After Obama, The Stock of Black Leaders Is Great

WHY ARE WOMEN LEADERS STRUGGLING TO RISE EN MASSE?

Before the vice presidential debate last October, conservative pundits learned that the moderator, the well-known journalist Gwen Ifill, also had a book on Sen. Barack Obama conveniently due Inauguration Day. A few such as Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin howled. The question of Ifill's objectivity soon dissipated as Sarah Palin stole the show and the election continued.

Ifill, in her new book The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, does not deal directly with the rise of President Obama, but the rising crop of young, black politicians ready to change the landscape of American politics.

Similar to early worries about Obama's candidacy -- he was not "black enough," he was "too black" or he was too green -- the politicians featured by Ifill share a few commonalities. All are young, highly-educated and grew up in middle-to-upper class surroundings, yet they are able to cross socioeconomic and cultural-mixed racial environments.

In an election as historically unique as 2008, where an African-American and female senator fought as front-runners throughout the campaign, it is interesting to learn Ifill's thesis that the civil rights movement has produced a deep reserve of talented black politicians.

Among them is Congressmen Artur Davis of Alabama, who will likely attempt to make Obama-like history by becoming thar state's first black governor. Davis, incidentally, graduated in Obama's class at Harvard.

Ifill also profiles the first black governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick, Stanford alum and mayor of Newark Cory Booker, and the scion of the civil rights movement Jesse Jackson, Jr. The inclusion of Jackson may be the least likely of the group, since it was revealed during the sting that rounded up Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich that he had been a government informant for years.

While the stock of rising black leaders is strong, the names of up-in-coming women in government is perhaps less-so. Aside from new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Palin, I find it difficult to conjure up many women other than Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who was a contender for Obama's VP slot. Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm is a strong female voice , but her ambitions won't include the White House, because she was born in Canada. So, why are blacks hitting the highest levels and stealing the spotlight from the women?

Ifill does not explicitly say this, but one reason gleaned from the book is the fact that this new crop of black politicians was forged from of a distinct political movement that was highly organized and direct. By contrast, the women's movement does not have a center, does not have a rallying point such as Selma, Alabama, had for the civil rights movement. Coincidentally, the strong campaign of Hillary Clinton aimed at progressive women and the unique political talents of Palin to conservatices could be the impetus for the rise of significant female candidates in the next 10-15 years.

Undoubtedly the election of Barack Obama is a turning point in this country's history. If you were able to fast-forward a few decades into the future, it is quite conceivable three of the next four leaders of our country could be a mixture of women and minorities.

Developing Storyline: Can't Trust Those Democrats

THREE WEEKS BEFORE INAUGURATION, GOP HAS SOMETHING ON NEW ADMIN.

So much for the big, scary liberal media operating in tandem with the incoming Obama administration and Democratic Congress to turn America into a socialist panacea.

If the audacity of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich allegedly selling the state's vacant U.S. Senate seat Chicago-style wasn't enough political crookedness, now comes these headlines from The New York Times:

"A Donor’s Gift Soon Followed Clinton’s Help" and today, "Richardson Won’t Pursue Cabinet Post". The latter referring to New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson take his name out of consideration as Obama's Commerce Secretary because of an alleged pay-to-play scheme in his state.

Blagojevich, Clinton, and now Richardson...so much for change in Washington.

There seems to be a trend developing that surely has Republicans salivating. With still three weeks before the incoming administration takes power, Senate Minority Whip, Mitch McConnell already has three examples of Democrats acting in a supremely egregious manner. How soon until every wide-ranging progressive idea from expanding health care to stoking the stagnant economy is torpedoed by Republican rhetoric about the unapologetic graft of Democrats? How can we trust these guys with our tax dollars, the GOP will likely cry ad nauseam.

When Obama and others say something akin to "good ideas come to Washington to die" we really had a different view of how it would go down--with political posturing, not the plausible argument of trust in the party in power.

Obama's Rise Starts With The People Of Iowa

LFR'S PERSONS OF THE YEAR: THE VOTERS OF IOWA

Two thousand-eight will be go down as the year of Barack Obama. No publication in their right mind would argue with this assessment, but the end of eight years of partisan bickering under President Bush began in earnest during a snowy January night when the caucus-goers of Iowa proved that a black man could indeed become President of the United States. For this act of political bravery and vision the voters of Iowa are the LFR Persons of the Year.

Back in October of last year, the inevitability of Sen. Hillary Clinton's run to the White House began to decrease with reports of disarray in her Iowa campaign staff. The LFR wondered at this time whether Clinton might finish third in the Jan. 3 caucus--she did--but, it was not John Edwards who reaped the rewards, instead Obama easily won the nation's first contest and set the tone for the rest of the campaign season in the name of slogans such as "change we can believe in" and "Yes we can".

It wasn't just that Obama outsmarted Clinton on the ground in Iowa; this was expected. The Clintons going back to 1992 never engaged the voters of Iowa like they did in New Hampshire. President Clinton deferred to native son Sen. Tom Harkin in 1992 and ran unopposed in 1996. The sound of change, though, rang like a clarion call to voters unwilling to believe Obama could actually win the presidency when a Midwestern state featuring demographics of 92 percent whites threw up their arms in despair over the damage wrought by Republican rule and unequivocally set forth the rise of Obama on America. He would be upset in New Hampshire by a Clinton comeback but 13 straight victories along with the momentum it achieved became an unstoppable force for Clinton and ultimately the Republican challenger--Sen. John McCain.

Here's a sampling of the commentary from early January:

Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post said, "Because tonight voters decided that they didn't want to look back. They wanted to look into the future -- as if a country exhausted by the last seven years wanted to recapture its youth."

Ed Morrisey at the Captain's Quarters wrote, "Obama beat Hillary in a state that has a very small African-American demographic; he won not by playing the race card, but by simply offering a departure from Clintonian politics."

Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Dick Polman seemed to be reading into the future saying, "He’s the 'change' candidate unless and until somebody else swipes the label. That won’t be easy, because now he looks like the leader of a burgeoning movement, and that’s catnip for independents and non-establishment Democrats who have long yearned to shake things up."

A diarist at Daily Kos makes the most illuminating point of all, "Tonight we saw the the core of a future progressive majority make its presence known in Democratic politics. Young Voters are not a hidden vote or icing on the cake, and after tonight, everyone knows it. "

It is easy to forget where this all started before voters in Iowa met in cramped high school gyms and clammy Elk's Lodges to thrust the candidacy of Obama towards its destiny almost exactly 11 months later. Obama was a likable, handsome candidate who could spin one hell of a speech, but until Iowa these attributes did not make a serious candidate.

The roots of Obama's successful campaign first spread in Iowa. His attention to unifying the country. The decision to never make race an issue. His ability to rally the youth and his use of sophisticated web tools such as emailing, text-messaging and grassroots organizing captured the mood of Iowans and later the entire country.

It is likely that historians will look kindly on Jan. 3, 2008 as the day America began to heal and the nation is indebted to the people of Iowa.

Hillary Aiming To Stoke Righty Voters?

CLINTON REFERS TO 800 LB. GORILLA IN THE ROOM

Sen. Hillary Clinton smacked the kiss of death on her former primary challenger, Sen. Barack Obama this morning on ABC's Good Morning America.

"I think we're headed for a very big win," said Clinton.

Jinx!

It's one thing for columnists to say such things or for reporters to quote no-name politicians and pundits, but it's a clarion call for conservative Hillary-hating Republicans to hear her speaking with such confidence.

Could she be flinging a red herring into the ring just as Obama is solidifying and building upon his lead over Sen. John McCain.

If there's a way to boost Republican voters to the polls Nov. 4, it's a smug-talking Hillary Clinton rubbing it in their face.

McCain's Choice In Palin Shows Panic

44-YEAR-OLD ALASKAN GOV. MUTES TALK OF OBAMA'S INEXPERIENCE

Sarah Palin was hardly the under the radar vice presidential pick that the New York Times and Salon.com will have you believe.

Her appeal of youth, strong socially conservative views and proximity to energy issues in the vast Alaskan wilderness made her a dark horse candidate.

Was Palin the right pick? It depends on your foresight.

The choice of Palin out of relative obscurity is a brilliant very short term move. It takes the spotlight away from what many are initially calling one of the most brilliant convention speeches in American history by Barack Obama and moves towards another historic moment--the first female veep choice in GOP history.

The choice of a unknown, especially in the internet age, is a smart marketing move. Assuredly, Palin has been googled extensively and her webpage has been bombarded. The natural question of 'who is she?' quickly become an exercise in interactive politics.

There are huge problems, though, with McCain's choice that shines a light on his present frame of mind. Palin's state is one of the epicenters of controversial energy policies that McCain hopes to exploit, except she strongly supports a huge natural gas pipelines through her state that McCain opposes.

Did the McCain camp view Obama's choice of Joe Biden as significantly shoring up his perceived lack of experience that they surrendered the point by picking an even more inexperienced politician in Palin?

The issue surrounding McCain that his campaign is choosing to neglect is age. He apparently feels that he relatively advanced age (for a presidential candidate) is such a non-issue that the electorate will not take the extra step in their collective minds to pose the question: Is Palin ready to take his place and more importantly, would America be interested in an overly experienced vice president a la Dick Cheney to run the levers of power in Washington during a Palin administration?

What this pick does not do is make a particularly hard play for Hillary Clinton supporters. Illinois congressmen Rahm Emmanuel is completely correct when he told The New York Times the only similarities between the two is gender. It's inconceivable that a female Clinton supporter would possiblly be interested in an anti-abortion, evangelical Christian. Their hard feelings only run so deep.

One thing is for sure, the upcoming vice presidential debate between the viscereal Biden and the woman once named "Sarah Barracuda" for her tenacious high school basketball style should be political pugilism at its best.

Obama The Nominee Votes His Interests, Not yours

Sen. Barack Obama's vote to pass the FISA bill today is certainly being met with a chorus of vitriol. 

Allowing the telecom industry immunity from prosecution after they were complicite with the Bush adminstration's desire to snoop on regular Americans does not seem inline with the campaign narrative of Obama.

Ed Kilgore, substituting for Alex Koppelman at the War Room blog, gets it right when he says the naysayers in the liberal blogosphere are split between those who will eventually forgive and those who won't.

Notice that former Democratic presidential contenders Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Chris Dodd and Sen. Joe Biden all voted no against the measure. Without the specter of major political ramifications it would seem the trio voted their convictions.

That Obama voted yes would seem to answer one of the primaries most pivotal questions about authorizing the war in Iraq in 2002.

Clinton argued Obama's stance against the war early on carried none of the ramifications she encountered in the Senate because he was merely voting in the Illinois state legislature at the time.

After today, you could venture to guess if Obama was voting on Capitol Hill in 2002 he too would have given the president the thumbs-up for war, too.

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

While searching for a photo for this posting, I came across this unfortunately photoshopped

photo. To me, Osama bin Laden looks like a cool guy to hang out with.

Muslims Sense Prejudice In Clinton's Campaign Tactic

DRUDGE REPORTS CLINTON STAFFERS PROLIFERATED TURBAN PHOTO

By Steven Tavares

When photos of Sen. Barack Obama wearing traditional garb of a Somali elder and turban, Muslims around the country saw what they feared: a presidential talking point disguised as a proxy against their religion.

In the days since the infamous photo appeared Feb. 25 on the website, “The Drudge Report” Muslims, including bloggers, have criticized the implication of Obama, who is Christian, being tied with extremist Islamic views.

“I don’t like it, but I knew it was coming,” said Nasir Mohammed, a 32-year-old mechanic from Fremont, “Bush dressed up in Chinese clothes and nobody said he was a communist.”

Matt Drudge, the conservative blogger, who also broke the Monica Lewinsky story in 1998, wrote on his website that the photo of Obama, taken during a visit to Kenya in 2006, was distributed by various staffers from the Hillary Clinton campaign.

On Obama’s campaign website, David Plouffe, the candidate’s campaign manager, described the tactic as “the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election”.

While the connotation that Obama is, in fact, Muslim was unsettling, some Muslims are more pragmatic.

Ahmad Helmand, a security guard from Hayward who immigrated to the U.S. from Afghanistan in the early 1980’s, believes that the Muslim world would look proudly to the United States if they voted someone of color or of a different faith than the majority of Americans.

“It doesn’t matter to me, because he said he’s Christian,” said Helmand, “If people want to believe he’s a terrorist, then so be, they’re probably racist anyway.”

A day after Drudge’s posting, conservative talk-show host, Bill Cunningham, introduced Sen. John McCain at rally for his campaign for the republican presidential nomination, by referring to Obama by his entire name, which includes his middle name Hussein.

McCain later apologized to the Obama campaigned, but the meme of the candidate with a middle eastern-sounding name wearing a turban has been set in the minds of many voters.

Juan R. I. Cole, the noted University of Michigan professor who specializes on middle east affairs, found the blatant use of Obama’s full name to be inappropriate.

On his website, he wrote, “Denigrating that name is a form of racial and religious bigotry of the most vile and debased sort. It is a prejudice against names deriving from Semitic languages,” said Cole.

He also noted that other famous Americans in history like World War II Gen. Omar Bradley and Benjamin Franklin also had derivations of middle eastern surnames.

“I don’t think people really care what a person’s name is as long as they have money in their pockets,” said Mohammed.

Inevitability Is Gone, But Hillary Still Has Money To Burn

THE CLINTON SPIN MACHINE FIRES UP FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE

The horrific third place finish that the LFR predicted two months ago became very real yesterday even before Iowans moved in droves to caucus. When Clinton's campaign began lowering the bar so starkly and columnists began criticizing her hubris in even trying in Iowa.

To political junkies this loss was less than shocking and doesn't mean her bid to be the first female president is in the trash. But, to the other 300 million-plus Americans, the enevitability of her campaign took a a huge hit. Just like the candidate herself, the reaction will be polarizing. Either it confirms suspicions that the country is not ready for a woman in the White House or it will be a call to arms for women and allies of the Clinton dynasty.

Clinton's advantage is that her coffers can go deep into Super Duper Tuesday on Feb. 5 even if she doesn't win much. It also could give rise to her campaign using her husband's "Comeback Kid" moniker in either New Hampshire or South Carolina. Do not underestimate the Clinton's ability to spin anything.

Remember, Bill Clinton lost by eight points in the 1992 New Hampshire primary to Paul Tsongas and was still able to claim victory.

Her candidacy took a major hit, but she's the only candidate to could significantly take on water and still continue sailing. She's not done and, in the end, the inevitable turnover in her campaign will bring a more steady and cogent message.

Hillary Asks For Iowans Vote And To Buy Proactive

RUNDOWN OF CAUCUS EVE DEMOCRATIC ADS



SEN. HILLARY CLINTON
The message has been the same for months. She's about change both in government and gender and a rebuke of all things President Bush. I, frankly, strained to here that message because of the excessively white-washed senator that give the impression that the former first lady is hawking face cleansers. These are the wrinkles the harsh key light is successfully concealing.

JOHN EDWARDS
This ad is fairly effective in that conveys the populism that Edwards is predicating is campaign upon. When the Iowa man, Doug Bishop, begins to choke up, it's hard to not to do the same. Two problems, though. The least of which is wouldn't it be a bit creepy for a man to be telling a seven year old that he was fighting for dad's job. Aside from that, it's a bit of a gamble for the Edwards campaign to be featuring someone other than the candidate in its final campaign ad before tomorrow's caucus.

Dems Could Be Looking At A Virtual Tie In Iowa

SEN. CLINTON COULD BE LOOKING AT A CEILING OF 25 PERCENT

Salon.com columnist Walter Shapiro has been around Washington and political campaigns for decades, here's what he's seeing on the ground in Iowa:

At this point in 2004, just a few days before the caucuses, I had begun to pick up anecdotal evidence (from crowd size and interviews with likely caucus-goers) that Howard Dean was slipping and John Kerry and John Edwards were surging. But this time around, I have not seen or heard anything that prompts me to move away from the conventional wisdom that Obama, Clinton and Edwards are locked in a three-way tie.

Shapiro sees a dead heat in the Democratic Iowa caucus, but he also has uncovered some interesting nuggets.

While traveling with the Edwards campaign, Shapiro found the former senator's base is solidly in his corner, largely due to his time and organization in Iowa.

Sen. Barack Obama's popularity is hinged upon students caucusing faithfully for him. This, if true, might make the seven-point lead in today's Des Moines Register as tenuous. Rarely, does the youth vote make for a successful campaign, but that's not to say Sen. Obama is candidate many have ever seen.

Sen. Hillary Clinton's much derided brigade of Golden Girls are also a problematic demographic not because of their likelihood of caucusing, but because of health and weather. Shapiro does make this interesting point on Sen. Clinton, her constituentcy is either with her or against her, therefore unlikely to gain any new support.

Of all the polling out there, the safest bet is Hillary reaching a ceiling of only 25 percent of the caucus goers making the possibility of her finishing a very disappointing third.

If this happens, it will a clear indictment of whom Iowans believe is the real candidate of change--Obama and Edwards.

More On Rumors Of Hillary's Demise

I'm not the only person sensing a shifting of fortune for the presumed Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.

Walter Shapiro, the former USA Today political columnist and Salon.com contributor adds to last week's plausible--albeit longshot campaign meltdown--with 10 possible Clinton "tank" jobs.
Number ten is actually the most intriguing--lady luck running out on the the perfect presidential campaign.

Surprising things happen. The future is not an unchanging extrapolation from today. "Expect the unexpected" is an expression that anyone over the age of 17 finds a cloying cliché. But when it comes to a presidential campaign -- more than two months before the Iowa caucuses -- it is also a perfect description of reality

Plainly, things never go so smoothly for any Democratic candidate in any election campaign. If you want the White House in 2008, you had better hope for the stumble to occur in the next few months rather than after Labor Day.

What If Hillary Finished Third In Iowa?

AFTER THE INITIAL SKIRMISH, EDWARDS WOULD CAPITALIZE

The idea seems inconceivable within the parameters of national polls or any casual conversaton with your neighbor, but the liklihood of Sen. Hillary Clinton finishing third in Iowa is very plausible.

A Newsweek poll last week had Sen. Barack Obama at 28 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers, Sen. Clinton at 24 percent and John Edwards at 22 percent.

What if Edwards's formidable organization in Iowa eeks out a few percentage point from Clinton or, more likely, Obama's and drops the presumptive Democratic nominee to the bronze medal? What would be the ramifications and who would gain momentum in such an outcome?

Make no mistake about it, the political establishment would explode in this doomsday scenario. The Clinton inevitability factor is so omnipresent, that the shock could derail her campaign permanently like a third-place showing in Iowa did for Howard Dean in 2004.

Most likely, the nomination would be up-for-grabs in the short term, even pulling Bill Richardson, currently polling at around 10 percent, into the fray. Because of his huge reservoir of cash, Obama would get a second look from Democrats who yearn for a fresh face, despite their loyalty to all things Clinton, but it might not last long.

In this scenario, Edwards could continue to stay just under the radar while the ravenous Clinton campaign throws every sharp object in the kitchen at Obama. She would most likely gain some momentum back from him to the point where he would have to return fire or lose the top spot all together.

This would be a great point of contention in an Obama camp were the mantra has been to run a completely kind-hearted campaign. This strategy worked early on, but it's idealism will become a curse later because in the rough-and-tumble world of politics the nice guy will never win. If Obama stubbornly sticks to this plan he will regret it in exactly the same way Al Gore dropped the ball when he shunned Bill Clinton in 2000.

What's left then? Edwards. From the start the strategy has been to highlight the plight of the poorest Americans, continue to build strong union support in early primary states like Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina and, above all, hope Clinton and Obama begin to spar with each other.

Edwards not only runs third in national polls, but also in funding. The prevailing idea when it comes to Edwards' longevity is predicated on him parlaying his organization in early states like Iowa with labor's strong support in some of those same early states. A strong showing early would then feed upon itself.

This unique political stratagem has been what drew me back to Edwards' campaign, but also a bit of a hugh gamble. If Clinton stumbles in Iowa, it could make Edwards's campaign the stuff of election legend.

Generations Of Women See Hillary In Oakland

IS HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN MORE IMPORTANT THAN POLITICS TO WOMEN?


Sen. Hillary Clinton speaks to over 14,000 people in Oakland Sunday.

As I waited for Hillary Clinton to speak last weekend in Oakland, I was inundated with gratuitious shout outs to every minute faction of the Democratic Party. The everpresent lone figure flashing sign language to the dozen or so deaf Democrats among the estimated 14,000 who attended the rally for Clinton. Don't forget the transgender folks who might of numbered three or four and the Democrats with cockateels, make sure they have recyclable bird stands to place their birds. Oh, and don't forget the lone guy in the crowd who decided to cram his large white husky into a 2x2 space. Make sure that guy has a litter box, not for the guy, but the dog.

Once the Hillary for President campaign kissed up to the subset of every subset in the party, the group that matters most is women. In recent months, Hillary has not shied away from courting this group and she should because the crowd was primarily made up of women, not just individual women and their girlfriends, but generations who took in the apex of their struggle for equality.

I saw numerous cases of elderly women with their daughters and granddaughters in tow. Three generations of women who roughly encompassed the entire 20th century when they went from not having a vote to having, by century's end, two senators from California.

Many may fawn over the idealism and exeptional speaking ability of Barack Obama, but the feeling of awe, excitement and wonderment in the eyes of these women towards Hillary trumps anything from the second place Democrat. In fact, the feeling that we were seeing something important was prevalent. Maybe like seeing Elvis Presley or John F. Kennedy.

This very real belief that a major historic moment is likely to happen will be interesting to watch if Hillary can win the nomination. Will this phenomenom translate to garnering more than moderate women voters and reach into solid conversative territory.

The feeling in that crowd gave me the impression that Hillary's campaign in female eyes might trump the political spectrum. What I'm saying is a lot of Southern conservative women just might lie about whom they vote for come November.

Obama's Foreign Policy Isn't Naive, It's Honest

DEMS WANT CHANGE FROM THE BUSH/CLINTON TAG-TEAM

As president, Barack Obama says he’ll undercut Pakistani Pervez Musharraf's power if he fails to round up terrorists in his country. Would this be a good idea? No. Is it refreshing to hear any ideas regarding terrorism? Yes.

Foreign policy experts probably shrieked like scared little girls when they heard Obama’s statement yesterday and rightly so. As with immediately dismantling our military presence in Iraq, terminating Musharraf’s leadership is fraught with many dangers including destabilizing the Indian/Paki nuclear situation and most likely putting an unknown and far more dangerous extremist in charge of Pakistan.

I don’t believe a President Obama would seriously contemplate such a maneuver but it does signal an inherent difference between the senator and Hillary Clinton and that is a new perception of the U.S. in the world.

While Clinton in a more conservative view of the power of the presidency presumably because see witnessed firsthand how a president’s hands can be tied by numerous factors. This is why she refuses to disavow her votes to give Bush authority to invade Iraq and is open to attacking Iran if matters dictate such a response. This makes her seem like Bush-lite, but not because of her hawkish tendencies, but because her views are a muddle of middling foreign policy and cautious diplomacy.

When Obama said last week that he would gladly meet with rogue dictators around the world, Clinton attacked and belittled his comments as naive. Again, a President Obama wouldn’t open up the White House to criminal despots and certainly without hiding the good silver.

What these two major foreign policy comments say about Obama is clear. He’s the candidate of change. Hillary Clinton is not like Bush, but she does represent how things were done in the past.

George H.W. Bush and Hillary’s husband Bill never figured out our role in the world post-Cold War and W. screwed it up post-9/11. The Hillary Clinton train to the White House may be too formidable for any candidate. Most Democrats would welcome it, but deep inside we wish for change.

When Obama says he’ll talk to leaders of Iran, North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela he’s not telling those leaders to pick a date and wear something nice, but he is saying to us that there will be dialogue instead of silence. This is how all of us deal with each other interpersonally, why should leaders of nations be different?

When he speaks of Musharraf, he’s saying he won’t dupe us by taking a war outside the scope of the mission. If the initial problem is wiping out al-Qaeda then we will fight where they are; in Afghanistan and the mountains of Pakistan and not in Iraq where our actions fomented an explosion of membership to our enemy.

Obama took a hit for his comments last week and probably for yesterday’s. The media lead by Clinton’s attack dogs cast Obama in a naive light, but the subtext of his ideas resonate with the electorate.

Rudy's Keys To Victory: Terrorists, Terrorists, Terrorists

EX-MAYOR MUST CONJURE IMAGES OF 9/11 TO DISTRACT GOP VOTERS


The polls say that Rudy Giuliani is the current frontrunner for the Republican nomination. With today’s climate on the right where the repudiation of President Bush’s six years is the highest Rudy just may be the man who takes on Sen. Hillary Clinton in 2008.

Of course, Sen. John McCain will have a lot to say about that, but the stern talking senator from Arizona may have peaked a month ago and his candidacy is too attached the war in Iraq to predict two years hence.

Giuliani has been out of public service for a few years, so his personal opinions about the war are less formed therefore easily malleable. When it comes to the war on terror Giuliani is most effective when he’s portrayed as the only man in America who actually combatted the terroristS.

Ironically, this should be scary to all Americans.

A Giuliani campaign for President would have to be a rehashing of George W. Bush’s constant drumbeat of terrorists, Osama bin Laden and more terrorists. Boo! Are you scared enough to vote for me?

As Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter wrote today, the polarizing figure of Rudy may be too much for the country to handle post-W.

Because Giuliani is so steeped in being a liberal conservative as New York City’s mayor--he’s pro-choice, dislikes guns and supports civil unions---he’ll be forced to conjure the ghosts of al-qaeda along with the images of 747s crashing into the World Trade Center.

After all, as Alter says, “If terrorists attacked again, he would know what to do.” he adds, “But how about the next month? And the month after that?”

The second question is not one that Republicans who crave strong daddy figures will ponder, but the rest of us will.

A Giuliani/Hillary battle for the White House is a matchup that Rudy has already ducked in 2000 when he dropped out the race for senate in New York because of prostate cancer.

Such a campaign will further a divide within the Republican party that was always there but neatly covered up by a Rovian White House that demanded cohesiveness. From a southern or western Republican point of view the desire for a third party candidate or a darkhorse candidate could swell infinitely. The problem is that there isn't one on the horizon.

The choice for president might come down to two city slickers from New York who hate guns, love gays and want you to have an abortion if you want.

Under this scenario and added to the fact that McCain might be more endearing to Democrats than Republicans there is a major opening for another candidate from the right. It’s not Sen. Sam Brownback or Milt Romney. It could be Sen. Chuck Hagel. Whomever it is they had better make themselves known before the country is subjected to the wrath of Rudy.

Hillary's Iraq War Dilemma

Darrell Hammond as Chris Matthews interviews Sen. Hillary Clinton on Saturday Night Live

It may be a silly send up of Sen. Hillary Clinton and MSNBC's Chris Matthews on Saturday Night Live last Saturday, but it's worth noting that by officially throwing her hat into the race for the White House the attitudes and perceptions of Hillary the Candidate versus Hillary the First Lady are beginning to form.

The writers at Saturday Night Live just may have crafted the prevailing thought of Democrats across America with this line:

"I think most Democrats know me. They understand that my support for the war was always insincere."

We're likely to witness a Sen. Clinton vaguely extroplating her shifting positions on the war in tones similarly to that line. There is a very high liklihood that the stormy atmosphere on Capitol Hill and the rest of America regarding this war will likely persist. Because no matter the amount of resolutions against the surge in Iraq the Bush administration is dead-set on making it happen; not because it's the best tonic for the military's problems or the most righteous, but because it will literally run the clock out on this President's watch. There's is no other reason for it.

With the scenario of today still percolating in 2008, it will be to the advantage of those who stood against the war (Barack Obama) and those who either reversed course earlier enough (John Edwards) and those without much of a public record either way (Bill Richardson and Chuck Hagel)

In Hillary's case, her vote authorizing the President to invade Iraq is no different than Sen. John Kerry's or any candidate on the Republican side, but it is likely that by lying low the past six months regarding her opposition to the war as its quickly bogged down in the theater of war and opinion polls, her strength on this singular issue has been severely sapped by her competition thereby giving away much of her virtual lead and possibly campaign dollars to people like Obama and Edwards.

This race is on. The question is: can the prohibitive front runner win the presidency wire to wire without the country hearing the same old song of that it's heard through one Clinton and two Bush's?

Scheer Disgrace: Hagel For President; Please

ANOTHER REASON WHY DEMS CAN'T STICK TOGETHER

There's a reason why the Democratic Party has a perpetual problem of staying unified, it's called liberals like columnist Robert Scheer.

In the Huffington Post, Scheer, a noted left coast journalist and co-host of my favorite podcast KCRW's Left, Right and Center, gives a hallow recommendation for Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel for President.

Other than the first sentence, "Chuck Hagel for president!", there isn't a shred of evidence to believe Scheer.

He adds, "If it ever narrows down to a choice between him and some Democratic hack who hasn't the guts to fundamentally challenge the president on Iraq, then the conservative Republican from Nebraska will have my vote."

An anti-war candidate for President is, indeed, very important, but not a trade-off with a conservative senator opposed to reproductive rights, hostile to the environment and all-around a puppet of big business. The war isn't that important, besides, didn't Hagel go right along with his party whole-heartedly cheering for this blunder of a war in 2003?

This is why being a liberal can be so maddening and a purely Sisyphean act. We love the flavor of the month and wholly respond to challenges like a group of chiefs without any Indians.

Hagel's views today and his military experience in Vietnam may be formidable, but he's no different than any other possible candidate who followed the leader regarding Iraq. Only Sen. Barack Obama has ever articulated a 100 percent opinion against the war in Iraq from day one. At least, John Edwards has completely disavowed his vote while others like Sen. Hillary Clinton played both sides .

There's only one reason why Scheer likes Hagel and it's because a senator of the President's own party finally has the guts to blast him. Scheer isn't serious about Hagel for President because if he was my podcast would need a new left.

Payback's A Bitch: Dems Take Control Of Congress

FIGHT BACK AGAINST TROOP SURGES IN IRAQ

Washington is a buzz as the Democrats take control of Congress Thursday. After President Gerald Ford's death last week, the Capitol is dripping with nostalgia of a bygone era when Democrats and Republicans actually spoke decently to each other.

Hold on. Only half of D.C. is spewing this talking point and its Republicans.

After six years of nearly complete marginalization by the Republicans in Congress, the new majority party is poised to give the GOP a dose of their own medicine and it should be as costly as the over-priced medication millions of uninsured American dole out everyday.

There is no reason for the Dems to concede anything to their GOP colleagues, at least until next year when conciliatory gestures will go well with a cocktail of Hillary, Obama or John Edwards.

The Dems constituency made it implicitly clear last November that the ultra conservative direction of America needed a correction in the direction of the center. I have no allusions of Democrats achieving anything more than their pre-programmed first 100 hours of a minimum wage hike, stem cell research and reduction student aid interest rates, but if they do anything they must contain President Bush's maniacal grasp on leading this country by the slimmest majority of popularity and logic.

After those first 100 hours, Nancy Pelosi must vigorously lead the party and a possible sizable chunk of the GOP caucus against the President's blood lust for further entrenching the U.S. in Iraq. The position must be clear and concise; nobody in America except for the men in Bush's shrinking inner circle believe a troop surge is anything but folly.

Pelosi must realize the basic duty of their service is to lead the country by the wishes of the people and they have spoken. Take a stand, Madame Speaker.