2008 Elections

Image Sgt. Matthew Roe/10th Public Affairs Operations Center, via Reuters and The New York Times

The New York Times adds a little pebble to the mountain of John McCain's woes this morning with an article about that walkabout the good Senator did in Baghdad the other day. After this excursion, McCain famously declared that parts of Baghdad were perfectly safe to stroll around in.

A day after members of an American Congressional delegation led by Senator John McCain pointed to their brief visit to Baghdad’s central market as evidence that the new security plan for the city was working, the merchants there were incredulous about the Americans’ conclusions.

“What are they talking about?” Ali Jassim Faiyad, the owner of an electrical appliances shop in the market, said Monday.

Pictured above is the Senator in his bullet-proof vest. What you can't see are the three helicopters circling overhead, or the full infantry company deployed to shield him, or the traffic barriers that kept ordinary Iraqis away from him.

Every campaign has moments that crystallize them. For Michael Dukakis, it was trying to look tough by being photographed riding a tank. For George Bush senior, it was not having an answer to how much a quart of milk costs.

The Washigton Post reports today that Hillary Clinton is fighting tooth and nail to keep her husband's impeachment out of any discussions involving her presidential bid :

Clinton Fights to Keep Impeachment Taboo - washingtonpost.com:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has a new commandment for the 2008 presidential field: Thou shalt not mention anything related to the impeachment of her husband.

With a swift response to attacks from a former supporter last week, advisers to the New York Democrat offered a glimpse of their strategy for handling one of the most awkward chapters of her biography. They declared her husband's impeachment in 1998 -- or, more accurately, the embarrassing personal behavior that led to it -- taboo, putting her rivals on notice and all but daring other Democrats to mention the ordeal again.

Funny, because at the nail salon, the republican feminist lady that was getting a french manicure was saying that it did matter to her.

A lot.

I have been asked by one of my fairly oddparents, Micah Sifry, to slum it once or twice a week at TechPresident.com, the new campaign blog from Personal Democracy Forum.

I am in the fanstatic company of people like Nancy Scola, Zephyr Teachout, Ruby Sinreich and Lynne D. Johnson ... and and one guy or two.

HA!

Check out the blog. It's non-partisan, so the diversity of opinions on e-campaigns is really good.

As I read through political blogs, so many times I come across fellow supporters who, like me, left their youthful dreams of America back in that kitchen pantry in '68...

Since then, I have never witnessed anything like the excitement Senator Obama is generating across the country, across generations.

Do we dare to dream again? Will they take this away from us as well? Back in the 60s, media didn't ruin candidates with dis-information, distortions; the sophisticated manipulation of consciousness and opinion by means of neurolinguistic programing was beyond our capacity to even conceptualize.

I was 16 when the world as I knew it ended at 6:15 am on June 6, 1968. I had fallen asleep on the east coast before the results of the California Primary were announced. My clock radio woke me; it was the tone of the words that signalled a catastrophe well before the nature of the news; heavy, hushed, shocked and anguished sorrow. I rushed to my mother's room. "Mom, they shot him." I was crying.

For years I wondered who 'they' was? Now I know. We all know. "They" are now so everpresent, so omnipotent they have accomplished much more than assassinating presidents; they have staged wildly successful 'false flag' ops, dismantled and shipped our economy overseas, bankrupted our schools, shredded our constitution, stolen elections, blatantly engaged in the overthrow of governments to accomplish nothing short of ruling the world. The list goes on.

This comes from a brilliant diary on DKos, based on a beautiful column by the late, great Molly Ivins.

I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.

Preach it, Molly, preach it!

Salon.com stepped up to the bat and gave Amanda an opportunity to give her side of the Edwards campaigns' blogging fiasco withWhy I had to quit the John Edwards campaign | Salon News. In the process, she gives even more reasons to start a Feminist Bloggers' PAC :

There are few things like having Bill O'Reilly work himself into a pearl-clutching fit while speaking your name over the air, or watching your in box fill to the brim with sexually violent, threatening e-mails. Young feminists certainly picked up on the message. As one wrote in a blog post tracking back to Pandagon, "I will never, ever go into any sort of actual work on any political campaign. I still might have to close off my original teenage wasteland-style blog. People will gleefully tear you apart any day of the week -- but I'd rather not have that done to me over politics."

We owe it to the younger generations of women who are reading us to get the resources we need to change the political media landscape. We need to effect if we are seriously going to fight back the self-hating Malkins and mysogynist O'Reillys of the world, who make a living out of bashing women who speak truth to power.

Those of you who have been reading this blog since the beginning, know where what I think about the relationship between Condoleezza Rice and George W. Bush. Which is why, I find this editorial at USA Today particularly provocative :

It's hard to think of a good reason [Dick Cheney] should remain in office and logical to assume that some Republicans are pushing him to leave. It could be on "doctor's orders." He's 65 with serious heart problems.

Bush then could name a vice presidential successor who they hope might be nominated and win in '08. But the appointment would need approval of both houses of Congress. With control shifting to the Democrats in January, time may be of the essence.

Likely on the short might-be list (alphabetically):

•Bill Frist, 54, Senate majority leader from Tennessee.

•Rudy Giuliani, 62, former mayor of New York City.

•John McCain, 70, U.S. senator from Arizona.

•Condoleeza Rice, 52, secretary of State.

You know what --it wouldn't shock me if this were true. Especially with the prospect of Dick Cheney's impeachment.

Whether the political-industrial machine or Big Conservative Media want it or not, the case for impeachment is still very real and very much on the table. So it wouldn't shock me if, just for the shock value, Bush let's Cheney go to have Condoleeza as his rightful successor.

Political pollsters need to justify their existence. Chief among them is Rassmusen Reports. The company has turned its efforts at handicapping the 2008 Presidential race.

For the Democrats :

Following Election 2006, the nation can look forward to our first female Speaker of the House. Another woman, Senator Hillary Clinton, is the initial frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination. However, another freshman Senator, Barack Obama, is close on her heels.

The first release of the Rasmussen Reports 2008 Presidential Tracking Poll finds Clinton the choice of 29% while Obama has 22%. Former Vice President Al Gore is number three with 13% and the 2004 Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards is also in double digits at 10%. The Democrats' 2004 standard bearer, John Kerry, is the choice of just 4%.

Not only do I find it risible people are thinking seriously about Obama for president; but am actually relieved that only 4% wants Kerry back. John needs a looooong vacation away from the political spotlight. He ought to focus on becoming the next Chuck Schumer.

I insist that Obama is too green to be considered presidential material. I'd rather see the profile of a Gov. Schweitzer raised significantly in the next 2 years. And I'm still looking at both Gore and Edwards independently since I doubt Edwards would want to play second fiddle to anybody this time around.

I've seen this piece of news iterated in hundreds of news feeds :

"Given the responses that I've been getting over the last several months, I have thought about the possibility" although not with the seriousness or depth required, he said. "My main focus right now is in the '06. ... After November 7, I'll sit down, I'll sit down and consider, and if at some point I change my mind, I will make a public announcement and everybody will be able to go at me."

Obama was largely unknown outside Illinois when he burst onto the national scene with a widely acclaimed address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

In recent weeks, his political stock has been rising as a potentially viable centrist candidate for president in 2008 after former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner announced earlier this month that he was bowing out of the race.

In a recent issue of Time magazine, Obama's face fills the cover next to the headline, "Why Barack Obama Could Be The Next President." He is currently on a tour promoting his latest book, "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream."

People are desperate in this country for a real leader when they place their presidential hopes on a guy that became famous for a political convention speech, has written a good book about being the son of immigrants, and not much else.