannity told professional Hillary slayer Dick Morris the question he wanted some intrepid hack to ask the candidate: “Do you believe the women that claim that your husband serially abused them? Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones. Is that a legitimate and fair question?” Morris repeatedly shook his head and tried to explain where Hannity was going wrong: “Whenever anybody hits Hillary on her personal life, her marriage, or whether she is a lesbian or not, it plays into her hands.”

Morris is right. Clinton has never been as popular as she was in 1998 and 1999, during the height of her husband’s sex scandals, when voters grew to see her as a courageous wronged woman. (New York Democrats recruited Clinton to run for their open Senate seat hoping to cash in on that popularity. She didn’t, as it’s sometimes remembered, “parachute” into the race.) She’s not completely immune from Republican attacks on her character, but she can deflect an awful lot of the damage. Most attacks on Hillary’s past, her ethics, or her scandals either backfire or fall off the radar.

Why is the media so disinterested? Simple: Hillary-phobia doesn’t sell like it used to. Four books about Clinton have been released from major publishers in 2007, with varying levels of fanfare. According to Nielsen Bookscan, Carl Bernstein’s A Woman in Charge has been a sizable hit, selling 52,000 copies on the strength of the author’s fame and interviews with Clinton’s late childhood friend Betsy Ebeling. (It benefited from anticipation, too: its original release date was in 2003.) But Her Way, a much-hyped effort by investigative reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. released the same week as Bernstein’s book, has sold only 18,000 copies. Bay Buchanan’s The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton sold half as many. Amanda Carpenter’s The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy’s Dossier on Hillary Clinton, helped along by a push and some free distribution at the Conservative Political Action Conference, sold 1,000 fewer copies than Buchanan’s book. A little perspective: no one expected Sen. Joe Biden’s autobiography to be a hit, and no one’s much interested in poring through it for dirt, but it has moved 10,000 copies anyway.

There’s still a market for anti-Hillary books, and if you’re a publisher they’re a better bet than Ten Reasons You Can’t Trust Chris Dodd or Mike Gravel: Unfit for Command. But the Hillary books are, in the end, bad for conservatives. Just as she did in her Senate race, Hillary has raised millions of dollars with pearl-clutching direct mail and e-mail pleas to help her defend herself from the vast conspiracy that wants to destroy her. The Politico’s Ben Smith has dubbed the anti-Hillary groups a “small bunch of failed business schemes that pile up debt while Hillary herself raises money off their attacks.”

So she eggs along her opponents in an ongoing, losing effort. Nothing that conservatives can do to Hillary Clinton can fix the fractures in the movement or re-commit the voters who have abandoned them during the Bush era. Attacking Hillary is a short-term fix, a flawed strategy that Democrats tried only three years ago as they nominated a ticket with a muddled Iraq War position and tried to make up the difference with $300-million worth of third-party attacks. They never dealt with their internal crises, hoping that a campaign against Bush would be enough to win.

“I’d prefer these things be contests of ideas,” says Craig Shirley, a longtime political strategist who’s doing some work for Stop Her Now. “Our conservative, libertarian ideas are better than their collectivist ideas. But running on ideas, you know, that requires the people on our side to have the courage and intellect to understand what this is all about.”

That would require a little bit of cool-headedness and distance, and the Republican Party doesn’t have much of either at the moment. When I pressed John LeBoutillier on what the conservative movement needed to do, he fretted about the damage of the last seven years. “The Bush experience has really turned them off,” he said. “We’re so thrown that we don’t have our heads on straight.” But when I asked if his energy would be put to better use reforming the Republican Party, he hedged. Clinton had to be defeated first.

Obviously, 2008 is not going to lack for anti-Hillary campaigns. There will be more books, more speculation about scandals, more digging into financial records—a treasure hunt for some silver bullet that will finally end her career. This is exactly what the Clinton campaign is ready for, and they’re in luck: the swing vote that will elect the next president is far angrier at Republicans and George W. Bush than it is at her right now. It’s moved on. It wants to hear some new arguments.

The question for conservatives is whether they want to spend the next year making those arguments or whether they want to spend it spinning Hillary Clinton.

__________________________________________

David Weigel is an associate editor of Reason."

'Candidate Hillary: the GOP's dream' by Jonah Goldberg

2007-10-23T08:56:00.000-06:00

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg23oct23,0,3831108.column?coll=la-opinion-center

"'Candidate Hillary: the GOP's dream' by Jonah Goldberg
A campaign against Sen. Clinton may give Republicans the best shot at running as the party of change.
October 23, 2007

The most interesting thing to come out of the umpteenth Republican debate Sunday is confirmation that the GOP is dying to run against Hillary Clinton. Like Don Rickles flaying a heckler, each candidate whacked at Clinton as if she were a pants-suited piñata. When they were done with their one-liners, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee deadpanned: "Look, I like to be funny. There's nothing funny about Hillary Clinton being president."

No, but there's something deeply advantageous about having her as an opponent. So far, the commentary about the Republican offensive against Hillary has focused mostly on how it reflects poorly on the GOP (those Clinton-hating wing nuts are at it again!). What's not been fully grasped is how Hillary gives the GOP its best chance at being the party of change.

Newt Gingrich, for one, has been pointing this out for months, using the electoral triumph of Nicolas Sarkozy in France last spring as an example. A Cabinet minister for the unpopular Jacques Chirac, who'd served in office for a biblically long term of 12 years, Sarkozy ran against his own incumbent party's complaisance as well as his Socialist opponent, Segolene Royal, arguing that she merely represented a return to a failed past and "more of the same."

America -- obviously -- isn't France, but Democrats may be misreading America nonetheless. It seems incandescently clear that voters want a change, and, up to now, change meant little more than Democratic victory and no more President Bush. But Democrats got a significant victory in 2006, when they took control of both houses of Congress. And now Congress is even less popular than Bush. In other words, the clamor for change in Washington is much bigger than Bush.

Besides, Bush is leaving no matter what. And unlike every other election since the 1920s, there's no White House-approved candidate in the race. Any Republican will start with 40% to 45% of the vote in his pocket once he gets the nomination. The question that remains is whether the critical 5% to 10% of swing voters will think Hillary Clinton represents the sort of change they want.

What most independents and swing voters want is an end to the acrimony and bitterness in Washington -- and a candidate they like. Whether that's right or not is irrelevant. That's what they want.

Which Democratic candidate would be most likely to give those voters what they want? Not Hillary, it's safe to say.

Right now, during the primaries, she can get away with boasting about her tenure in the Clinton administration. Party activists are drunk with Clinton nostalgia. On the stump in Iowa, Bill Clinton responded to the claim that Hillary was "yesterday's news" by saying, yeah, but "yesterday's news was pretty good."

In the general election, audiences will remember Whitewater, travelgate, illegal fundraising, bimbo eruptions and impeachment. If they don't, you can be sure Republicans will remind them. Fair or not, the Republicans' intense dislike of Hillary will underscore the idea that a vote for her is a vote for more of the same rancor.

Hence the irony of the Clinton candidacy. Liberal activists keep saying that they want a candidate who is pure, who speaks from the heart and refuses to "triangulate" on core principles the way Bill Clinton did. But Hillary Clinton is Clintonian in more than just name. On national security in particular, she has been alternating between reflexive anti-Bushism to bouts of outright hawkishness on Iran. Desperate to win, Democrats have been willing to overlook that -- so far. But such shifting costs her credibility and passion.

It's all deeply reminiscent of how John Kerry wound up as the nominee in 2004. Once Howard Dean, the conviction candidate, experienced the political equivalent of spontaneous human combustion, Democrats immediately cast about not for another principled politician but one they deemed electable. Bizarrely, they settled on the left-wing senator from Massachusetts who synthesized Ted Kennedy's politics with Michael Dukakis' charisma while bragging about his service in a war he built a career denouncing.

If Democrats could get out of their bubble, it might dawn on them that virtually all of their other candidates are better positioned to run as champions of change. Hillary Clinton has shrewdly tried to trim the differences between her and the competition by claiming that any of them would be better than George W. Bush. From a liberal perspective, that's obviously true. But that perspective won't necessarily dominate come next fall, particularly if conditions in Iraq continue to improve.

Is it really so obvious that, say, Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney represent "change" less than the ultimate Clinton retread, complete with Bill as "first gentleman?" That's how Democrats are betting right now, and they may be bitterly disappointed -- again -- when it comes time to collect.

jgoldberg@latimescolumnists.com"

Which Presidential candidate gets your worldview? Find out now!

2007-10-13T11:41:00.000-06:00

There are a lot of websites cropping up that ask you a series of 9-15 questions on issues of the day and then based up your results tell you which candidate comes closest to your world view. Why the Government doesn't have a more in detail site like this for every presidential candidate in every election..?...hmmmph.

None of these sites are great. All of them have at least 2-3 "bad" questions. For example they ask, "Energy: Do you support federal assistance for the production of ethanol and/or biofuel as an alternative to oil?"

The idea behind the question is essentially, "Should be we giving money to US corporations to develop alternate fuel sources so situations in the Middle East will not dictate the price of fuel, or should the government not give out money, even to end our reliance on the middle east?" As it stands, I think a lot of people would not get the implications of the question.

They ask, "Social Security: Do you favor the concept of privatization of Social Security to any degree?" Well, as someone who answered "No", I think the problem with this question is that it is a very weighted issue. Do I think we could do something positive to privatize social security? Possibly. Do I think the odds are that any move to privatize social security will backfire on a large chunk of the populace due to stock market fluctuations which will ultimately dictate a hugely expensive government bailout--- Absolutely. So I am forced to say no. If you give in on privatizing social security, there is no way social security (which is quite fixable) will ever be fixed. As soon as you go with privatized social security, the politicians will loot National Social Security funds.

Then their are the questions that have answers that don't match up with the candidate's views or are quite similar. Do I vote "Decentralize Iraq by dividing it into regions of separate governments." or "Draw down the U.S. troops and decentralize Iraq by dividing it into regions of separate governments."? I voted for the latter and they said Joe Biden disagreed with me on this issue, but on his site he clearly states, "It is now time to start drawing down U.S. forces, not just to pre-surge levels but well below them, and to limit the mission of those who remain to fighting al-Qaida in Iraq, training Iraqis to police themselves and helping them protect their own borders." So in fact, the site is wrong on this issue.

That said, this site is pretty good. They rightly named my top two candidates as Biden then Obama.

This one is a scaled down WQAD candidate survey is based on the original SELECT A CANDIDATE survey developed by Minnesota Public Radio and posted at: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/ongoing/select_a_candidate/.

http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

****************************************************************************
The original is much more detailed (made by NPR, so no suprise there.)

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/ongoing/select_a_candidate/poll.php?race_id=13

"Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Does Select A Candidate tell me who to vote for?

A: Absolutely not. Its main purpose is to introduce you to the candidates who are running and their positions on the issues.

Q: How did you come up with these questions?

A: The questions mirror the campaign. There might be issues we are interested in that haven't come up in the campaign so far, and those aren't listed here. Should they come up -- and we have a mechanism for your interests to be part of the campaign -- they will be added to Select A Candidate. The choices from each question mirror positions that candidates have stated. If no answer is close to your position, do not answer the question, for there is no candidate with that position.

Q: How does the scoring work?

A: Each candidate gets 1 point for each question that matches your answer. If you indicate that an issue is very important to you, the candidate gets 3 points. If you indicate that the issue is of no importance to you, the candidate gets 0 points. In this way, the "match" is weighted to reflect those issues on which you decide elections."

Once more confirmed: Poll results prove America rejects politicians with principles.

2007-10-11T12:07:00.000-06:00

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1109

"October 10, 2007 - Clinton Express Rolls Through Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania,

Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Finds ---
FLORIDA: Clinton 46 - Giuliani 43;
OHIO: Clinton 46 - Giuliani 40;
PENNSYLVANIA: Clinton 48 - Giuliani 42

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is overwhelming Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and the rest of the Democratic primary field, and slowly increasing her lead over New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the Republican front-runner, in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to Quinnipiac University's Swing State Poll, three simultaneous surveys of voters in states that have been pivotal in presidential elections since 1964.

Sen. Clinton's support appears to be as deep as it is wide. In Ohio, 74 percent of her supporters say they are not too likely or not likely at all to change their mind. In Florida, 59 percent of her supporters are unlikely to change their mind; in Pennsylvania it's 56 percent.

Giuliani voters are less committed, as no more than 39 percent in any state say they are unlikely to change their mind.

Clinton and Giuliani dominate their party primaries in each state, even though voters say Obama and Arizona Sen. John McCain are more principled in their decision-making.

Matchups by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds:
Florida: Clinton tops Giuliani 46 - 43 percent, breaking a 44 - 44 percent tie September 12;
Ohio: Clinton tops Giuliani 46 - 40 percent, compared to 47 - 40 percent September 6;
Pennsylvania: Clinton beats Giuliani 48 - 42 percent, up from 46 - 44 percent August 23.

"The news just keeps getting better for Sen. Clinton. She has a Democratic primary lead over Sen. Obama ranging from 27 to 34 points in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and is widening her margin over the Republican hopefuls in each of those three critical states," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"The candidates who trail Sen. Clinton and hope that they can pry voters away from her should wake up and smell the coffee. Not only is she far, far ahead, but a much greater share of her voters say they are unlikely to change their minds than those committed to other Democrats. This should not be any surprise. Sen. Clinton has been a favorite of Democratic activists for the past 15 years and benefits greatly from being Bill Clinton's wife - since he is probably the most popular Democrat in America," Brown added.

Many Democrats think Clinton has the nomination "locked up," 44 percent in Florida, 43 percent in Ohio and 31 percent in Pennsylvania.

Very few Republican voters think Giuliani has the nomination "locked up," 14 percent in Florida, 11 percent in Ohio and 15 percent in Pennsylvania.

"Mayor Giuliani's lead over his Republican counterparts remains stable, but the vast, vast majority of Republicans don't believe he has the nomination locked up, and even six in ten of his supporters say they are somewhat or very likely to change their mind," Brown said.

Florida Findings

Looking at other possible 2008 presidential matchups in Florida, the Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll finds:
Clinton tops McCain 46 - 42 percent, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson 48 - 39 percent and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 48 - 37 percent;
Giuliani bests Obama 42 - 39 percent and edges Edwards 43 - 41 percent;
Obama beats Thompson 45 - 36 percent and Romney 43 - 36 percent, but trails McCain 41 - 39 percent;
Edwards edges McCain 42 - 40 percent and beats Thompson 44 - 36 percent and Romney 47 - 33 percent.

In a Democratic primary, Clinton gets 51 percent, followed by 17 percent for Obama and 10 percent for John Edwards.

Among Republicans, Giuliani gets 27 percent, with 19 percent for Thompson, 17 percent for Romney and 8 percent for McCain.

By a 49 - 41 percent margin, Florida voters have a favorable opinion of Clinton. Favorability ratings for other contenders are:
49 - 34 percent for Giuliani;
43 - 30 percent for McCain;
47 - 27 percent for Obama;
46 - 32 percent for Edwards;
29 - 24 percent for Thompson;
30 - 20 percent for Romney.

Ohio Results

In other possible 2008 presidential matchups in Ohio:
Clinton beats McCain 48 - 38 percent, Thompson 50 -36 percent and Romney 51 - 34 percent;
Obama tops Giuliani 44 - 38 percent, McCain 43 - 39 percent, Thompson 44 - 33 percent and Romney 47 - 31 percent;
Edwards bests Giuliani 46 - 36 percent, McCain 46 - 35 percent, Thompson 48 - 31 percent and Romney 50 - 28 percent.

Clinton leads in a Democratic primary matchup with 47 percent, followed by 19 percent for Obama and 11 percent for Edwards.

In a Republican primary race, Giuliani gets 29 percent, with 17 percent for Thompson, 10 percent for McCain and 8 percent for Romney.

Ohio voters give Clinton a 49 - 42 percent favorability rating. Other favorability ratings are:
42 - 33 percent for Giuliani;
40 - 28 percent for McCain;
45 - 26 percent for Obama;
47 - 26 percent for Edwards;
23 - 19 percent for Thompson;
19 - 22 percent for Romney. Pennsylvania Results

In other possible 2008 presidential matchups in Pennsylvania:
Clinton tops McCain 48 - 41 percent, Thompson 50 - 39 percent and Romney 49 - 37 percent;
Giuliani edges Obama 45 - 43 percent and gets 44 percent to Edwards' 43 percent;
Obama beats McCain 45 - 41 percent, Thompson 45 - 37 percent and Romney 49 - 33 percent;
Edwards tops McCain 47 - 39 percent, Thompson 47 - 34 percent and Romney 49 - 32 percent.

In a Democratic primary, Clinton leads with 41 percent, with 14 percent for Obama and 11 percent for Edwards.

Giuliani leads Republicans with 32 percent, followed by 13 percent each for Thompson and McCain and 8 percent for Romney.

Clinton gets a 51 - 42 percent favorability rating from Pennsylvania voters. Favorability ratings for other contenders are:
51 - 30 percent for Giuliani;
43 - 26 percent for McCain;
48 - 22 percent for Obama;
49 - 27 percent for Edwards;
26 - 21 percent for Thompson;
24 - 23 percent for Romney.

"Fred Thompson is chasing Giuliani in all three states, but his momentum seems to have slowed. Mitt Romney may be a household name in Iowa where he leads the polls, but in the Big 3 of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania he remains far back. He has picked up some support among Republicans in Florida, where he is the only candidate advertising on television," Brown said.

Principled Decision Makers

In each state, Obama tops Clinton on the question of "principle," asking whether a candidate makes decisions based on what he or she thinks is right or based on what is popular with voters. Florida voters say 43 - 32 percent that Obama decides on principle rather than popularity; 40 - 34 percent in Ohio and 45 - 29 percent in Pennsylvania.

This compares to Clinton's "principle" scale, negative in each state: 42 - 49 percent in Florida, 39 - 52 percent in Ohio and 40 - 48 percent in Pennsylvania.

Among Republicans, McCain has a higher "principle" rating than Giuliani in each state. McCain's scale is 51 - 29 percent in Florida, 43 - 33 percent in Ohio and 49 - 29 percent in Pennsylvania.

Giuliani's "principle" scale is 43 - 42 percent in Florida, 40 - 40 percent in Ohio and 42 - 41 percent in Pennsylvania.

"Voters say they want politicians with principles, but they don't seem to vote for the candidates who have them," said Brown. "Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain are considered by far the most principled in their decision-making, but they are both far back in their races for their respective party nominations.

"When it comes to the front-runners, voters see Mayor Giuliani as more principled than Sen. Clinton."

From October 1 - 8, Quinnipiac University surveyed:
869 Florida voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.3 percent, including 345 Republicans and 337 Democrats, each with a margin of error of +/- 5.3 percent;
946 Ohio voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percent, including 321 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 5.5 percent, and 357 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 5.2 percent;
878 Pennsylvania voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.3 percent, including 355 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 5.2 percent and 393 Democrats, with a margin of error of +/- 4.9 percent.

The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio and nationwide as a public service and for research. For more data -- http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x271.xml, or call (203) 582-5201.

1. (If registered Democrat) If the 2008 Democratic primary for President were being held today, and the candidates were Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton,Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson for whom would you vote?

REGISTERED DEMOCRATS
FL OH PA

Biden 2% 2% 5%
Clinton 51 47 41
Dodd - - -
Edwards 10 11 11
Gravel - - -
Kucinich 1 2 3
Obama 17 19 14
Richardson 2 1 3
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 - 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 1 2 3
DK/NA 14 15 18

2. (If registered Republican) If the 2008 Republican primary for President were being held today, and the candidates were Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson for whom would you vote?

REGISTERED REPUBLICANS
FL OH PA

Brownback 1% 1% -
Giuliani 27 29 32
Huckabee 4 5 2
Hunter - 1 1
McCain 8 10 13
Paul 2 1 4
Romney 17 8 8
Tancredo 1 1 -
Thompson,F. 19 17 13
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 3 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 3 2
DK/NA 16 22 20

1. (If registered Democrat) If the 2008 Democratic primary for President were being held today, and the candidates were Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton,Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson for whom would you vote?

REGISTERED DEMOCRATS
........................FL Men Wom

Biden 2% 2% 1%
Clinton 51 46 54
Dodd - - -
Edwards 10 17 6
Gravel - - -
Kucinich 1 2 1
Obama 17 12 20
Richardson 2 4 1
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 2 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 1 2 1
DK/NA 14 14 14

........................OH Men Wom

Biden 2% 3% 1%
Clinton 47 41 50
Dodd - - -
Edwards 11 13 10
Gravel - - -
Kucinich 2 3 2
Obama 19 22 17
Richardson 1 2 1
SMONE ELSE(VOL) - 1 -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 2 2 2
DK/NA 15 13 16

........................PA Men Wom

Biden 5% 8% 2%
Clinton 41 36 44
Dodd - 1 -
Edwards 11 13 10
Gravel - - -
Kucinich 3 4 2
Obama 14 14 15
Richardson 3 5 1
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 3 2
DK/NA 18 14 21

1a. (If express choice) How likely is it that you could change your mind? Very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, not likely at all?

REG DEMS EXPRESSING CHOICE Q1
Q1
........................FL Men Wom HC

Very likely 11% 5% 14% 10%
Smwht likely 33 41 28 30
Not too likely 16 15 16 14
Not likely at all 39 38 40 45
DK/NA 2 2 2 1

........................OH Men Wom HC

Very likely 11% 15% 8% 6%
Smwht likely 29 28 29 18
Not too likely 21 19 22 26
Not likely at all 38 37 40 48
DK/NA 1 2 1 1

........................PA Men Wom HC

Very likely 11% 13% 9% 6%
Smwht likely 43 48 39 38
Not too likely 19 15 22 23
Not likely at all 26 23 29 33
DK/NA 1 1 1 -

2. (If registered Republican) If the 2008 Republican primary for President were being held today, and the candidates were Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson for whom would you vote?

REGISTERED REPUBLICANS..........
WtBrnAgn
........................FL Men Wom Evnglcl

Brownback 1% - 2% 3%
Giuliani 27 25 29 17
Huckabee 4 5 3 8
Hunter - - - -
McCain 8 8 7 8
Paul 2 4 - 2
Romney 17 23 10 16
Tancredo 1 1 - -
Thompson,F. 19 20 17 22
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 2 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 3 3 2
DK/NA 16 9 25 19

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Men Wom Evnglcl

Brownback 1% 1% - -
Giuliani 29 29 30 21
Huckabee 5 6 4 9
Hunter 1 1 - 1
McCain 10 11 8 6
Paul 1 2 1 2
Romney 8 10 6 9
Tancredo 1 - 1 1
Thompson,F. 17 21 13 20
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 2 3 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 3 3 2
DK/NA 22 15 29 25

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Men Wom Evnglcl

Brownback - - - -
Giuliani 32 32 32 30
Huckabee 2 2 2 4
Hunter 1 2 1 3
McCain 13 8 18 14
Paul 4 6 2 -
Romney 8 9 8 11
Tancredo - - - -
Thompson 13 18 8 13
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 3 3 5
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 2 1 3 -
DK/NA 20 19 21 19

2a. (If express choice) How likely is it that you could change your mind? Very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, not likely at all?

REG REPS EXPRESSING CHOICE Q2......
WtBrnAgn Q2
........................FL Men Wom Evnglcl RG

Very likely 17% 19% 14% 13% 11%
Smwht likely 44 39 52 52 49
Not too likely 21 22 19 20 19
Not likely at all 18 20 15 14 20
DK/NA - - - 1 -

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Men Wom Evnglcl RG

Very likely 17% 13% 21% 11% 19%
Smwht likely 48 51 45 54 43
Not too likely 16 16 16 18 18
Not likely at all 17 19 15 14 19
DK/NA 2 1 3 3 1

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Men Wom Evnglcl RG

Very likely 11% 11% 11% 14% 11%
Smwht likely 58 56 61 60 61
Not too likely 15 16 13 16 14
Not likely at all 14 14 14 10 12
DK/NA 2 3 1 1 2

3-14. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were -- the Democrat and -- the Republican, for whom would you vote?

FL OH PA

Clinton 46% 46% 48%
Giuliani 43 40 42

Obama 39% 44% 43%
Giuliani 42 38 45

Edwards 41% 46% 43%
Giuliani 43 36 44

Clinton 46% 48% 48%
McCain 42 38 41

Obama 39% 43% 45%
McCain 41 39 41

Edwards 42% 46% 47%
McCain 40 35 39

Clinton 48% 50% 50%
Thompson 39 36 39

Obama 45% 44% 45%
Thompson 36 33 37

Edwards 44% 48% 47%
Thompson 36 31 34

Clinton 48% 51% 49%
Romney 37 34 37

Obama 43% 47% 49%
Romney 36 31 33

Edwards 47% 50% 49%
Romney 33 28 32

3. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Rudy Giuliani the Republican, for whom would you vote?
WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 46% 8% 86% 36% 35% 56% 29%
Giuliani 43 85 9 45 52 33 62
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 1 1 3 1 2 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 1 1 7 6 2 3
DK/NA 6 5 4 9 6 7 5

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 46% 5% 86% 33% 41% 51% 32%
Giuliani 40 86 7 45 45 37 54
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 1 5 3 2 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 3 2 5 6 2 5
DK/NA 7 3 4 12 5 9 7

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 48% 11% 83% 45% 42% 54% 29%
Giuliani 42 82 9 45 47 38 63
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 3 1 2 3 1 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 1 2 3 5 1 2
DK/NA 5 3 5 5 3 6 5

4. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Barack Obama the Democrat and Rudy Giuliani the Republican, for whom would you vote?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 39% 7% 71% 36% 33% 45% 24%
Giuliani 42 83 11 45 49 35 58
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 2 3 - 4 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 2 6 4 8 3 5
DK/NA 11 7 11 12 9 13 10

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 44% 8% 76% 38% 41% 46% 28%
Giuliani 38 82 8 39 41 35 53
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 1 3 6 5 2 4
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 3 6 6 6 5 5
DK/NA 9 5 7 12 6 12 10

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 43% 9% 74% 42% 39% 46% 27%
Giuliani 45 79 16 47 50 40 61
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 3 1 1 2 2 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 - 3 3 4 3 1
DK/NA 7 9 6 6 5 10 8

5. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were John Edwards the Democrat and Rudy Giuliani the Republican, for whom would you vote?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 41% 7% 75% 37% 35% 47% 30%
Giuliani 43 87 9 45 51 35 55
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 2 3 - 4 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 - 8 4 7 3 3
DK/NA 8 5 7 10 6 11 9

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 46% 9% 79% 40% 42% 50% 33%
Giuliani 36 81 7 36 43 31 47
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 1 3 6 5 2 4
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 4 3 4 5 3 4
DK/NA 10 6 8 14 5 15 12

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 43% 11% 72% 39% 40% 45% 31%
Giuliani 44 79 13 51 48 40 57
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 1 2 3 1 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 1 3 2 5 2 1
DK/NA 9 7 10 6 5 12 10

6. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and John McCain the Republican, for whom would you vote?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 46% 10% 82% 39% 35% 57% 33%
McCain 42 84 11 44 52 33 58
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 - 3 1 2 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 1 2 6 5 2 2
DK/NA 6 5 5 8 7 6 6

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 48% 6% 87% 36% 41% 54% 32%
McCain 38 82 8 40 43 34 55
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 - 5 3 2 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 3 2 6 6 2 3
DK/NA 8 7 3 13 7 9 8

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 48% 14% 82% 42% 40% 55% 29%
McCain 41 78 10 45 48 35 63
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 1 2 3 2 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 4 1 5 5 2 2
DK/NA 5 2 5 6 4 6 3

7. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Barack Obama the Democrat and John McCain the Republican, for whom would you vote?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 39% 11% 68% 36% 35% 44% 23%
McCain 41 81 17 38 47 36 62
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 - 4 - 4 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 6 2 8 5 7 5 5
DK/NA 11 6 6 17 11 11 8

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 43% 12% 73% 37% 40% 46% 24%
McCain 39 76 13 40 43 35 56
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 2 3 4 4 3 4
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 2 5 5 6 3 3
DK/NA 10 8 6 14 7 13 13

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 45% 16% 75% 42% 38% 52% 29%
McCain 41 70 15 47 48 35 56
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 1 1 2 1 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 4 2 4 4 3 3
DK/NA 8 9 7 6 7 9 11

8. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were John Edwards the Democrat and John McCain the Republican, for whom would you vote?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 42% 8% 77% 38% 34% 50% 30%
McCain 40 81 13 39 48 33 58
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 - 5 2 3 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 2 5 6 8 3 3
DK/NA 9 9 5 12 8 11 7

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 46% 10% 78% 41% 43% 49% 33%
McCain 35 78 7 33 38 32 47
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 2 3 6 5 2 4
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 4 5 5 7 2 3
DK/NA 11 7 8 15 8 14 13

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 47% 15% 74% 44% 43% 50% 33%
McCain 39 72 13 44 45 34 54
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 1 - 2 2 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 3 2 3 4 3 2
DK/NA 9 7 9 8 6 11 10

9. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Fred Thompson the Republican, for whom would you vote?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 48% 11% 85% 41% 37% 58% 35%
Thompson 39 79 10 37 47 30 55
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 1 - 3 - 2 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 3 2 9 7 3 2
DK/NA 7 6 3 11 8 7 6

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 50% 9% 90% 36% 43% 56% 34%
Thompson 36 79 5 38 44 30 54
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 - 4 2 1 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 3 1 6 5 2 2
DK/NA 9 7 3 16 7 11 9

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 50% 16% 84% 47% 44% 56% 31%
Thompson 39 76 9 39 46 33 61
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 1 3 2 1 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 3 2 3 4 2 2
DK/NA 6 5 5 8 4 8 6

10. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Barack Obama the Democrat and Fred Thompson the Republican, for whom would you vote?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 45% 12% 76% 44% 40% 50% 26%
Thompson 36 75 10 35 43 30 55
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 - 2 3 1 3 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 3 3 4 7 4 3
DK/NA 12 10 8 14 9 14 13

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 44% 15% 75% 35% 39% 49% 28%
Thompson 33 71 8 34 40 28 49
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 2 3 4 3 3 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 2 7 7 6 4 3
DK/NA 14 10 8 20 11 16 17

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 45% 13% 75% 44% 39% 50% 29%
Thompson 37 68 12 37 44 31 51
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 3 2 3 3 2 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 1 3 5 4 3 3
DK/NA 12 14 8 11 9 14 15

11. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were John Edwards the Democrat and Fred Thompson the Republican, for whom would you vote?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 44% 11% 74% 44% 38% 51% 33%
Thompson 36 75 12 31 43 29 53
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 - 2 3 - 3 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 6 4 4 7 8 4 3
DK/NA 12 10 8 14 10 13 9

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 48% 15% 78% 41% 43% 51% 34%
Thompson 31 69 6 32 37 26 46
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 2 3 4 4 2 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 5 2 6 7 6 4 3
DK/NA 14 12 8 17 10 17 15

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 47% 16% 72% 48% 46% 47% 33%
Thompson 34 64 14 31 39 30 48
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 1 3 1 3 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 3 2 5 4 4 2
DK/NA 13 16 10 13 10 16 15

12. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Mitt Romney the Republican, for whom would you vote?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 48% 9% 86% 42% 38% 58% 33%
Romney 37 79 6 36 45 29 54
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 - 3 2 1 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 4 2 6 5 3 5
DK/NA 9 6 6 13 10 9 7

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 51% 9% 91% 38% 43% 57% 35%
Romney 34 78 5 35 41 28 51
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 - 5 3 2 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 3 1 7 6 3 3
DK/NA 9 8 3 14 8 11 9

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Clinton 49% 12% 85% 47% 44% 54% 32%
Romney 37 75 7 38 43 32 59
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 1 2 3 1 -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 3 2 4 4 2 3
DK/NA 8 8 5 9 6 10 6

13. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Barack Obama the Democrat and Mitt Romney the Republican, for whom would you vote?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 43% 7% 74% 45% 38% 47% 25%
Romney 36 77 10 32 43 28 53
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 2 4 1 3 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 6 4 6 4 7 5 5
DK/NA 13 10 8 15 10 16 13

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 47% 14% 79% 39% 44% 49% 28%
Romney 31 69 6 31 37 26 47
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 2 2 5 3 3 5
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 6 5 6 7 7 5 4
DK/NA 14 10 8 18 9 18 15

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Obama 49% 14% 79% 53% 43% 55% 32%
Romney 33 69 9 29 39 28 52
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 3 1 2 3 1 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 3 3 3 5 3 3
DK/NA 11 12 7 13 10 13 13

14. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were John Edwards the Democrat and Mitt Romney the Republican, for whom would you vote?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 47% 14% 79% 44% 39% 55% 38%
Romney 33 74 6 31 40 26 47
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 2 4 2 3 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 6 4 3 6 8 3 4
DK/NA 12 7 10 15 11 14 8

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 50% 16% 80% 45% 45% 54% 36%
Romney 28 68 4 22 34 23 40
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 4 2 3 6 5 2 4
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 4 4 6 6 3 3
DK/NA 14 10 8 21 9 18 17

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Edwards 49% 15% 78% 50% 47% 51% 39%
Romney 32 66 8 30 37 27 44
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 1 1 3 2 2 1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 4 3 2 6 5 4 2
DK/NA 13 15 11 11 9 17 14

15. Is your opinion of -- Hillary Clinton favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about her?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 49% 16% 81% 46% 42% 56% 34%
Unfavorable 41 76 10 44 52 31 56
Hvn't hrd enough 7 5 7 7 4 10 8
REFUSED 3 3 2 3 1 4 3

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 49% 10% 87% 38% 43% 55% 34%
Unfavorable 42 83 7 52 49 35 61
Hvn't hrd enough 6 4 5 8 6 6 3
REFUSED 2 3 1 2 1 3 2

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 51% 15% 84% 47% 43% 59% 35%
Unfavorable 42 76 10 47 50 35 56
Hvn't hrd enough 4 6 4 3 3 5 6
REFUSED 3 3 3 3 3 2 3

16. Is your opinion of -- John Edwards favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 46% 25% 67% 45% 44% 49% 41%
Unfavorable 32 55 10 34 37 26 39
Hvn't hrd enough 20 18 22 20 17 23 19
REFUSED 2 2 1 1 2 2 1

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 47% 24% 68% 45% 41% 53% 41%
Unfavorable 26 53 8 27 33 20 39
Hvn't hrd enough 24 22 23 26 24 25 18
REFUSED 2 1 2 2 2 3 2

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 49% 25% 69% 48% 50% 49% 42%
Unfavorable 27 44 12 27 33 21 32
Hvn't hrd enough 21 27 16 22 15 27 24
REFUSED 3 4 2 3 3 3 2

17. Is your opinion of -- Rudy Giuliani favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 49% 78% 28% 52% 54% 44% 60%
Unfavorable 34 8 50 33 34 33 21
Hvn't hrd enough 15 13 20 11 9 21 17
REFUSED 3 2 2 4 3 2 2

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 42% 75% 21% 42% 44% 40% 50%
Unfavorable 33 12 48 33 34 32 25
Hvn't hrd enough 23 12 29 23 21 25 22
REFUSED 2 1 2 3 1 3 3

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 51% 74% 34% 50% 51% 50% 61%
Unfavorable 30 10 44 31 33 27 19
Hvn't hrd enough 16 14 18 16 13 19 18
REFUSED 3 1 4 3 2 4 2

18. Is your opinion of -- John McCain favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 43% 58% 31% 51% 48% 39% 54%
Unfavorable 30 18 38 27 30 30 22
Hvn't hrd enough 23 19 29 17 18 28 22
REFUSED 3 5 2 4 4 3 2

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 40% 64% 24% 38% 46% 35% 44%
Unfavorable 28 17 39 26 29 27 25
Hvn't hrd enough 29 15 35 32 22 35 28
REFUSED 3 4 2 3 3 3 3

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 43% 58% 27% 51% 47% 39% 55%
Unfavorable 26 17 34 24 30 23 17
Hvn't hrd enough 29 23 37 24 22 35 27
REFUSED 2 1 2 2 1 2 1

19. Is your opinion of -- Barack Obama favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 47% 22% 65% 50% 45% 49% 38%
Unfavorable 27 51 11 21 30 24 35
Hvn't hrd enough 25 24 23 28 24 26 25
REFUSED 1 2 1 1 1 2 3

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 45% 25% 61% 46% 42% 47% 28%
Unfavorable 26 47 12 25 33 20 37
Hvn't hrd enough 27 25 25 28 23 30 34
REFUSED 2 3 2 1 2 3 1

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 48% 33% 64% 49% 46% 50% 41%
Unfavorable 22 30 11 23 27 17 24
Hvn't hrd enough 28 34 24 26 24 32 32
REFUSED 2 2 1 2 3 1 2

20. Is your opinion of -- Mitt Romney favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 30% 54% 13% 30% 38% 23% 41%
Unfavorable 20 8 28 22 18 22 17
Hvn't hrd enough 48 37 58 45 43 53 40
REFUSED 2 1 1 3 1 2 2

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 19% 41% 9% 13% 25% 15% 29%
Unfavorable 22 11 31 22 25 20 15
Hvn't hrd enough 57 47 58 63 49 64 55
REFUSED 1 1 2 2 1 2 2

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 24% 43% 8% 27% 28% 22% 34%
Unfavorable 23 8 32 26 27 20 15
Hvn't hrd enough 51 48 58 45 44 57 50
REFUSED 2 1 1 2 2 2 1

21. Is your opinion of -- Fred Thompson favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 29% 52% 14% 28% 38% 21% 40%
Unfavorable 24 8 35 25 25 23 15
Hvn't hrd enough 45 39 50 43 35 55 45
REFUSED 1 - 1 3 1 1 -

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 23% 44% 9% 24% 27% 20% 36%
Unfavorable 19 7 29 18 22 17 10
Hvn't hrd enough 55 47 59 57 50 60 52
REFUSED 2 2 3 1 2 2 2

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Favorable 26% 41% 13% 30% 32% 21% 31%
Unfavorable 21 8 32 20 24 18 10
Hvn't hrd enough 52 51 55 50 43 60 59
REFUSED 1 - 1 - - 1 -

22. (If registered Democrat) How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the choice of candidates for the Democratic nomination for president this year - Are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?

REGISTERED DEMOCRATS
........................FL Men Wom

Very satisfied 45% 46% 44%
Smwht satisfied 39 34 42
Smwht dissatisfied 8 12 6
Very dissatisfied 7 7 7
DK/NA 1 1 2

........................OH Men Wom

Very satisfied 39% 37% 41%
Smwht satisfied 43 35 48
Smwht dissatisfied 11 18 7
Very dissatisfied 3 6 2
DK/NA 4 5 3

........................PA Men Wom

Very satisfied 33% 29% 37%
Smwht satisfied 50 48 52
Smwht dissatisfied 9 13 5
Very dissatisfied 6 10 3
DK/NA 2 - 3

23.(If registered Democrat)Do you think Hillary Clinton has the Democratic nomination for President locked up?

REGISTERED DEMOCRATS
........................FL Men Wom

Yes 44% 51% 40%
No 45 44 46
DK/NA 11 6 14

........................OH Men Wom

Yes 43% 44% 43%
No 48 49 47
DK/NA 9 7 10

........................PA Men Wom

Yes 31% 30% 32%
No 58 66 53
DK/NA 10 3 15

24.(If registered Republican)How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the choice of candidates for the Republican nomination for president this year - Are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?

REGISTERED REPUBLICANS ........
WtBrnAgn
........................FL Men Wom Evnglcl

Very satisfied 18% 20% 17% 13%
Smwht satisfied 49 50 48 61
Smwht dissatisfied 21 18 24 20
Very dissatisfied 9 10 7 3
DK/NA 3 2 4 4

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Men Wom Evnglcl

Very satisfied 16% 15% 16% 15%
Smwht satisfied 54 63 46 58
Smwht dissatisfied 22 13 30 20
Very dissatisfied 7 8 5 5
DK/NA 2 1 3 2

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Men Wom Evnglcl

Very satisfied 13% 15% 11% 7%
Smwht satisfied 55 49 60 65
Smwht dissatisfied 22 25 19 21
Very dissatisfied 8 8 7 6
DK/NA 3 3 3 1

25. (If registered Republican)Do you think Rudy Giuliani has the Republican nomination for President locked up?

REGISTERED REPUBLICANS ........
WtBrnAgn
........................FL Men Wom Evnglcl

Yes 14% 15% 14% 11%
No 78 80 75 81
DK/NA 8 5 11 7

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Men Wom Evnglcl

Yes 11% 12% 11% 15%
No 78 82 75 76
DK/NA 10 5 15 8

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Men Wom Evnglcl

Yes 15% 16% 14% 17%
No 76 81 71 71
DK/NA 9 2 16 12

26. Do you think that most public officials make decisions based on principle and what they think is right, or do so based on what they think is popular at the time?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 18% 19% 23% 9% 12% 23% 17%
What's popular 72 68 68 80 75 68 75
DK/NA 11 13 8 11 13 9 8

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 19% 22% 21% 14% 16% 22% 19%
What's popular 70 71 66 75 74 67 72
DK/NA 11 8 13 11 10 12 9

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 21% 23% 24% 13% 18% 23% 17%
What's popular 69 67 67 76 74 65 73
DK/NA 10 9 9 11 8 12 10

27. Whether you personally agree with him or not, do you believe -- Rudy Giuliani makes decisions based on principle and what he thinks is right, or does he make decisions based on what he thinks is popular at the time?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 43% 61% 31% 44% 43% 43% 52%
What's popular 42 27 52 43 45 40 37
DK/NA 14 11 17 13 11 17 11

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 40% 60% 26% 41% 43% 37% 46%
What's popular 40 27 49 42 42 39 37
DK/NA 20 13 25 18 15 24 17

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 42% 62% 29% 44% 44% 40% 51%
What's popular 41 22 55 41 43 40 30
DK/NA 17 16 16 16 13 20 18

28. Whether you personally agree with him or not, do you believe -- Fred Thompson makes decisions based on principle and what he thinks is right, or does he make decisions based on what he thinks is popular at the time?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 28% 45% 18% 28% 35% 22% 42%
What's popular 29 19 38 28 30 28 23
DK/NA 43 36 45 44 36 50 35

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 24% 42% 14% 21% 30% 19% 34%
What's popular 25 17 33 26 29 22 16
DK/NA 51 41 53 53 41 59 50

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 22% 34% 15% 20% 26% 18% 28%
What's popular 24 17 28 24 29 19 17
DK/NA 54 49 57 56 45 63 54

29. Whether you personally agree with her or not, do you believe -- Hillary Clinton makes decisions based on principle and what she thinks is right, or does she make decisions based on what she thinks is popular at the time?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 42% 14% 72% 32% 35% 50% 34%
What's popular 49 76 21 59 60 38 57
DK/NA 9 10 6 9 6 13 9

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 39% 14% 64% 29% 33% 44% 28%
What's popular 52 78 30 59 59 46 65
DK/NA 9 8 7 11 8 11 8

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 40% 17% 62% 37% 32% 47% 29%
What's popular 48 70 28 52 55 42 60
DK/NA 12 13 10 11 13 11 11

30. Whether you personally agree with him or not, do you believe -- Mitt Romney makes decisions based on principle and what he thinks is right, or does he make decisions based on what he thinks is popular at the time?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 27% 44% 19% 27% 29% 25% 42%
What's popular 30 24 35 28 31 29 27
DK/NA 43 32 46 44 40 46 31

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 22% 33% 14% 21% 26% 18% 31%
What's popular 29 22 33 32 35 24 21
DK/NA 49 45 53 47 39 58 48

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 24% 36% 17% 25% 26% 23% 30%
What's popular 28 21 32 26 33 23 25
DK/NA 48 44 51 49 41 54 44

31. Whether you personally agree with him or not, do you believe -- John McCain makes decisions based on principle and what he thinks is right, or does he make decisions based on what he thinks is popular at the time?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 51% 57% 47% 58% 54% 48% 63%
What's popular 29 32 29 24 31 28 24
DK/NA 20 11 24 18 15 24 13

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 43% 62% 31% 42% 45% 40% 50%
What's popular 33 24 40 33 36 30 26
DK/NA 25 14 29 26 18 30 24

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 49% 56% 42% 57% 53% 45% 58%
What's popular 29 22 35 25 29 28 22
DK/NA 23 22 23 18 18 27 20

32. Whether you personally agree with him or not, do you believe -- Barack Obama makes decisions based on principle and what he thinks is right, or does he make decisions based on what he thinks is popular at the time?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 43% 30% 59% 41% 38% 49% 40%
What's popular 32 43 23 30 38 26 36
DK/NA 25 27 18 29 24 26 24

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 40% 31% 52% 35% 38% 42% 32%
What's popular 34 44 25 36 40 28 38
DK/NA 26 24 23 29 22 30 30

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 45% 32% 57% 48% 43% 47% 39%
What's popular 29 36 23 28 35 24 29
DK/NA 26 32 20 24 22 29 32

33. Whether you personally agree with him or not, do you believe -- John Edwards makes decisions based on principle and what he thinks is right, or does he make decisions based on what he thinks is popular at the time?

WtBrnAgn
........................FL Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 39% 23% 57% 37% 34% 44% 35%
What's popular 41 57 24 46 48 35 45
DK/NA 20 20 19 17 18 21 19

WtBrnAgn
........................OH Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 39% 27% 54% 35% 33% 44% 35%
What's popular 40 56 27 42 49 32 45
DK/NA 21 17 19 24 18 24 20

WtBrnAgn
........................PA Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Evnglcl

Principle 40% 24% 51% 45% 39% 41% 36%
What's popular 38 47 30 37 42 34 44
DK/NA 23 29 19 18 20 25 20"

.................................................................................

Those of you who have read this blog for a while may recall my questioning of Republicans for not voting for McCain --- someone most would agree is a hero and a patriot. I have also lightly questioned why Hillary has as much of a stranglehold on this nomination as she does, although I put a lot more of the fault on Obama's advisors, who are absolute shit.

It is nice to see that something I have thought for a long time is true. Regardless of the Bush phenomenon, Americans CAN identify candidates with principles --- most just chose not to vote for them. Americans' like winning lying bastards more than a potential losing candidates with principles. I hope one of these days the majority of Americans change our voting habits, but I am not counting on it.

The Iowa Primary: early polling results.

2007-10-02T13:29:00.000-06:00

Pulled from realclearpolitics.com

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/iowa-primary.html

"Election 2008 Iowa Primary polling

Iowa Democratic Caucus
Poll Date Sample Clinton Edwards Obama Richardson Spread
RCP Average 09/06 to 09/29 - 26.5 21.5 23.0 10.8 Clinton +3.5

American Res. Group 09/26 - 09/29 600 LV 30 19 24 10 Clinton +6
Newsweek 09/26 - 09/27 LV 24 22 28 10 Obama +4
Strategic Vision (R) 09/21 - 09/23 LV 24 22 21 13 Clinton +2
LA Times/Bloomberg 09/06 - 09/10 462 LV 28 23 19 10 Clinton +5 "

Click this link to see the dogfight in Iowa. Clinton is clearly not going to get spanked in Iowa and as such you will not see a Howard Dean type collapse, but if either of her competitors win Iowa it could turn them into legit contenders overnight. To me, it looks like Obama and crew have taken the advice of the only person in their campaign with any sense (michelle Obama) and now see Iowa for what it is --- their only hope of getting into this race.

"Iowa Republican Caucus
Poll Date Romney Giuliani Thompson Huckabee McCain Spread
RCP Average 09/06 to 09/29 26.0 16.8 15.3 8.0 8.3 Romney +9.2

American Res. Group 09/26 - 09/29 22 21 16 4 11 Romney +1
Newsweek 09/26 - 09/27 24 13 16 12 9 Romney +8
Strategic Vision (R) 09/21 - 09/23 30 17 13 8 6 Romney +13
LA Times/Bloomberg 09/06 - 09/10 28 16 16 8 7 Romney +12"

Click this link to see the Romney Strategy in Iowa. He has spent a lot of money over the last few months advertising in Iowa and has built up a sizeable lead. Now the other contenders are on to his strategy and are trying to eat into his lead in Iowa to become the candidate who gets the Iowa Primary "bounce to relevance".

More on the flight of key players in the Christian Coalition

2007-10-02T12:42:00.000-06:00

http://rightsfield.com/category/endorsements/

"Dobson’s Choice
by Paul Curtis on October 1st, 2007

First things first: can we please stop referring to the Council for National Policy as “secretive”? The CNP is the most publicity-seeking “secret” organization on the planet. It’s made up of prima-donna religious right leaders who enjoy their public positions of political influence; if it were truly clandestine it wouldn’t be alerting the national media every time it has a significant meeting.

So the CNP is considering backing a third party candidate if Rudy Giuliani wins the nomination. Again, it’s no secret that the group has been casting around for candidates for some time now: back in February, for instance, it was deliberating over whether to throw its support behind a Christian conservative in the GOP primary — Huckabee, or Brownback, or South Carolina governor Mark Sanford. Christian Right heavyweight Paul Weyrich described the Council as “split 50-50″ over whether to unite behind a second-tier candidate, or to just split up according to individual dictates of conscience and calculation. The discussions ended without consensus, and the CNP’s main movers have mostly sat out the primary race since then, which should tell us something about how much all this talk really means.

The problem was with the notion of backing a horse that couldn’t win. And if the Council wasn’t willing to support a second tier candidate in the primary, why would it be willing to take the much longer odds of organizing behind a third party candidate in the general?

There’s no denying the seriousness of the dilemma facing Christian conservatives. Their influence within the GOP is fading fast; they’ve never been much more than cheap foot soldiers to a party run by a business lobby with little interest in social issues either way. If they allow the Republicans to nominate a pro-choice candidate, and fail to challenge the decision, they stand to lose much of what remains of their political credibility. But at the same time, they hardly seem to be spoiling for a fight. It’s true that they could throw the election to the Democrats by winning only a couple of percentage points next November. But what will that win them? Do they really want proof that all they can draw is a couple points? It could make them look every bit as marginal as Ralph Nader.

This is indeed a dangerous moment for the Republican party. It seems that the party is calculating that its mass support, once built on the backs of the anti-abortion movement, can now be drawn from the legend of perpetual war. Over the long run, I suspect that’s not likely to be a winning strategy. But in the very short term, understand that, for the “secretive” CNP, the decision to support a third-party candidacy will not come easily, and it very well might not come at all. "

Rassmussen Report: Weekly Presidential Candidate polling numbers

2007-10-02T12:10:00.000-06:00

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/weekly_presidential_tracking_polling_history

These polls are useful for looking at national candidate momentum, but do not take them for anything more than that. I firmly believe the early primary results could make any candidate listed a Presidental nominee. For example if Mitt Romney wins the first few primaries, he could easily pass Thompson and/or Gulianni as I see them as weak front runners. Both candidates campaigns could quickly implode in the weeks before super duper tuesday (or sooner).

Rassmussen Report: Republican frontrunners faltering?

2007-10-02T12:06:00.000-06:00

"2008 Republican Presidential Primary
Republican Nomination Race Gets Murkier With No Clear Frontrunner

Monday, October 01, 2007

For those covering the story of the Republican Presidential Nomination this week, the focus will be on interpreting the results of the various candidate’s fundraising results for the third quarter. For political junkies, that’s interesting stuff, but it’s unlikely to add clarity to who is ahead or behind at this time.

While Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson lead in the national polls (see weekly poll results) and Mitt Romney leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, there is no true frontrunner among GOP hopefuls. If anything, the race is getting murkier as time goes on.

A week ago, Rasmussen Reports noted that Romney needs to win big in both Iowa and New Hampshire if he is to remain a viable top-tier candidate. Polling data, however, shows that his lead is shrinking in New Hampshire. Since he has a home-court advantage as the former Governor of neighboring Massachusetts, and because he began campaigning in New Hampshire far before anybody else, Romney needs a solid victory just to meet expectations.

On Saturday, it was Giuliani’s turn to receive news that could threaten his candidacy. A group of influential Christian conservative leaders threatened to consider backing a third-party candidate if the former New York City Mayor wins the GOP nomination. While such a third-party campaign would likely attract only a small percentage of the vote, that could be enough to doom any GOP hopes of winning the White House in 2008. Earlier in the week, the campaign’s chief fund-raiser resigned amidst speculation that third quarter fund raising may not have been up to expectations. These news items are particularly troubling for Giuliani because much of his current success is based upon the perception that he is the most electable Republican candidate.

Before Giuliani’s tough week, Thompson took a hit from many conservatives after acknowledging that he doesn’t attend Church every Sunday. Thompson has also been under fire from inside-the-beltway conservatives such as George Will. Those challenges are troubling for Thompson because his current success derives from the fact that he’s seen as the most conservative Republican candidate.

The continuing challenges faced by each of the leading Republicans may force the chattering class to wait for voters to get engaged before a clear frontrunner emerges. It is even possible, of course, that no clear frontrunner may emerge even after the dust settles following the nearly national primary day of February 5.

For those who like a little more clarity, the narrative in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination is much simpler--Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner, but her victory is not yet inevitable.

Rasmussen Reports conducts national telephone surveys on the Presidential race every night and releases updated data from our Presidential Tracking Poll by noon each day, Monday through Friday.

Those results are based upon a four-day rolling average and provide a quick update on the race.

In addition to the daily tracking poll, Rasmussen Reports provides weekly results to provide a longer-term overview of the race. These updates are based upon nightly telephone surveys. Results are reported based upon interviews conducted on the seven days up to and including the night before posting.

For the seven days ending September 30, 2007 show that Fred Thompson earns 25% of the vote while Rudy Giuliani attracts 23%. Mitt Romney has moved back into third place, supported by 13%. John McCain is now the favorite for just 10% and Mike Huckabee is at 6%. Four other candidates split 4% of the vote while 19% are undecided (review history of weekly results).

The seven day results typically include interviews with more than 1,000 Likely Republican Primary Voters. This includes both Republicans and those independents likely to vote in a Republicans Primary. In some state primaries, independent voters are allowed to participate in party primaries while in others they are excluded. The margin of sampling error for the weekly update is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Updates prior to July 16 were based upon four days of polling conducted the Monday through Thursday preceding release.

Rasmussen Reports continuously updates general election match-ups and other key stats for all Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates. "

The biden plan passed in non-binding form. Iraqi and White House leadership's ability to siphon American tax dollars one step closer to an end?

2007-10-02T11:15:00.000-06:00

Biden to Iraqi pols: 'I Don't Know Who the Hell They Think They Are"

October 01, 2007 7:13 PM

ABC News' Brian Wheeler Reports: Joe Biden today responded to criticism of a resolution passed by the Senate last week that called for federalism in Iraq. During a conference call with reporters, Biden steadfastly denied that the resolution was aimed at breaking up Iraq, and said, "It is not partition, it is not foreign imposition, and it will not produce bloodshed and suffering in Iraq. It’s hard to imagine how more bloodshed and suffering in Iraq could exist."

Biden’s amendment, introduced with Sen. Sam Brownback R-KS, was passed by the Senate last week by a vote of 75-23. It was immediately criticized by a wide spectrum of Iraqi politicians as an attempt to split up the country, and on Friday Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told the AP: "It is an Iraqi affair dealing with Iraqis. Iraqis are eager for Iraq's unity. ... Dividing Iraq is a problem, and a decision like that would be a catastrophe."

Today Biden was heated about Maliki’s contention that the U.S. Senate should mind its own business: "For Maliki and Iraqi leaders to suggest we don’t have a right to express our opinion, I don’t know who the hell they think they are. We have a right. We’ve expended our blood and treasure in order to back their commitment to their constitution. That’s the deal."

On Saturday the U.S. embassy in Iraq issued a statement denouncing the resolution, saying "attempts to partition or divide Iraq by intimidation, force or other means into three separate states would produce extraordinary suffering and bloodshed. The United States has made clear our strong opposition to such attempts."

Biden said the embassy was doing the bidding of the White House, and of Ambassador Ryan Crocker Biden said, "He has no legitimate basis to say this is partition. He knows better."

Senators Biden and Brownback sent a letter to the White House today asking for a personal meeting with the President to discuss the resolution. In addition the letter asks the administration to "convene a conference for Iraqis to reach a comprehensive political settlement based on federalism. Far from calling for the break up of Iraq, as suggested by the statement from U.S. Embassy Baghdad on September 30, our proposal is the last best chance to prevent Iraq’s partition or fragmentation."

The resolution may be non-binding, but Biden’s putting on the full court press all the same.

Ginrich on his pass on the Republican candidacy and how to beat clinton

2007-10-02T09:17:00.000-06:00

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3671797&page=1

Newt Gingrich Defends White House Pass as Legal Necessity
Former Speaker of the House Criticizes Campaign Finance Laws

By MARY BRUCE
Sept. 30, 2007

Former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich reiterated this morning that his recent pass on a 2008 White House bid was a legal necessity.

Gingrich rejected the notion that it was for lack of resources or potential. He announced this weekend that he would not be a Republican candidate because it would prohibit him from continuing to work with his American Solutions organization.

"To give up and kill an organization we spent a year on, and that had 2,000 sites around the country where people had now invested their time and effort, just to look at whether or not you could run, I thought would be irresponsible," Gingrich said in an exclusive interview on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

He went on to rail against campaign finance laws.

"The McCain-Feingold Act criminalizes politics ... We were informed yesterday morning that if I had any communication with American Solutions after I became a candidate, it was a criminal offense."

Gingrich, who was poised to launch a $30 million fundraising Web site, asserted that he could have been a serious contender.

"I think it would have been a real campaign. I think we would have had a chance to win," he said.

On what it will take for the Republicans to win, Gingrich said, "The Republicans have got to get out from under Washington. And, if we nominate somebody who is a continuation of where we are right now, we're going to lose."

He went on to offer up his predictions for the Republican candidates. "Both Giuliani and Romney are beginning to articulate really dramatic change. I think that Thompson has not yet. I think Huckabee is very effective, and if Huckabee can find money, he will be dramatically competitive almost overnight. He's probably the best performer in terms of giving speeches and being appealing."

On the Democratic front, Gingrich made clear his belief that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., will be the candidate to beat.

"I believe she is very professional. I think the Clinton machine is the most powerful political machine in modern America. I think her husband is the smartest politician in our generation," he said.

But, according to Gingrich, "trying to beat Sen. Clinton, personally, is just insane. Everybody in America who's ever going to vote against Sen. Clinton, knows everything that anyone's going to tell them. And, everybody in America who's going to vote for her knows everything you could possibly tell them."

Instead, Gingrich argued that beating the Clinton campaign is an ideological, rather than personal, case.

"The left is fundamentally wrong from the standpoint of most Americans on issue after issue," he said.

"Let's take her as a very solid professional, competent person, and say, do we want to go — does America want to go where she would take America?"

Did we just see the beginning the breakup between the Christian Reich and the Republican Party?

2007-10-01T12:20:00.000-06:00

NPR: Christian Conservatives Mull Third-Party Candidate

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14858831

Click the sound link to hear the story.

In Short, the Arlington Group met with Fred Thompson and were lukewarm about him as well. As it stands Mike Huckabee appears to be the only candidate religious enough for them, but they are not endorsing him because he is not a front runner. Instead they will begin investigating whether the can lure in a name candidate as a late entry (not likely at this point) or as an independent.

They seem ready to move into action if Gulianni gets the nomination --- an end result made all the more likely if they do not endorse any other candidates. All this in spite of the fact that a 3rd party candidate would certainly kill any republican's chances in the upcoming election.

The other Republicans power brokers are attempting to keep them in check by advising that if they run a 3rd party candidate they will be handing the election not to the democrats in general, but HILLARY CLINTON specifically.

Who is the arlington group? Not small potatoes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlington_Group

http://www.thearlingtongroup.org/

Obama suggests making the severity of crimial punishment appropriate; Nice speech, but too little, too late for his candidacy?

2007-09-29T23:31:00.000-06:00

Pulled from a post by Cornelius Hamelberg on September 29, 2007 at 18:13:07:
http://www.hwforums.com/2179/messages/48654.html

Full Text: Barack Obama Speech at Howard University Convocation Sept. 2007
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
Howard University Convocation
Friday, September 28th, 2007
Washington, DC

"It’s a privilege to be a part of today’s convocation and an honor to receive this degree from Howard. There are few other universities that have played so central a role in breaking down yesterday’s barriers and inching this country closer to the ideals we see inscribed on the monuments throughout this city.
It was Howard that sent the first African-American to the United States Senate. It was Howard that graduated the first African-American to become governor and the first to become mayor of the largest city in the country. It was here, within the halls of this campus, where Thurgood Marshall huddled with the brilliant minds of his day to craft the arguments in Brown v. Board that ignited a movement that changed the world. And it is because of these victories that a black man named Barack Obama can stand before you today as a candidate for President of the United States of America.
But I am not just running to make history. I’m running because I believe that together, we can change history’s course. It’s not enough just to look back in wonder of how far we’ve come â€“ I want us to look ahead with a fierce urgency at how far we have left to go. I believe it’s time for this generation to make its own mark â€“ to write our own chapter in the American story. After all, those who came before us did not strike a blow against injustice only so that we would allow injustice to fester in our time.
Thurgood Marshall did not argue Brown so that we would accept a country where too many African-American men end up in prison because we’d rather spend more to jail a 25-year-old than to educate a five-year-old.
Dr. King did not take us to the mountaintop so that we would allow a terrible storm to ravage those who were stranded in the valley; he would not have expected that it would take a breach in our levees to reveal a breach in our compassion; that it would take a hurricane to reveal the hungry God asks us to feed; the sick He asks us to care for; the least of these He commands us to treat as our own.
The teenagers and college students who left their homes to march in the streets of Birmingham and Montgomery; the mothers who walked instead of taking the bus after a long day of doing somebody else’s laundry and cleaning somebody else’s kitchen â€“ they didn’t brave fire hoses and Billy clubs so that their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren would still wonder at the beginning of the 21st century whether their vote would be counted; whether their civil rights would be protected by their government; whether justice would be equal and opportunity would be theirs.
And I am certain that nine children did not walk through the doors of a school in Little Rock so that our children would have to see nooses hanging at a school in Louisiana. We have more work to do.
It’s a fitting reminder that the fiftieth anniversary of Little Rock fell on this week. Because when the doors to that school finally opened, a nation responded. The President sent the United States Army to stand on the side of justice. The Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957. The Department of Justice created a Civil Rights Division. And millions of Americans took to the streets in the following months and years so that more children could walk through more doors.
These were not easy choices to make at the time. President Eisenhower was warned by some that sending the Army down to Little Rock would be political suicide. The resistance to civil rights reform was fierce. And we know that those who marched for freedom did so at great risk to themselves and their families.
But they did it because they understood that sometimes there are moments when what’s truly risky is not to act. What’s truly risky is to let the same injustice remain year after year. What’s truly risky is to walk away and pretend it never happened. What’s truly risky is to accept things as they are instead of working for what could be.
In a media-driven culture that’s more obsessed with who’s beating who in Washington and how long Paris Hilton is going to jail, these moments are harder to spot today. But every so often, they do appear. Sometimes it takes a hurricane. And sometimes it takes a travesty of justice like the one we’ve seen in Jena, Louisiana.
There are some who will make Jena about the fight itself. And it’s true that we have to do more as parents to instill in our children that violence is always wrong. It’s wrong when it happens on the streets of Chicago and it’s wrong when it happens at a schoolyard in Louisiana. Violence is not the answer. Non-violence was the soul of the Civil Rights Movement, and we have to do a better job of teaching our children that virtue.
But we also know that to truly understand Jena, you have to look at what happened both before and after that fight. You have to listen to the hateful slurs that flew through the halls of a school. You have to know the full measure of the damage done by that arson. You have to look at those nooses hanging on that schoolyard tree. And you have to understand how badly our system of justice failed those six boys in the days after that fight â€“ the outrageous charges; the unreasonable and excessive sentences; the public defender who did not call a single witness.
Like Katrina did with poverty, Jena exposed glaring inequities in our justice system that were around long before that schoolyard fight broke out. It reminds us of the fact that we have a system that locks away too many young, first-time, non-violent offenders for the better part of their lives â€“ a decision that’s made not by a judge in a courtroom, but by politicians in Washington. It reminds us that we have certain sentences that are based less on the kind of crime you commit than on what you look like and where you come from. It reminds us that we have a Justice Department whose idea of prosecuting civil rights violations is trying to rollback affirmative action programs at our college and universities; a Justice Department whose idea of prosecuting voting rights violations is to look for voting fraud in black and Latino communities where it doesn’t exist.
We know these inequities are there. We know they’re wrong. And yet they go largely unnoticed until people find the courage to stand up and say they’re wrong. Until someone finally says, “It’s wrong that Scooter Libby gets no jail time for compromising our national security, but a 21-year-old honor student is still sitting in a Georgia prison for something that wasn’t even a felony. That’s wrong.”
It’s not always easy to stand up and say this. I commend those of you here at Howard who have spoken out on Jena 6 or traveled to the rally in Louisiana. I commend those of you who’ve spoken out on the Genarlow Wilson case. I know it can be lonely protesting this kind of injustice. I know there’s not a lot of glamour in it.
When I was a state Senator in Illinois, we had a death penalty system that had sent thirteen innocent people to death row. Thirteen innocent men â€“ that we know of. I wanted to reform the system. And I was told by almost everyone that it wasn’t possible. That I wouldn’t be able to get police officers and civil rights advocates; Democrats and Republicans to all agree that we should videotape confessions to make sure they weren’t coerced. Folks told me that there was too much political risk involved.
But I believed that it was too risky not to act. And after awhile people with opposing views came together and started listening. And we ended up reforming that death penalty system. And we did the same thing when I passed a law to expose racial profiling. So don’t ever let anyone tell you that change isn’t possible. Don’t let them tell you that speaking out and standing up against injustice is too risky. What’s too risky is keeping quiet. What’s too risky is looking the other way.
I don’t want to be standing here and talking about another Jena four years from now because we didn’t have the courage to act today. I don’t want this to be another issue that ends up being ignored once the cameras are turned off and the headlines disappear. It’s time to seek a new dawn of justice in America.
From the day I take office as President, America will have a Justice Department that is truly dedicated to the work it began in the days after Little Rock. I will rid the department of ideologues and political cronies, and for the first time in eight years, the Civil Rights Division will actually be staffed with civil rights lawyers who prosecute civil rights violations, and employment discrimination, and hate crimes. And we’ll have a Voting Rights Section that actually defends the right of every American to vote without deception or intimidation. When flyers are placed in our neighborhoods telling people to vote on the wrong day, that won’t only be an injustice, it will be a crime.
As President, I will also work every day to ensure that this country has a criminal justice system that inspires trust and confidence in every American, regardless of age, or race, or background. There’s no reason that every single person accused of a crime shouldn’t have a qualified public attorney to defend them. We’ll recruit more public defenders to the profession by forgiving college and law school loans â€“ and I will ask some of the brilliant minds here at Howard to take advantage of that offer. There’s also no reason we can’t pass a racial profiling law like I did in Illinois, or encourage state to reform the death penalty so that innocent people do not end up on death row.
When I’m President, we will no longer accept the false choice between being tough on crime and vigilant in our pursuit of justice. Dr. King said it’s not either-or, it’s both-and. We can have a crime policy that’s both tough and smart. If you’re convicted of a crime involving drugs, of course you should be punished. But let’s not make the punishment for crack cocaine that much more severe than the punishment for powder cocaine when the real difference between the two is the skin color of the people using them. Judges think that’s wrong. Republicans think that’s wrong. Democrats think that’s wrong, and yet it’s been approved by Republican and Democratic Presidents because no one has been willing to brave the politics and make it right. That will end when I am President.
I think it’s time we also took a hard look at the wisdom of locking up some first-time, non-violent drug users for decades. Someone once said that “â€¦long minimum sentences for first-time users may not be the best way to occupy jail space and/or heal people from their disease.” That someone was George W. Bush â€“ six years ago. I don’t say this very often, but I agree with the President. The difference is, he hasn’t done anything about it. When I’m President, I will. We will review these sentences to see where we can be smarter on crime and reduce the blind and counterproductive warehousing of non-violent offenders. And we will give first-time, non-violent drug offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior. So let’s reform this system. Let’s do what’s smart. Let’s do what’s just.
Now, there is no doubt that taking these steps will restore a measure of justice and equality to America. They will also restore a sense of confidence to the American people that the system doesn’t just work â€“ it works for everyone.
But there is a broader point I want to make today.
If I have the opportunity to lead this nation, I will always be a President who hears your voice and understands your concerns; a President whose story is like so many of your own â€“ whose life’s work has been the unfinished work of our long march towards justice. And I will stand up for you, and fight for you, and wake up every day thinking about how to make your lives better.
But the truth is, one man cannot make a movement. No single law can erase the prejudice in the heart of a child who hangs a noose on a tree; or the callousness of a prosecutor who bypasses justice in the pursuit of vengeance. No one leader, no matter how shrewd or experienced, can prevent teenagers from killing other teenagers on the streets of our cities; or free our neighborhoods from the grip of hopelessness; or make real the promise of opportunity and equality for every citizen.
Only a country can do these things. Only this country can do these things. And that is why if you give me the chance to serve this nation, the most important thing I will do as your President is ask you to serve it too. The most important thing I’ll do is call on you every day to take a risk and do your part to carry this movement forward. Against great odds and amidst deep cynicism, I will ask you to believe again that we can right the wrongs we see in America.
I would not have driven out to Chicago after college to organize jobless neighborhoods if I didn’t believe this was possible. I wouldn’t have organized a voter registration drive, or become a civil rights lawyer, or a constitutional law professor, or a state Senator, or a U.S. Senator if I didn’t believe this was possible. I would not be standing here today if I didn’t believe this was possible.
And I know that you believe it’s possible too. One of the most inspiring things about the response to Jena was that it did not begin with the actions of any one leader. The call went out to thousands across the internet and black radio and on college campuses like this one. And like the young Americans of another era, you left your homes, and got on buses, and traveled South. It’s what happened two years earlier when students here at Howard and Americans from every walk of life took it upon themselves to try and rescue a city that was drowning. It’s how real change and true justice have always come about.
It takes a movement to lift a nation. It will take a movement to go into our cities and say that it’s not enough to just fix our criminal justice system; what we really need is to make sure that our kids don’t end up there in the first place. We need to set up child care and after school programs and job training and drug counseling to give our children a place to turn to. And we need parents to start acting like parents and spend more time with their children and read to them once in awhile.
It will take a movement to finish what began in Topeka, Kansas and Little Rock, Arkansas. It will take a movement of Americans from every city and town, of every race and background to stand up and say that no matter what you look like or where you come from, every child in America should have the opportunity to receive the best education this country has to offer. Every child. It will take a movement to demand that we rebuild our crumbling schools; that we invest in early childhood education; that we recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them better, and support them more. It will take a movement to ensure that every young person gets the chance that Howard gave all of you; to say that at the beginning of the 21st century, a college education is no longer a luxury for those who can afford it; it is the birthright of every American.
So when you go back to your classrooms and your dorm rooms and you begin another year at Howard University, I ask you to remember how far we’ve come, but I urge you to think hard about where we need to go. I urge you to think about the risks you will take and the role you will play in building the movement that will get us there. And I ask you remember the story of Moses and Joshua.
Most of you know that Moses was called by God to lead his people to the Promised Land. And in the face of a Pharaoh and his armies, across an unforgiving desert and along the walls of an angry sea, he succeeded in leading his people out of bondage in Egypt. He led them through great dangers, and they got far enough so that Moses could point the way towards freedom on the far banks of the river Jordan.
And yet, it was not in God’s plan to have Moses cross the river. Instead He would call on Joshua to finish the work that Moses began. He would ask Joshua to take his people that final distance.
Everyone in this room stands on the shoulders of many Moses. They are the courageous men and women who marched and fought and bled for the rights and freedoms we enjoy today. They have taken us many miles over an impossible journey.
But you are members of the Joshua Generation. And it is now up to you to finish the work that they began. It is up to you to cross the river.
When Joshua discovered the challenge he faced, he had his doubts and his worries. But the Lord told Joshua not to fear. He said, “Be strong and have courage, for I am with you wherever you go.”
Those are the words I will leave you with today. Be strong and have courage. Be strong and have courage in the face of injustice. Be strong and have courage in the face of prejudice and hatred. Be strong and have courage in the face of joblessness and helplessness and hopelessness. Be strong and have courage, in the face of our doubts and fears, in the face of skepticism, in the face of cynicism, in the face of a mighty river. Be strong and have courage and let us cross over to that Promised Land together. Congratulations on another year, and thank you so much."

Nutshelled:
Obama’s commitment to ensuring that every citizen is afforded equal and fair justice under the law includes:
1. He will rid the Justice Department of ideologues and political cronies and staff the Civil Rights Division with qualified civil rights lawyers who will make it a priority to prosecute civil rights violations, employment discrimination, and hate crimes.
2. He will create a Voting Rights Section that actually defends the right of every American to vote without deception or intimidation.
3. He will work every day to ensure that this country has a criminal justice system that inspires trust in every American, regardless of age, or race, or background. Every person accused of a crime should have a qualified public attorney to defend them. Obama will recruit more public defenders to the profession by forgiving college and law school loans.
4. He will ensure that we have crime policy that is both tough and smart. This means if you are convicted of a crime involving drugs, you will be punished. However, the punishment for crack cocaine should not be that much more severe than the punishment for powder cocaine when the real difference between the two is the skin color of the people using them.
5. He will review mandatory minimum drug sentencing to see where we can be smarter on crime and reduce the blind and counterproductive warehousing of non-violent offenders. And he will give first-time, non-violent drug offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior.

Clinton the candidate getting sloppy? $5000 baby endorsement may undo all the moderate branding work of her handlers.

2007-09-28T15:39:00.000-06:00

Clinton: $5,000 for Every U.S. Baby
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RUJBE81&show_article=1

Sep 28 01:09 PM US/Eastern
By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.
Clinton, her party's front-runner in the 2008 race, made the suggestion during a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus.

"I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home," she said.

The New York senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program or how she would pay for it. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States.

Clinton said such an account program would help Americans get back to the tradition of savings that she remembers as a child, and has become harder to accomplish in the face of rising college and housing costs.

She argued that wealthy people "get to have all kinds of tax incentives to save, but most people can't afford to do that."

The proposal was met with enthusiastic applause at an event aimed to encourage young people to excel and engage in politics.

"I think it's a wonderful idea," said Rep. Stephanie Stubbs Jones, an Ohio Democrat who attended the event and has already endorsed Clinton. "Every child born in the United States today owes $27,000 on the national debt, why not let them come get $5,000 to grow until their 18?"

Britain launched a similar program in January 2005, handing out vouchers worth hundreds of dollars each to parents with children born after Sept. 1, 2002.

Earlier this month, Time magazine proposed a $5,000 baby bond program.

...........................................................................

Clinton's damage control swept in later and managed to get media outlets less critical of her to add the following line to their coverage:

"Blake Zeff, a spokesman for the senator's campaign, said a baby bonds program "is not a firm policy proposal but an idea under consideration." "

But it was too late by then. Fox News had already run that Clinton wants to saddle America with this expense and they will not be running any kind of retraction or any noticable modification.

By not stating something along the line of, "It is an interesting idea that seemes like it would be in the long term interest of America and may be financially viable, but implimenting it would be harder to do than correcting Health Care." and instead endorsing it, Clinton probably raised her "strong negative" numbers some more.

This may not hurt her in the primary, but will hurt in the general election.

Thompson woos Religious nutjob vote

2007-09-28T12:24:00.000-06:00

Pulled from the Spectator

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12089

GROUP HUG
Earlier this week, former Sen. Fred Thompson met privately in Washington, D.C. with senior members of the Arlington Group, a coalition of social and religious conservatives. The meeting, according to Arlington Group members present, included members who had previously met with Thompson at a private meeting in the spring, prior to Thompson's speech before the Council on National Policy.

At the meeting this week Thompson answered questions and discussed his views on social issues, as well as his own faith, for more than an hour.

"He's impressive, and a number of us want to help him," says a member of the Arlington Group who was present. "The group itself can't endorse, but I sense that a majority of the major players here will help Senator Thompson. From a social conservative's perspective, he's the most electable of the bunch, and he made it clear that he would not disappoint us if he were elected. He'll work with us to accomplish our goals."

Most critical to the members, according to an Arlington Group staffer present, was Thompson's more in-depth explanation of his position supporting a Constitutional amendment barring gay marriage, but not the one most members of the Arlington Group have been supporting.

"It doesn't go as far as many of us would like, but it goes a lot further than Rudy Giuliani, and he's got a much more solid record on the issue than Mitt Romney. It gets us closer to where we need to be. I am satisfied," says another religious leader at the meeting. "In the end, Thompson's position would bar judges from changing the definition of marriage, and he said that he would be supportive of a Constitutional amendment if we were able to get it passed. What I came away from the meeting with was that, first, he is one of us, and second, he will actually work with us and use the bully pulpit of the presidency to help us and our nation's culture."

Sept 27, 2005 Republican Debate

2007-09-27T23:59:00.000-06:00

pulled from PBS

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/special/forums/transcript.html

"Republican Forum - aired September 27, 2007
Tom Joyner: Good evening. I'm Tom Joyner. And I'd like to welcome you to the 2007 Republican "All-American Presidential Forum" at historically Black Morgan State University.

This event is brought to you by PBS and my dear friend and colleague, Tavis Smiley.

I'm excited to be here, but I admit I'm a little bit out of my comfort zone. I kind of feeling like Dan Rather at CBS premiere week.

But we're all here for a very positive reason, and I salute each of you for participating in this evening's event, including all of you here in the audience.

We may not agree on all the issues, but we do agree on the importance of an evening like this, and you demonstrate that sentiment with your presence.

And to the esteemed candidates, whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, for the war in Iraq or against it, for Kanye West or 50 Cent, it's your turn to share your message with an audience that's stretched further than it's ever been stretched before, and that's a good thing.

Is Dr. Richardson in the house? Dr. Earl Richardson, president of Morgan State University.

And let me take a moment right here and now to say hello to those of you viewing from home. Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Senator John McCain. Governor Mitt Romney. And Senator Fred Thompson. Well, you know, I had to call them out.

Also, while I'm doing shout-outs to those who might be viewing at home, a special shout-out this evening to Mychal Bell and his family in Jena, Louisiana.

Mychal Bell is out of jail and at home, after 10 months in jail for what amounted to a high school brawl. It all started because Black kids couldn't sit under a white-only tree in Jena, Louisiana.

The "Tom Joyner Morning Show" has more than 8 million African American listeners, and there is a perception out there that the Republican Party holds only the interests of the majority population. That is a perception many Republicans say is unfounded. In fact, there is a large audience of Black Republicans here tonight that will swear that this is not true.

Well, this evening is a rare opportunity for Republican candidates to address the concerns and the interests of people of color. I can only assume that Republican candidates who hope to become the president of all the people are here tonight.

Fifty years ago, in Little Rock, Arkansas, the glare of hatred and racism shone on what became "the Little Rock 9." Fifty years later, that ugly light shines just as bright in Jena, Louisiana. We've got a lot of work to do and it's going to take a special kind of unity, tolerance and understanding to get it done.

But nothing will be accomplished until we open our eyes to what still divides us in the first place. Pretending that racism does not exist only assures us that we'll be revisiting the same issues another 50 years from now, another five months from now, maybe another five minutes from now.

This evening is a step in the right direction, and I'm proud to be a part of it.

So let's loosen up, everybody. You don't have to wave your arms in the air, but at least unfold them.

And since I called out the candidates who chose not to join us here tonight, let's give it up for those who are here.

And now, please welcome, my friend and moderator of the "All- American Presidential Forum," Tavis Smiley.

Tavis Smiley: To my dear and abiding friend Tom Joyner, first of all, thank you.

Let me commence tonight by thanking Morgan State University and Dr. Richardson for hosting us and my network home, PBS, for broadcasting this "All-American Presidential Forum."

We live now in the most multi-cultural, multi-racial and multi- ethnic America ever.

Public broadcasting, then, I think, at its best, celebrates that reality.

It is our hope tonight that, as you watch this "All-American Presidential Forum on PBS," or listen on Public Radio International, you'll come to appreciate that, as Americans, we all want the same thing: to live in a nation as good as its promise.

And so we're here tonight because of "The Covenant with Black America," a book that details the most pressing issues of concern to black America, and what everyday black people can do to create change.

Princeton professor, Dr. Cornell West, offers us, in that book, "The Covenant," a powerful formulation on leadership. Says Dr. West, "You can't lead the people if you don't love the people. And you can't save the people, if you don't serve the people."

And so tonight we ask of these Republican candidates: What's the depth of your love for everyday people and what will be the quality of your service to them?

And speaking of love and service, earlier this week, I was in Little Rock, Arkansas, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the integration of Central High School, following the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision.

And tonight we are honored to have with us two authentic American heroes.

Please welcome two of the "Little Rock 9:" Dr. Terrence Roberts and Jefferson Thomas.

Thank you both for being here. It is our honor. We are blessed to have you in this house this evening.

Finally, some of the campaigns who declined our invitation to join us tonight have suggested publicly that this audience would be hostile and unreceptive.

Since we're live on PBS right now, I can't tell you what I really think of these kinds of comments.

But, that said, we're going to be meeting the six candidates who are here tonight. I know you'll join me in showing them your utmost respect.

Fortunately, there are those in the Republican Party who do understand the importance of reaching out to people of color.

I am grateful to former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Congressman Jack Kemp and former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, all of whom have lent their support over the last year to this event.

Indeed, last week, President Bush was asked about those GOP candidates not attending tonight, and responded by underscoring the importance of reaching out to communities of color.

We believe that when we make communities of color better, we make our country better. And so enough said about the no-shows.

Here now to introduce the candidates who are here. Please welcome the former Maryland lieutenant governor and current chairman of GOPAC, Michael Steele.

Former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you guys very much.

The value of participation in the public life of your community is immeasurable. Each of us has a duty to be engaged in the public debate of ideas, and that's what draws us here this evening.

Good evening and welcome to the campus of Morgan State University for this "American Presidential Forum on PBS."

As we gather this evening, we do so in the shadow of the nine black students who entered Little Rock high school 50 years ago, under watchful protection of Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, who made clear to a weary nation that segregation was not compatible with the ideals of America.

Together, the "Little Rock 9" and President Eisenhower changed the course of a nation.

But since that time, the Republican Party and the Black community have stood at arm's length from each other. Republicans assuming a "Blacks will never vote for us" mentality, and Blacks ignoring real solutions to very serious problems facing their families and communities solely because those solutions have a Republican label. Very often, both have missed genuine opportunities to communicate and reach out to each other.

But not tonight. Tonight, African Americans and Republicans take hold of their political destinies, and come together in a renewed spirit as we welcome the Republican candidates for president.

Once again, we have an opportunity to change the course of a nation.

So I'm proud to introduce to you former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Kansas Senator Sam Brownback. Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo. California Congressman Duncan Hunter. Former Ambassador Alan Keyes.

Tavis: The podium order was determined by a random drawing that included all 10 announced GOP candidates.

Those candidates not here tonight are represented by an empty podium. Each candidate will have one minute to answer all questions until we get a little short on time later, and then we'll use moderator's prerogative to advance the conversation.

Before we get to the first question tonight, from our radio contest winner at BlackAmericaWeb.com, let me throw this out to each of you candidates who are here tonight, starting with you, Governor Mike Huckabee.

Please tell me and this audience, in your own words, why you chose to be here tonight and what you say to those who chose not to be here tonight.

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee: Well, Tavis, I want to be president of the United States, not just president of the Republican Party. Frankly, I'm embarrassed. I'm embarrassed for our party and I'm embarrassed for those who did not come, because there's long been a divide in this country, and it doesn't get better when we don't show up.

Quite frankly, for a lot of people there's a perception that Black Americans don't vote for Republicans. I proved that wrong in Arkansas, with 48 percent of African Americans voting for me.

But I want to make sure that the people of this country recognize that we've come a long way, but we have a long way to go. And we don't get there if we don't sit down and work through issues that are still very deep in this country, when it comes to racial divide.

I'm honored to be here. I appreciate you having us. I wish all of the candidates had come. But tonight we hopefully will make up their time and make up their ground.

Tavis: Thank you. Congressman Paul?

Rep. Ron Paul: Well, the main reason I'm here is because I was invited. And I'm delighted that I was invited. And I'm very pleased, because I go wherever I'm invited to talk about freedom. That, to me, is the most important thing, along with the emphasis on the Constitution.

I believe so strongly that individuals have their rights and their life as a gift from God, and the purpose of government is to protect life and liberty.

But I'd also like to extend that. If you have the fruits of your labor, I would like you to keep the fruits of your labor as well.

And under those conditions and under a freedom philosophy and under the Constitution, we would be so much more prosperous, because we wouldn't be policing the world, we would be bringing our troops home, and we would take care of our people here at home.

Tavis: Thank you, Congressman. Senator Brownback.

Sen. Sam Brownback: Thank you very much for having us here.

I want to say just at the outset, I apologize for the candidates that aren't here. I think this is a disgrace that they're not here.

I think it's a disgrace for our country, I think it's bad for our party, and I don't think it's good for our future.

You know, you grow political parties by expanding your base, by reaching out to people and getting more people. What they're doing is sending the message of narrowing the base, and that's not the right way to go. It's not good for the Republican Party, it's not good for the country. And I'm sorry. I'm sorry to you and I'm sorry to those watching that they're not here.

I've got a suggestion, though, for a way to fix it. A lot of people on the Republican side say: Well, OK, we can't get votes in the African American community. I say: Why don't you pick one of the early primary states, like a South Carolina or a Michigan, register Republican, and vote for one of the six of us?

And then let's see what takes place.

Tavis: Senator Brownback, thank you very much. Congressman Tancredo?

Rep. Tom Tancredo: Thank you, Tavis. I am here likewise because I was asked and because I made a commitment on your show. I must admit to you that it is pleasurable and a little bit different to be in this kind of an environment with my colleagues who are here because the last time I was at an event of this nature, it was the NAACP convention and I was the only Republican that showed up.

So I am glad that my colleagues have joined me on the stage tonight.

And I am especially glad to be here to be able to talk about something that was mentioned during the original introduction, something you said, I believe, Tavis, when you talked about -- we're here to talk about the promise of America.

And that is what drives me, that's -- I think, probably all of my colleagues up here. That is exactly why we can get up, do the next event, go get on the plane, do the next event. It is because the promise of America is something that we all have to actually share in, and we have to explain to everybody that's listening to us how we would fulfill that, what would we do for that promise of America -- to every single person in this room and for every person listening on the radio and television tonight.

Tavis: Thank you, sir.

Tancredo: So, certainly, that's why I am here to do so.

Tavis: Thank you. Congressman Hunter?

Rep. Duncan Hunter: Thank you, Tavis.

You know, when we have family reunions and some of the family members don't show up, we do talk about them.

But I'm not going to do that.

You know, tonight we have about 160,000 Americans in Iraq -- in a war. We have over 20,000 of our uniform personnel in Afghanistan. And I'm going to talk, tonight, about how we leave Iraq in victory.

We have a border and we've got a big piece of this border, obviously, shown right behind us here. We have a border which is on fire with massive amounts of narcotics and people being smuggled across, illegally, as we stand here. I want to talk about that.

But you know, most importantly, I want to do what my little grandson did when he walked up to his first grade teacher about a month ago, stuck his hand out, said, "My name is Duncan Hunter."

We call him "D-3."

And he said, "My grandpa's going to be president."

And then this little 6-year-old looked his teacher right in the eye and he said, "Now, can I count on your vote?"

I'm coming here for your vote.

Tavis: Congressman, thank you. Ambassador Keyes?

Former Ambassador Alan Keyes: Now, I wouldn't want to seem to be the fellow who's going to speak up in defense of our absent colleagues here.

But I think it is a little unfair to assume that they didn't show up tonight because they were sending a message of some negative kind to the Black community, for the very obvious reason that they didn't show up at the Values Voters Debate, either -- which, of course, sent a very negative message to the people who are interested in the issues that were discussed there.

Do you know what these two debates do have in common though? The Values Voters Debate was the first debate I was included in. And this is the second debate I'm included in.

I've been barred from the debate in Michigan, for reasons best known to the party there. And what do you want to make of that? The other guys will show up there.

Now, that suggests that they may or may not be afraid of all Black people, but there seems to be at least one Black person they're afraid of.

And I think the reason -- the reason that they have this fear is pretty evident. They don't believe that it's possible to address a significant portion of the Black community...

Tavis: Mr. Ambassador?

Keyes: ... on the basis of solid Republican principles, and I do.

Tavis: Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much for being here.

Let me now introduce, to get this conversation really started, Lucille Victoria Rowels of Chicago, winner of our online contest in which we asked listeners of the "Tom Joyner Morning Show" to submit their questions to the Web site.

Lucille, please welcome her.

Lucille Victoria Rowels: Even though a majority of individuals who have served as president since Abraham Lincoln have been Republican, I believe that most Black Americans who will vote in the year 2008 are not able to name even one Republican president in the 142 years since Lincoln's death who have left a positive and significant legacy for Black Americans.

If you are elected president in 2008, what positive and significant legacy, if any, will you leave for Black Americans?

Tavis: Governor Huckabee?

Huckabee: Well, I would say, first of all, that I would hope they would name President Eisenhower. Because he sent those troops and federalized the National Guard in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, when it was a Democrat governor who stood at the schoolhouse door and said those young people couldn't come in.

And I would like to believe, if I were fortunate enough to be the president, that at the end of my tenure -- hopefully, eight years, by the way, not just four -- that housing opportunities would be better, that we made some real strides in the criminal justice system so that you don't have a different sentence for a 17-year-old kid caught with a lid of marijuana than you do some upper-middle-class white kid who gets caught with cocaine. He goes to rehab, and the Black kid goes to prison for 10 years.

We'd change that. We'd have a different system as it relates to such things as health care, because there is a disproportionate level of people in the African American community with hypertension, with stroke, with diabetes. And there needs to be a disproportionate level of funding to help them.

Those are the kind of things that could make a difference and end this divide that we have.

Tavis: Governor, thank you. Congressman Paul?

Paul: I would like to believe that if we had a freer society, it would take care of Blacks and whites and everybody equally because we're all individuals. To me, that is so important. But if we had equal justice under the law, I think it would be a big improvement. If we had probably a repeal of most of the federal laws on drugs and the unfairness on how Blacks are treated with these drugs laws, it would be a tremendous improvement.

And also, I think that if you're going to have prosperity, it serves everybody. And if this is done by emphasizing property rights and freedom of the individuals, making sure that the powerful special interests don't control Washington, that the military industrial complex doesn't suck away all the wealth of the country, and then we would have prosperity.

This is what we need and we need to share it. The free society is the only society that can provide goods and services and distribute them in the most fair manner. And that is the society that I would advocate and argue for and believe it's available to us.

Tavis: Thank you, sir. Senator Brownback?

Brownback: Lucille, it's a great question. It's one we should ponder and ponder seriously. There are several things that I would do. One is focusing in on rebuilding the family, and that's been at the core of my campaign -- is rebuilding the family.

We pushed that in Washington D.C. where I chaired the committee and developed marriage -- development accounts, and really urging that.

The second one is I think symbols are important, and I would hope I would be the president that would open the National African American Museum of History and Culture on the Mall in Washington, D.C.

I pushed for that. We've gotten the funding on it. And that symbolism would be important to do.

And the final thing that I think is critical that we do. I think we need to have -- and we need to pass in the Congress, and the president sign it and say it, an official apology from the U.S. government for the institutions of slavery and segregation in this country. I think that needs to be done.

Tavis: Senator, thank you. Congressman Tancredo?

Tancredo: Thank you.

First of all, I do believe that there are a number of Republican presidents who have done a great deal for Black Americans, because they've done something for all Americans.

Ronald Reagan, from my point of view, did something for every single American by increasing individual liberty.

You know, it is, I think, destructive to only talk about the politics of race, and suggest that all of the actions taken, or all of the specific programs that we identify and talk about tonight should be focused on race.

It really does not do a service, I think, to us as Americans and again, that promise to America. And I'll tell you this, one of the things that I will do as president of the United States, to increase the economic opportunities for every American, especially people in the lower economic rung of the ladder in America, is to reduce the flow of illegal immigration into this country, which depresses wage rates for the lowest-income earners in this country.

And it's got to be dealt with. It's got to be dealt with forcefully. And I tell you, yes, Black America, brown America, white America, all will be enhanced by actually enforcing our laws.

Tavis: Congressman Hunter?

Hunter: Thank you, Tavis.

What a wonderful question. And, you know, I think that we also have to add, with Governor Huckabee's statement about Ike, that calm hand of Dwight Eisenhower that brought about desegregation -- also, you know, in 1964, that Civil Rights Act was passed with a greater proportion of Republican votes in the United States Congress than Democrat votes, a fact that's been forgotten over the years. I want you to remember that.

But, you know, I can't talk about young Black Americans, the need for them to be shielded from pornography, which is certainly a need, without talking about the need for all Americans to be shielded from pornography.

And in the barrio where I practiced law before I ran for Congress and got this job, I remember Mr. Sanchez down the street with his family, working 18-hour days, a need to have less regulation, less taxation. That would help all Americans.

And I guess I would go with Jack Kemp's great statement: A rising tide lifts all boats. A Republican administration, my administration, would lift all boats.

Tavis: Congressman, thank you. Ambassador Keyes.

Keyes: I would hope that the most important legacy of my administration would be to remind people that in spite of all the talk, I don't believe there is this deep divide between Blacks and whites in America.

I believe that we are, in fact, part of one nation and one community, and that we stand together right now in danger of our rights, because the core of that community is not race; the core of that community is not money. The core of that community is the moral consensus that we are all created equal and endowed by our creator, God, with our unalienable rights that we have the right in our policies and in our laws to honor and respect the creator, God.

And as a practical matter, I would want to see that unity, that moral understanding restored where it is most important -- in the education of our young by adopting an approach to education that empowers every parent in this country to send their children to schools that reflect their faith and values...

Tavis: Ambassador...

Keyes: ... so that the Black community can re-instill moral, community-based schools that reflect their Christian beliefs.

Tavis: I appreciate it. Lucille, thank you very much.

Let me now turn this conversation over to a terrific and very able panel of journalists who will take us the rest of the way.

First up, Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor for the "Atlanta Journal Constitution" and a recipient this year of the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. Please welcome Cynthia Tucker.

Up next, Ray Suarez, well known to PBS viewers for his work on "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer." Please welcome Ray Suarez.

And Juan Williams of NPR and a contributor to FOX News channel. Please welcome Juan Williams.

Tavis: Ms. Tucker will start the conversation. Governor Huckabee will answer first. And then we will move down the line giving every candidate the chance to answer the next question first.

Cynthia Tucker for Governor Huckabee.

Cynthia Tucker: Governor, I want to ask about race and unemployment.

In 2006, the unemployment rate of Black high school graduates -- that's high school graduates -- was 33 percent higher than the unemployment rate for white high school drop outs. What do you think accounts for that inequity?

Huckabee: Cynthia, part of that is it is that there is still racism in this country, and the opportunities aren't the same. Some of it has to do with the fact that there are people who unfortunately still look at a person's face and their skin, and that's something that government can't change, but leadership certainly can speak to.

One of the things all of us need to be aware of is that there isn't an equal opportunity for every American yet. There just isn't. We could say there is, but it's not true.

And in some cases, it's because those who try to lift themselves up find that they get most importantly the heel of someone's boot on top of their head every time they try to raise their head.

And the reason answer is to make sure that there are not only educational opportunities that bring equality, employment opportunities that ensure that people have the same chances as anybody else.

Tavis: Governor, thank you. Congressman Paul?

Paul: Walter Williams, a very astute free-market economist, has studied this extensively, and he has found that prior to minimum wage laws there was no discrepancy like this. So he put a lot of blame on the minimum wage law. Once government gets interfering, this takes away opportunities. And I believe there is a lot of truth to this because it eliminates an opportunity and a chance for a marginal worker.

So once again, though, the economy is supported only when you have a sound economy perpetuated by a government with sound policies. You have to have sound money. You have to have minimum taxes. You have to have, you know, a wise foreign policy.

But I have a bill in that might help a lot of people, Black or white or whomever. I have a bill in that would immediately help these people who are trying to get a start, that they would never have to pay any taxes or payroll taxes, if they just happen to be a waiter or a waitress, to give them a chance to get ahead and get a good job.

Tavis: Congressman, thank you, sir. Senator Brownback?

Brownback: I think there's a couple of things -- I think there's a couple of things that are at work here. One is, I think clearly, we still don't have a colorblind society. And we're seeing that. We continue to see it.

I think we've made some great progress. I've worked with Congressman John Lewis on a number of projects, worked with him on this museum that I just spoke about tonight. That museum is going to happen, and we worked together.

But there is still racism that does exist in America.

There is a second issue here that I think we need to address, and it's the growth of the economy, particularly where people are located.

I come from a rural state of Kansas. And I've got places in my state where there's economic growth taking place, and I have places where it's not.

And what you have to do to try to stimulate it is really have a tax policy, something I've talked about, about an optional flat tax, and maybe you put it in places where they need the economic growth to take place more than in other places. So you stimulate the growth of the economy where people are needing the most opportunities to grow.

And that's something I would do and work on. And I think it is part of the issue.

Tavis: Congressman Tancredo?

Tancredo: OK, I just cannot agree with this race-baiting kind of comments about the reason why we have these problems.

My friends, I'll tell you that I believe, with all my heart -- look, why was it that in the '50s, in the '40s, and actually leading up into the early '60s, the ability for Blacks in the United States to improve themselves economically was working? They were moving up the ladder.

Families were in tact -- in better shape, by the way, than most white families of that same period of time. What happened? Two things have happened to -- I believe -- to devastate the Black community when it comes to economic opportunity.

One, the welfare state; it began to pay people to not be in the home.

And when that happened, what we saw is a decline in wage rates.

And two, of course, is the importation of millions upon millions of low-income workers that depress the wage rates for the lowest income among us. Those two things are responsible, and it's got nothing to do with race.

Tavis: Congressman Hunter?

Hunter: Thank you.

You know, Republicans, when we had that great match up of a Republican majority in Congress in the '90s and President Bill Clinton, the Republicans initiated legislation three times to reform welfare.

The first two times, President Clinton vetoed it, and the third time he signed it and took credit for it. It's something I've done every now and then in my career.

When we did that, let me tell you what happened. The number of jobs of single moms, the employment rate went up. Families did much better. You had the average income go up in the communities where the welfare reform took place. You had, according to HHS, 32 percent increase in employment in those jobs and in those families which previously were on welfare. We did very, very well by breaking this cycle of welfare.

But lastly, there is one party that is very important to jobs, jobs in the community for everybody.

Tavis: Congressman Hunter?

Hunter: That's the small businessman. If we help the small businessman, and that's a Republican trademark, we'll do it...

Tavis: Thank you, sir, very much. Ambassador Keyes?

Keyes: I have to say I think the most important factor in all of this does have something to do with policies that had an impact on race, but it was the disproportionately destructive impact that a lot of government programs had on the moral foundations and family structure in the Black community.

You talk about folks finding job opportunities. You know where a lot of Black men find job opportunities these days? In prison.

And that is something that reflects the reality that when you allow the family to break down, when you have government regulations that drive the father from the home, you have established the conditions for the upbringing of children to be nonproductive, to be violent, to be turned in directions that will be destructive of their economic future.

And when you add to that the promotion of a culture of promiscuity, a culture of selfish hedonism, that leads people not to understand that that marriage partnership is the most important foundation of any real economic life, then you have especially destroyed the Black community.

And I believe the disproportionate impact of these negative things...

Tavis: Ambassador Keyes, thank you sir.

Keyes: ... has accounted for a lot of these bad results.

Tavis: Ambassador Keyes, thank you. Ray Suarez will get the next question now. Congressman Paul will answer first.

Ray Suarez: Congressman Paul, the most commonly cited statistic for the number of illegal immigrants living in the United States is 12 million people. Is it desirable, is it even practical to try to send them all home?

If the next Congress passes comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship, will you sign it, or will you support sending the 12 million home?

Paul: I'm very sorry, but I didn't hear your last sentence, because of the acoustics.

Suarez: In the next Congress, if the next Congress passes immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship, will you sign it, or will you support sending the 12 million home?

Paul: I would not sign a bill like you describe, because it would be construed -- and it would be amnesty, and I haven't supported amnesty.

I also think that it's pretty impractical to get an army in this country to round up 12 or maybe 20 million. But I do believe that we have to stick to our guns on obeying the law, and anybody who comes in here illegally shouldn't be rewarded. And that would be the case.

But I see the immigration problem as a consequence of our welfare state. Welfare because we encourage people not to work here, but the welfare we offer the people who come -- they get free medical care. They get free education. They bankrupt our hospitals. Our hospitals are closing. And it shouldn't be rewarded. That means that if you don't round them up, you don't reward them, you don't give them citizenship. At the same time, you can't solve this problem until you have -- you get rid of the welfare state, because in a healthy economy, immigrants wouldn't be a threat to us. There would probably be a desire for more, because we would be starved for workers.

But today, they have become scapegoated because of the weak economy and the lowering of our standard of living.

Tavis: Congressman, thank you, sir. Senator Brownback?

Brownback: Thanks. Thanks, Ray, for the tough question.

The American people are for immigration. They don't support illegal immigration. That's what they want to see take place. They want a legal system. They're for legal immigration; they're not for illegal immigration.

We've been through this debate now for a couple of years. They want to see us secure the border, and that's something I will push and do and have voted for and will in the future.

They want to see us have enforcement at the worksite. And that's something that I will do and push and enforce as well, because that's the key attraction -- not the only one, but it's the key attraction -- at the worksite.

I will not support new paths to citizenship. I do think in the future we should look at different work-visa-type programs as a way to be able to deal with the problem that you're identifying, which is the realistic problem of where we are today.

Tavis: Congressman Tancredo?

Tancredo: Twelve million to 20 million people in this country illegally. Then that is the ultimate question, is: What do we do about that situation today, because we can all rave about how we're going to secure the borders -- which I'm glad to hear, by the way, these newfound positions with regard to the borders and security?

Great. Happy they're there.

But you're right, what are the -- the real issue is: What do we do about the people here? And I will tell you, when you use phrases like "rounding them up," I mean, it -- those are -- they are improperly used in this respect. Because we're not talking about rounding people up.

If you, in fact, simply enforce the law -- I know that's a scary topic sometimes and a controversial attitude to take -- but enforcing the law, especially against hiring people who are here illegally, you will see people returning home, voluntarily.

It's happening today in states all over this nation. That's exactly the key to this. You do not have to round people up. You simply have to enforce the law.

Tavis: Thank you. Congressman Hunter?

Hunter: Thank you.

Tavis, thank you.

Thank you, Ray.

Folks that are here illegally have to leave and let me tell you why. Today, if you're a dry wall contractor and you play by the rules and you pay $27 a loaded hour for each of your employees, you will be constantly under-cut by contractors who use people who are here illegally.

That's not fair to Americans who play by the rules. And we just talked jobs a few minutes ago. That's one reason you have, in certain areas, especially in the construction trades now, higher levels of unemployment.

You have to build a border fence and you've got to have a real border, not just for immigration issues, but also because of security issues.

And right now, I wrote the law that extends that border fence 854 miles across Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and California. We need to build the border fence. It's the law.

And when people come to this country, they've got to knock on the front door, because the back door's going to be closed.

Tavis: Ambassador Keyes?

Keyes: Well, I think, especially in this context, it's important to remember a number of things. The border is a matter of security, first of all. And we have to make sure that we control it, or no laws we pass have any significance. People will still cross on their own terms.

So the very first priority has to be to get back control. But we also have to remember why we lost control, because these elites who have been under the thumb of certain corporate interests have an interest in cheapening the price of labor in America.

Do you want to know who's first hurt by that cheapened price of labor?

Black folks are first hurt, as they've been hurt in the rebuilding of New Orleans, in the rebuilding of other parts of the United States that were affected by those hurricanes. It's time we stopped fooling around with this issue.

I think people, including a lot of the Black liberals, are more worried about what we do with illegal immigrants than they've ever been about the impact of illegal immigration on Black Americans who have been in this country all along. I'm sick of seeing it.

Tavis: Governor Huckabee?

Huckabee: I don't believe the average American resents that people want to come here. I've said oftentimes we ought to get on our knees every night and thank God that we still live in a country that people are trying to break into, not one they're trying to break out of.

But securing the border is something I think every one of us agree on. You've got to have a secure border because otherwise our borders are not only open to illegal immigrants, but to somebody bringing a suitcase with a dirty bomb.

But, more importantly, if we're going to deal with the supply, you touch it at the point of the demand. And until something is done to touch the people who are employing illegal immigrants because of the very reason that they've talked about on this stage, to create what amounts to another version of slave labor, then we're never going to stop the flow.

You're not going to get illegals to admit that they're here illegally, because they're desperate enough to do anything to feed their families.

What we have to do is to start putting the penalty on the people who are most benefiting from them, the employers who are using those laborers in order to keep from having to pay decent wages.

Tavis: Governor, thank you.

The next question will be asked by Juan Williams and be answered first by Senator Brownback.

Juan?

Williams: Senator Brownback, tonight, as young Black and Latino Americans are watching this debate, they often feel quite alienated from the Republican Party, a party that does not seem to respond to their issues.

You realize about 50 percent of young Black and Latino people dropping out of high school, 35 percent poverty rate, nearly 60 percent of America's prison population Black and brown.

The one area of these problems touching on federal government policy has to do with criminal justice. Today, in Jena, Louisiana, it was announced that one of the Jena 6, originally convicted as an adult, will be tried now as a juvenile.

Name one reform, Senator, that you would endorse to assure young Black and Latino people in America that they will have equal justice in America's courts.

Brownback: Could you say the last sentence again? Your mike's not on up here. I want to make sure I hear.

Williams: Can you name one reform, one criminal justice reform, that you would endorse to assure young Black and Latino Americans that they will have equal justice in America's courts?

Brownback: OK. I think I may be the only person up here on this stage that's spent a couple nights in jail, of my own volition, and I went in to look at the system. I spent a night in a prison in Kansas and I spent a night in a prison in Louisiana. I've stayed in homeless shelters to answer and to get a feel for what you're talking about.

And you hear about it very fast. And you get a feel for it about how people have become loners and went to crime, in some cases, and then caught and want to turn their lives around. So it spawned me to push the Second Chance Act.

It's something that we've gotten through the Committee on the Judiciary, and what it's primarily focused on is to help people if they have been caught and they are in prison, that they not go back again. Because right now in the United States of America, if you go to prison, the chances of you going back are two-thirds, 66 percent. That is a travesty that that number is that high.

This bill in five years we cut it in half. A lot of it is faith- based institutions. A lot of it is mentorship and work programs. So we can help people that are chains they can't break themselves.

Tavis: I hate to cut you off. Congressman Tancredo?

Tancredo: I believe that it was mentioned earlier, and I certainly agree with the fact that first of all, there are far too many criminal statutes at the federal level. The Constitution establishes the roles for the federal government and the state government, and we have taken on far too many things at the federal level, especially drugs laws -- mandating certain penalties and that sort of thing.

I do not believe that that is the responsibility of the federal government. That should be at the state level, and I would certainly not support.

And as a way of reform, by the way, I would move the federal government out of that whole business.

Now, let me say one thing other -- that, I think, that has to be mentioned here. When you talk about the crime rate, so much of this is connected to another huge problem, and that you cannot take apart and you cannot look at just in segments.

And that is this. The family -- what is happening to the Black family in America today and what has been happening for the last 40 years is a disgrace. It is because, of course -- as I said earlier, the welfare state has helped create this.

But you know what? The welfare state cannot be the -- it can be the breadwinner, but it cannot...

Tavis: Congressman...

Tancredo: ... it cannot give you morals, values or discipline. And that's what it takes...

Tavis: Congressman Tancredo...

Tancredo: ... in America today.

Tavis: Thank you, sir. Congressman Hunter?

Hunter: Thank you, Tavis.

Juan, I don't know as much about the facts as you do in this particular case. But the facts, related, that I read in "The Washington Post" was that the one young man there was knocked unconscious and was kicked in the head while he was unconscious.

And I would say this: This is the nation that has rules of law based on accountability, and that that accountability should be followed. And I don't know what particular divisions between juvenile and non-juvenile courts are being made in this case, but there must be accountability.

If, in fact, the young man was kicked in the head while he was unconscious, there has to be accountability for that. And that is clearly criminal accountability.

Now let me go beyond that. You know, while we talk about this, we've got hundreds of thousands of Americans from all groups and all ethnicities depending on each other, saving each other's lives, every day being with each other in this partnership that we call the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We ought to learn from them. And we ought to find that common ground that's allowed them to go forward together. That will make a great America.

Tavis: Congressman Hunter, let me jump in right quick. This is the first time I've had to do this, because I want to make sure we get answers to these questions.

Your answer notwithstanding, Mr. Williams' question was not answered by you, respectfully.

And that is: Is there a particular policy that you would support to guarantee young Black and brown men watching right now a fairer equal justice system? That part you did not get to.

Hunter: OK. Here's my answer.

Tavis: OK.

Hunter: I don't think there's any way you can be more fair then to have people in this country, under this wonderful Constitution that we put together, where people who are tried for criminal acts are tried by a jury of their peers.

Juries, obviously, are blemished in many ways and are not perfect, but a jury trial under the law is, I think, the best system of justice on the face of the Earth.

Tavis: Move on now to Ambassador Keyes.

Keyes: Well, I've always favored, and if you look at a book I wrote some years back called "Masters of the Dream," there was a proposal in it that was part of a package of what we need to do to restore real local self-government, which in our case would be neighborhood self-government in a lot of our urban areas.

One of the features of that neighborhood government would be the reinstitution of what were called in the old days things like justices of the peace.

They were people who lived in the community, came out of the community, were empowered to judge offenses committed by folks who were in and lived in that community so that there would be sensitivity to the truth that you're not just dealing with crooks.

Sometimes you're dealing with young people who, if you treat them in the right way, can be put on a path that will be constructive instead of destructive.

But only the people who live in the community would understand that. So they need to have justices of the peace. They need to have judges who come from amongst them.

The other thing I would do is I would make sure when people were in prison and they were being paroled, that you had to consult the community and make a deal. The community would agree to receive that person back, but they would also promise to help that person to establish a decent life.

So, that community partnership would be restored.

Tavis: Thank you, sir. Governor Huckabee?

Huckabee: Well, first of all, we really don't have so much a crime problem in this country. We have a drug and alcohol problem. Eighty percent of the people who are in our prisons and jails are there for a drug or alcohol crime. They either were high or drunk when they committed the crime, or they committed the crime to get high or drunk.

And what has made a huge mistake is that we've incarcerated so many of the people who really need drug rehab more than they need long-term incarceration.

In our state, we established over 20 drug courts, that gave people an alternative course, rather than just putting them in prison, giving them the opportunity to get what they really needed, which is off the addiction.

We've got to quit locking up all the people that we're mad at and lock up the people that we're really afraid of, the people who are sexual predators and violent offenders.

But the nonsense of three strikes and you're out has created a system that is overrun with people, and the cost is choking us.

I would go for more drug courts and for a lot less incarceration of drug-addicted people.

Tavis: Thank you, Governor. Congressman Paul?

Paul: A system designed to protect individual liberty will have no punishments for any group and no privileges. Today, I think inner-city folks and minorities are punished unfairly in the war on drugs.

For instance, Blacks make up 14 percent of those who use drugs, yet 36 percent of those arrested are Blacks and it ends up that 63 percent of those who finally end up in prison are Blacks. This has to change.

We don't have to have more courts and more prisons. We need to repeal the whole war on drugs. It isn't working.

We have already spent over $400 billion since the early 1970s, and it is wasted money. Prohibition didn't work. Prohibition on drugs doesn't work. So we need to come to our senses.

And, absolutely, it's a disease. We don't treat alcoholics like this. This is a disease, and we should orient ourselves to this. That is one way you could have equal justice under the law.

Tavis: Thank you, Congressman.

The next question will be asked by Cynthia Tucker, answered first by Congressman Tancredo.

Cynthia?

Tucker: Congressman, recently a push to give the District of Columbia voting representation was defeated because of heavy Republican opposition. In addition, many voting rights advocates are worried about rigid voter ID laws, which require photo ID, like a driver's license.

Are you concerned that some eligible voters will be denied the right to vote simply because they don't have a driver's license?

Tancredo: Well, let's first take the issue that you mentioned with regard to the District of Columbia. It is not a state and, therefore, not entitled to representation as a state.

If, in fact, you want -- if it becomes the desire of the country to have that kind of representation, then the district -- then it should be split up, and the portion that was ceded to the federal government by Virginia should go back to Virginia, the portion that was ceded by Maryland should go back to Maryland. Then they would be represented by states. It would work.

Also, with regard to voting opportunities and the use of a photo ID -- let me tell you that it is really not that difficult to obtain. And I don't think that we're asking too much of people when they're doing something that is one of the most sacred duties of anybody in this society, to actually show that they are the person who they say they are. I don't think that's asking too much.

And I think you can get a photo ID and they don't even have to -- you don't even need a driver's license. You can get a photo ID, a state ID, you can do it relatively easily.

Tavis: Congressman? Thank you, sir. Congressman Hunter?

Hunter: Well, thank you, Tavis.

You know, I might be a little more open to statehood for D.C. if they would allow their citizens to be able to keep and bear arms in their houses to protect their safety.

And I offered that amendment a couple of years ago. It passed and when it passed, the Democrats brought down the entire crime bill rather than let D.C. residents have the right to keep and bear arms.

And on the issue of allowing -- mandating some type of ID, you know the first 21 Black congressmen were Republicans who came out of the South, and they went into a series -- they went into a series of poll taxes and all types of deals that the Democrats put in, road blocks the Democrats put in their place to keep them from being able to vote.

So I don't agree with those types of stumbling blocks. But I would say this: We have right now a real danger of people that are illegally in the country being rounded up, herded into the polls -- we've seen that in California -- voting illegally. That disenfranchises everybody in that community.

I think you have to have some IDs.

Tavis: Thank you, sir. Ambassador Keyes?

Keyes: I think the most important thing to remember about Washington, D.C., is that it was established to be a unique representation of the whole people of the United States.

That's a city that's supposed to belong to the nation, not to any one group and not to any one region. That's why it was put together in the first place.

I think it's terribly important to maintain that symbol of the unity of our country. We're a free people. If folks don't want to live in the conditions that prevail in Washington because of its unique status, they can go to Maryland. A whole bunch of folks have done so.

They can go to Virginia. A whole bunch of folks have done so. Some of the biggest churches and everything else now exist in Prince George's County, because people left the District.

They have that right, and I think that they can exercise it. But I think that the country is entitled to have this possession that symbolizes our whole united people, standing together as one community. I think it's terribly important that we sustain it.

Tavis: Governor Huckabee?

Huckabee: Well, I may be a little different on this one. I believe that the people of D.C. should be able to vote for representation.

I think that's appropriate, for the simple reason of equality and justice. And if we need to amend the Constitution to make that possible, it should happen.

D.C. is not the same city it was when it was first created, and I think it just makes sense to not have a group of people -- I don't care what color they are, I don't care how they vote -- they ought to be able to vote, and their color and their political affiliation ought to have nothing to do with the equality that we should give them.

As far as identification -- I have to show photo ID to get on an airplane in my home town. I think it's not asking too much to make sure that people who are voting are truly eligible voters.

But look, if it's a driver's license issue, we've gone to Motor Voter -- let's have Photo Voter so, when you register to vote, they take your picture, put it on a card, and you simply are able to make sure that you're a registered voter.

That way it doesn't dilute the vote if a lot of people who aren't registered voters try to fraudulently vote.

Tavis: Thank you, Governor. Congressman Paul?

Paul: It's very clear, under the Constitution, that we couldn't give the vote to the residents of D.C. without an amendment to the Constitution. And it should be pursued in that manner.

But when it comes to national ID cards, the identification, I think the states have the prerogative and the right and the obligations to identify the voters and they should.

But the reason I get worried about when we start talking about it nationally is, you know, they might want to use the Real ID. They might want to think it's a good excuse to have a national ID card to vote, and I am positively opposed to any move toward the national ID card.

Tavis: Thank you. Senator Brownback?

Brownback: Yes. It's a good question. It's a tough question. I have chaired the D.C. Subcommittee, both the authorizing and the Appropriations subcommittee. I support the residents of D.C. the right to vote. But there's a way to do it and there's a way not to do it. And the way to do it is to amend the Constitution, and the way not to do it is to pass something that's unconstitutional.

In the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution, it gave D.C. the right to vote for president.

But it didn't give them the right to vote for Congress. And what you have to do what we have to do. And what I support is amending the Constitution so they can have the right to vote. D.C. deserves that right. There's a way to do it, there's a way not to do it.

Tavis: Ray Suarez will ask the next question, first answered by Congressman Duncan Hunter.

Suarez: Congressman Hunter, the Federal Agency for Health Care Research and Quality recently reported that both Latinos and Blacks receive "significantly worse," in their words, medical care than whites in the United States.

One out of three Hispanics, one out of five Black Americans is uninsured. Hispanics are 2.5 times as likely as non-Hispanic, white Americans to be uninsured. One of three Hispanics hasn't been to the doctor in more than a year. And as has already been mentioned, diabetes, asthma, hypertension are untreated or under-treated in communities across America.

What does your health care plan contain to address some of these disparities in access to care and access to quality health care?

Hunter: Well, Ray, the first thing I'd say is I can't -- as a guy who practiced law in the barrio and took lots of cases that anybody who couldn't pay didn't have to pay, as people came into my office, down there in the barrio in the waterfront in San Diego, I didn't separate them out. So I'm not going to separate them out now. And I'm going to talk about how I think we can have affordable health care.

The first thing you've got to have is the ability to buy your health care insurance across state lines. And right now, nobody in the United States can do that.

And that means that the same policy that costs 70 bucks a month in Long Beach, California, costs $343 a month in New Jersey, but the New Jersey policyholder can't change policies and buy the policy in California. So we've got to change that.

Secondly, I think we bring back the family doctor. And I think one way you bring back the family doctor is by taking away massive malpractice burdens, these massive insurance premiums that we place on people.

And finally -- finally, Ray, let's try a little freedom. How about if we said in the tax code that if a doc will be a family doc, in the barrio, in the community, and he will do office visits for 30 bucks or 40 bucks a visit, he doesn't have to pay taxes on that, he doesn't have to have three accountants, he doesn't have to do all those things?

Tavis: Congressman Hunter, thank you.

Hunter: Bring back the family doctor.

Tavis: Thank you. Ambassador Keyes?

Keyes: I think two things are important, very briefly.

First, before I would think about bringing back the family doctor, particularly where the Black community is concerned, it might be helpful to bring back the family.

And that would mean that you are going to do what is necessary to support married couples, to encourage marriage, to encourage the rearing of children in the context of a two-parent household.

Not because one is disparaging one-parent households, but because the statistics show that people are more likely to sustain their education, to be in better health, both mentally and physically, if they are raised in that environment.

That's step number one, and I think it's vitally important.

The second step is we all know that in America these days, your ability to have access to health care depends on -- what? -- primarily: your job and whether or not you're able to get that insurance at your job.

So the first thing we need to take care of is to make sure that in areas where Black folks and Hispanics and others are living, you are encouraging the kind of entrepreneurship that will create jobs in those areas...

Tavis: Congressman Keyes, thank you, sir.

Keyes: ... to give people that foundation of health care access.

Tavis: Governor Huckabee?

Huckabee: The first problem with our current health care system is that it's upside down. It focuses on intervention. We wait until people are catastrophically ill, and then we spend enormous amounts of money trying to fix them. We need to be putting the money on the preventive side. Prevention is a lot less expensive than is intervention.

The second thing, there has to be ownership of the individual consumer. As long as the government, the employer, as long as the doctor is in charge of your health care, and you have no idea what it costs, and you have no idea what they're doing, and you don't control it, we're never going to get the system fixed.

And the third thing that has to happen is that we have portable medical records so that your health care records go with you. They don't stay with your doctor. You shouldn't have to ask permission to see the records of your own body. Those are your own records. They don't belong to anybody else.

And the policies that we can put in place have to start with individuals buying in, not only on insurance, but buying in on health, their own personal, to start with.

Tavis: Thank you. Congressman Paul.

Paul: We've had managed care in this country since the early '70s, and it hasn't worked well. It's very, very expensive, and it's the fault that we changed our ERISA law and our tax laws that created this corporatism that runs medicine. Wall Street rakes off the profits. The patients are unhappy. The doctors are unhappy. And it's a monopoly now. Who lobbies us in Washington? The drug companies and the HMOs. They come.

And now what is the cry for? Socialized medicine. That's not the answer. We need to get the government out of the way. Inflation hits the middle class and the poor the most. Those are the people who are losing it. It's just not minorities, anybody poor, because inflation wipes out the middle class, and we have to deal with that.

If you have a product that's not dealt with by government, prices go down when you have modern technology. And medicine, with all this technology, prices still go up. But that's because the government is involved.

We don't have enough competition. There's a doctor monopoly out there. We need alternative health care freely available to the people. They ought to be able to make their own choices and not controlled by the FDA preventing them to use some of the medications.

Tavis: Congressman, thank you, sir. Senator Brownback?

Brownback: Ray, it's a serious question, it's an important one. I've been in my state and communities and in places experiencing what exactly what you're talking about. Not on a personal basis, but seen individuals that are having to go to a community health center at the last minute, after the disease has already really grown and pronounced itself and they hesitate because they don't have insurance coverage or they don't have the money to be able to do this.

This is a real problem. It's real people that are involved in this type of situation.

I think the question you have to ask is: Which is the best way to go, then?

Do you do it with more government or do you do it with more markets?

Because these are real people experiencing this. And I pick more markets and real markets with it. Because I have not seen, in this country, ever, when the government enters into something on a bigger basis, do we get higher quality service or more of it?

We don't. It doesn't work that way. So I really -- and one thing that hasn't been talked about up here is health savings accounts. We need to expand that so people can save money, tax-exempt, from their work, the employers putting that in so they can have some money for their health care coverage.

Tavis: Thank you, Senator Brownback. Congressman Tancredo?

Tancredo: The important thing, the most important thing to remember about your health care is it's your health care. You have a personal responsibility here, every single person does, to do everything they can to stay healthy.

Most of the things that happen to us are lifestyle problems, and, really, I mean, there are things that we do to ourselves that cause us to then have to access the health care industry.

We have to first look to ourselves, individually. Again, it's kind of a scary thing again to say, but, you know, individual responsibility does work, also in health care.

And, yes, I believe, by the way, in the expansion of health savings accounts because it does put you in the connection -- it's you and you're the consumer and the doctor, and there's nobody in between, and that's good.

Also believe, by the way, that you should be able to get your drugs from any place that, in fact, it's cheaper to get drugs. If it's cheaper to get drugs in Canada, get drugs from Canada -- it's OK with me. We shouldn't be blocking that.

Again, individual freedom -- expand individual freedom and take some individual responsibility for your own health care.

Tavis: Thank you very much.

Next question asked by Juan Williams, first answered by Ambassador Alan Keyes.

Williams: Ambassador Keyes, I think you're familiar with the fact that America has a tradition of Black military heroes, going from Crispus Attucks in the Revolutionary War, to the Tuskegee Airmen in World War II, to General Colin Powell.

And tonight, Tavis, I'd just like to take a moment to acknowledge one of those heroes who's here with us in the audience. We have with us Vernice Armour. She's the first African American combat pilot in U.S. history -- I should say, first female African American combat pilot. And she served two tours of duty with distinction in Iraq.

Today we see a decline in Black and Latino enlistment because of one reason: the war in Iraq.

What do you say to the one-third of the nation that's minority and overwhelmingly opposed to the continuation of this war, even as the GOP in Congress continues to block attempts to set a deadline to end this war?

Keyes: I think the most important thing to remember is that our efforts in Iraq and elsewhere right now that followed in the wake of September 11 aren't an effort to defend Black people, white people, Jewish people, Christian people, et cetera.

They're an effort to defend the United States of America from a deep and terrible threat that came against us in disregard of the fundamental -- the fundamental moral principle that is supposed to govern all international affairs, all wars that are conducted by countries, and that is that you do not consciously target innocent human life.

My father was a soldier -- fought in Korea and Vietnam and World War II, did not stand in defense of this race or that, but stood in defense of the common principles of moral decency and justice that are derived from that premise that I talked about, that our rights come from God.

I don't think it's hard to ask anybody in this country to stand in defense of those principles.

My one criticism? I think unfortunately, President G.W. Bush put a lot of emphasis on democracy for people in Iraq, when our real goal is security for people in America.

Tavis: Thank you, Ambassador. Governor Huckabee?

Huckabee: One of the tragedies is that our military veterans have kept their promises to us; we have not kept all of our promises to them.

Many of them have come back to be told to wait in line for their health care, to be told that mental health would be something that might be rationed out.

That's not acceptable. And, if I were president, I'd like to see us have a very plainly written, simple-to-understand veterans' bill of rights that would make sure that every single thing that these veterans have been promised is delivered. And it's delivered as the first fruits of the federal Treasury before anyone else gets their nose in the trough, the veterans get their benefits paid -- not on the basis of a limited budget, but on the basis of making sure that we keep promises to the people who have kept us free.

That, I believe, will help people want to be a part of the military.

Tavis: Thank you, Governor. Congressman Paul.

Paul: The most important promise we keep is the oath to obey the Constitution. We just shouldn't be going to all these wars.

We shouldn't have so many injured and in our hospitals because we shouldn't go to war unless it's declared.

If it's declared, we should go win it and get it over with. Now we're in this war for five years or so and nobody sees the end to this.

So, we went in under false pretense. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There are still -- there are still people who believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, yet 15 of the people were from Saudi Arabia.

We need to live up to our principles so there are less injured veterans, but when they come home we better jolly well take care of them, and we're not doing a very good job right now, because all the money's going overseas.

We're broke. We got to do something about it.

And we can't -- we can't perpetuate a welfare state and police an empire without going bankrupt.

Tavis: Congressman?

Paul: And we're nearly on the verge of that.

Tavis: Thank you, sir. Senator Brownback?

Brownback: One, I think it's clear what we need to do at this point in time, and I think we need to talk about at this point in time, where we are. We declared war. We voted in Congress to go to war, Republican and Democrats. People can say things weren't right, we shouldn't have done this, shouldn't have done that.

We are where we are today. The military, I believe, has done and is doing a superb job. We have had a terrible political answer on the ground in Iraq.

A terrible -- yesterday, in the Congress, a bipartisan political solution passed. It was the Biden-Brownback bill -- or, since I'm here, it was the Brownback-Biden bill.

It declares a three-state federalized solution to Iraq -- a Kurdish north, a Sunni west, a Shia south, with Baghdad as a federal city; weak federated government; most of the policies devolve down to the local units of government. Because Iraq is less a country than it is three groups of people. We need to recognize that. And we can move forward with that political solution...

Tavis: Senator.

Brownback: ... and pull our guys back.

Tavis: Thank you. Congressman Tancredo?

Tancredo: What's the constitutional responsibility of the Congress when it comes to war?

It is, one, declare it; two, fund it; or three, not fund it. That's it.

You know what, when you talk about, Juan, you talk about the number of bills that we have killed because of attempts to, sort of, end this thing?

Well, every one of them has inside of them all these provisions about how have to fight the war, how many people can be dispatched at any particular point in time and who they can fight.

I will tell you this, that the founders of this country knew very well that -- what would happen to us if we ended up with 535 generals in the Congress of the United States. And that is, you lose wars.

You need a commander in chief.

And then the Congress has every right -- and you know what? It has every right to be involved in it. It has every right to talk about this and to condemn it if you don't agree with it.

But you know what? It ends up with this. If you don't want it, don't fund it. But you cannot micromanage it from the Congress of the United States.

Tavis: Congressman Hunter?

Hunter: Thank you, Tavis.

Vernice, thank you for your two tours in Iraq. And I want to say I've got a son who's done two tours as a Marine in Iraq.

He's getting to see a new country in Afghanistan right now. And who knows? You may be there shortly.

Thanks for your service to our country.

Ladies and gentlemen, we can leave Iraq, and under my leadership, we will leave Iraq in victory. And let me tell you what I would propose.

The key to handing off the security apparatus in Iraq, now that we've stood up a free government -- and it is a free government. It's stumbling along, it's inept, but it's a free government. The key to a security handoff is to have a reliable Iraqi army.

Right now, we've got 131 battalions in the Iraqi army. We've trained them and we've equipped them, and we are moving them into the battle.

And my recommendation to the president, the Joint Chiefs and General Petraeus is to make sure that every one of those 131 battalions gets at least a three- or four-month combat tour in a contentious area. When they are battle-hardened, we can rotate them into the battle zone, rotate our America's heavy forces, Marines and Army, and bring them home.

That's the right way to leave Iraq, in victory.

Tavis: Congressman Hunter, thank you.

We've covered a lot of ground tonight. We're starting to get a little tight on time now, just a few minutes left in this conversation.

I would like to then use the moderator's prerogative and privilege to ask you now if we can squeeze a couple more questions in, to cut your answers down to 30 seconds and see if we can't get a couple more questions in right quick.

Cynthia Tucker will ask next; answered first, 30 seconds, by Governor Huckabee.

Tucker: Governor, does the U.S. have a role to play in ending the genocide in Darfur? And, if so, what should that role be?

Huckabee: I think we have some role to play in it, but I guess what disturbs me even more, we have not even addressed the genocide that's going on and the infanticide in our own country with the slaughter of millions of unborn children.

And we also have extraordinary poverty in this country.

Yes, we ought to be involved. But you know something? There are a lot of people in America that don't think the only poverty is in Darfur -- understand there's poverty in the Delta.

There are people who don't have running water, people that don't have access to medical care and don't have a decent school to go to and you don't have to go halfway around the world to find it. We've got it right here in this country.

Tavis: Congressman Paul?

Paul: The U.S. government has no authority. There's no constitutional authority. There's no moral authority. There's plenty of moral authority and responsibility for individuals to participate. But every time we get involved, no matter where, for good intentions, believe me, we're getting involved in a civil war.

Even when you send food, it ends up in the hands of the military and they use it as weapons. So it's not well-intended. We should direct our attention only to national security and not get involved for these feel-good reasons of going overseas for the various reasons.

And this is the main reason why I think we ought to just come home from every place in the world and bring our troops home from Iraq.

Tavis: Senator Brownback?

Brownback: I know this won't be a crowd-pleaser, but I couldn't disagree more with that last answer.

We are the greatest nation on the face of the Earth, and we are ones that can stand up. And we need to stand up in the face of second genocide when we had declared years ago in Rwanda: Never again.

And what is happening? It is happening again. And it's not just the first genocide that's taken place in Sudan, it's the second. And I've been there.

We need to do divestiture campaigns here. We need to support the African Union troops there. We shouldn't put our own troops. We don't need to put our own troops.

Tavis: Thank you.

Brownback: We need to provide food and medicine as well.

Tavis: Senator, thank you very much. Congressman Tancredo?

Tancredo: First trip I ever took -- the very first trip I ever took as a congressman of the United States was to Sudan. I came back, worked two years to pass the Sudan Peace Act.

I believe we do have a moral responsibility to act. It is not to send troops, believe me. I do not believe we need boots on the ground in Sudan or in Darfur to deal with this issue.

But you know what we could do?

We could see whether the United Nations is worth its salt and force them into participating in this issue and getting that -- and in getting that solved.

Tavis: Congressman, thank you. Congressman Hunter?

Hunter: The outside troops, U.N. and African Union, are not getting the job done because they're garrisoned far away from the villages that get hammered by the Janjaweed.

By the time the damage has been done, the troops always get there late.

What we probably need to do is get a humanitarian corridor driven up through that vast country, where we have armed convoys, U.N. convoys or African Union convoys to get food and medicine to those people that need it most.

And lastly, teach those villages self-defense, because the troops aren't getting there in time.

Tavis: Ambassador Keyes?

Keyes: I have to say I'm appalled by the suggestion that we retreat into some kind of fortress America and forget who we are. We are a nation of nations, a people of many peoples. We are in touch with every people on the face of the Earth. If somebody is being hurt somewhere in the world, somebody in America grieves for them.

And I don't believe we can turn our backs on that universal significance, that universal mission.

I think a lot of suggestions made here in terms of how we get involved are good ones. We don't have to send troops, but we need to support and reinforce the sense of local, regional responsibility...

Tavis: Ambassador Keyes...

Keyes: ... for both humanitarian and military order in that region.

Tavis: Thank you, sir. Ray Suarez for Congressman Paul.

Suarez: Congressman Paul, support has gradually been slipping for the death penalty among all Americans. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reports a large minority of whites still support capital punishment, while Blacks and Latinos do not.

Now, I know this is mostly a state function, but the president does appoint appellate judges, and of course, the highest appellate judges in the land, the Supreme Court justices, who often review death penalty cases.

Do you think the death penalty is carried out justly in the United States? And do you want to see it continued during your presidency?

Tavis: Thirty seconds, Congressman.

Paul: You know, over the years, I've held pretty rigid all my beliefs, but I've changed my opinion about the death penalty. For federal purposes, I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you're rich, you get away with it; if you're poor and you're from the inner city, you're more likely to be prosecuted and convicted.

Today, with the DNA evidence, there have been too many mistakes. So I am now opposed to the federal death penalty.

Tavis: Thank you, Congressman. Senator Brownback?

Brownback: We need a culture of life in the United States, a culture that recognizes every life at every stage. It's beautiful, it's unique, it's a child of a loving God, period.

I have difficulty with the death penalty. This is an individual, though, in that case, that has committed a heinous crime. I think we should limit the death penalty to cases only where we cannot protect the society from the individual, such as when Osama bin Laden is caught.

We need to be able to use it then.

But we should use this very limited and only in that circumstance, in order to talk and to teach a culture of life in America.

Tavis: Senator Brownback, thank you. Congressman Tancredo?

Tancredo: It is, in fact, a state issue, almost entirely. The restrictions that we talked about with regard to the federal government and whether or not we should have a death penalty, I will tell you, I would absolutely support the continuation of a death penalty, especially for crimes like treason.

I mean, we really have to consider the possibility that there is an appropriate penalty for a crime of that nature. It is the death penalty.

Tavis: Congressman Hunter?

Hunter: I think there is a need for the death penalty. And it's called deterrence. And that means that, when that Charles Manson is getting rid to pull the trigger on an innocent American, just maybe the idea passes through his mind that he, himself, is going to lose his life.

Now, that might only deter five percent, 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent. It does deter some people. And for that reason, the death penalty, dealing with some very rough, very ruthless people, is necessary.

Tavis: Ambassador Keyes?

Keyes: I support the death penalty. I think it has a basis in universal justice that isn't just about deterrence and all that, it's about respect for life. It's about making sure that we don't send the signal, especially where Black killers are concerned, because we do understand, don't we, that they mostly kill Black folks.

And I wouldn't want to send the message that when you kill another Black human being, we somehow don't take that seriously. We'll cheapen the significance of that by not applying the understanding that when you cold-bloodedly and calculatively take another human life, more has (inaudible) you than more than all can take.

We can only dispatch you to the ruler of us all so that he may ultimately judge you for your misdeeds.

Tavis: Governor Huckabee?

Huckabee: I probably dislike the death penalty more than anybody on this stage, but for a very different reason. I've actually had to carry it out, more than any governor in my state's history. I had to carry out the death penalty because that was my job.

I did it because I believed, after reading every page of every transcript and everything in that file, it was the only conclusion we could come to. But I didn't enjoy it.

And God help the American who somehow has this cavalier attitude about the death penalty and says they support it and they can do it. Let me tell you something from the person whose name had to be put on the document that started the process: It's a necessary part of our criminal justice system for those crimes for which there is no other alternative.

But God help the person who ever does it without a conscience and feels the pain of it.

Tavis: We know, given the time, we're not going to get everybody in on this, but, Juan, last question right quick?

Williams: Certainly.

The Supreme Court, gentlemen, recently ruled that even voluntary integration in America's public schools is unconstitutional and illegal. That comes even as two-thirds of Black and Latino students go to schools that are so-called minority majority and disproportionately poor.

We all know of a tremendous achievement gap between Black and white students in America.

Is the Supreme Court right to say that school integration is no longer key to the promise of equal educational opportunity for all?

Tavis: Senator Brownback, you'll start with that?

Brownback: I live in the town of Topeka, Kansas. Brown v. Board of Education was decided in my hometown.

I believe we still need integration taking place in the schools, and I think it's an important thing. I think we need to do it on a voluntary and incentivized basis as much as we possibly can, but it is important for us to maintain it as a goal and objective of this country.

Tavis: Congressman Tancredo?

Tancredo: I think it's a racist thing to say, to even suggest that the only way that a Black child can learn is sitting next to a white child or any other kind of child.

It can happen. We can teach children of all colors and we've proved it. We can do it by giving choice -- choice to parents, choice to pick from a wide array of educational opportunities, and then kids go to those schools. They're all over the country now. There are charter schools and voucher systems. That's what will give that integration -- make it a natural phenomena and it will make kids much, much better in terms of their ability to succeed.

Tavis: Congressman Hunter?

Hunter: I think the population of the school should depend on the community that you live in.

And it should be, in my mind, small schools, and they should be schools that are close enough to mom and dad that you can get them down to the school when the teacher needs them. It shouldn't be based on any forced mandate by government, and I think it will work out a lot better that way.

Tavis: Unfortunately, we are out of time. Let's show our appreciation one more time for those candidates tonight -- who showed up here at Morgan State in Baltimore.

And our terrific panel of journalists: Cynthia, Ray and Juan, we thank you. We thank everyone here at Morgan State, everyone behind the scenes who made this night possible.

That's it from here. Good night from Baltimore. Thanks for watching. And, as always, keep the faith."