Saturday, January 12, 2008

Forgot to mention

I'm out of town. Sorry for the delay in approving comments. I'll be back tomorrow evening.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Roseanne tries to out do Rosie...

..with a ranting blog.

Basically she says Oprah is a closet Republican, Obama is an empty suit, and McCain is a fascist.

Debate thoughts

Thanks to everyone who participated in the debate chat last night. It was a lot of fun.

Fred had his game on last night. He was funny, informed, and smart. It looks like he might actually want this. Is it too late though?

Huckabee proved once and for all that he is not a small government conservative. All he did was justify why he expanded govt and raised taxes in his state.

Rudy, Mitt, and McCain held their own pretty well. No one seemed to stand out more than the other to me.

South Carolina does seem to be key here. Whoever wins carries momentum onward. McCain is leading in South Carolina right now, which I love to hear, but we all know about polling.

Thursday, January 10, 2008


The Guardian:

In a telephone interview from Iraq, Marine Maj. Gen. Walter E. Gaskin, commander of the roughly 35,000 Marine and Army forces in Anbar, said levels of violence have dropped so significantly - coupled with the growth and development of Iraqi security forces in the province - that Anbar is ready to be handed back to the Iraqis.

Chat room here tonight

John Kerry endorses Obama. Gee, that has got to leave a mark for John Edwards.

Bill Richardson drops out of the Presidential race, but doesn't endorse anyone else.

Remember the GOP debate is live tonight from the University of South Carolina. The 90-minute debate will be broadcast by Fox News starting at 9:00 p.m. ET, 8:00 p.m. Central.

I think I'll do a chat room here tonight so we can all chime in. Check here a bit before the debate begins. I'd like it to be Republicans only since this is about our nominee.

See ya tonight!

One Democrat's view of Hillary

Camille Paglia:

Forget all her little gold crosses: Hillary's real god is political expediency. Do Americans truly want this hard-bitten Machiavellian back in the White House? Day one will just be more of the same.


If she is the nominee, I'll vote for this "brittle, relentless manipulator with few stable core values who shuffles through useful personalities like a card shark" because "I want Democrats appointed to the Cabinet and the Supreme Court."

Careful there Camille, sometimes we get what we asked for.

Hillary the Blogger


During her closing campaign rally in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton spoke of the need for greater government transparency, fully embracing the Internet and blogging.

“I want to put everything on the Internet! I want you to see the budget of every agency. I want you to track everything that goes on in your government — you pay for it, you should know about it!” she said.
And of blogging?

“We should even have a government blogging team where people in the agencies are constantly telling all of you, the taxpayers, the citizens of America, everything that’s going on so that you have up-to-the-minute information about what your government is doing, so that you too can be informed, and hold the government accountable.”

I don't know how she can say any of that with a straight face:

After Three Years, The Clinton Library Has Only Released One Half Of One Percent Of Its Records.

“Nearly three years after the Clinton Library opened–and more than 21 months after its trove of records became subject to the Freedom of Information Act–barely one half of 1 percent of the 78 million pages of documents and 20 million e-mail messages at the federally funded facility are public, according to the National Archives.” (Michael Isikoff, “Papers? I Don’t See Any Papers,” Newsweek, 10/29/07)

“[N]early 2 Million Pages Of Documents Covering Her White House Years Are Locked Up In A Building Here, Obscuring A Large Swath Of Her Record As First Lady.” (Peter Nicholas, “Clinton’s First Lady Records Locked Up,” Los Angeles Times, 8/14/07)

“Clinton’s Calendars, Appointment Logs And Memos Are Stored At Her Husband’s Presidential Library, In The Custody Of Federal Archivists Who Do Not Expect Them To Be Released Until After The 2008 Presidential Election.” (Peter Nicholas, “Clinton’s First Lady Records Locked Up,” Los Angeles Times, 8/14/07)

Need I say more?

McCain ahead in South Carolina???

I'm starting to get tingly.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows McCain at 27% and Huckabee at 24%.

That’s a significant change since last Sunday. Just before the New Hampshire vote, Huckabee was leading McCain 28% to 21%. In mid-December, Huckabee and Romney were tied for the lead with 23% of the vote while McCain was well off the pace at 12%.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

What will happen in South Carolina?

First Read:

From NBC's Domenico MontanaroWell, it's all-in for Romney in Michigan. Romney is pulling all advertising in South Carolina and putting all of his efforts into Michigan.

"We feel the best strategy is to focus our paid messaging in Michigan," Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said, per the

After going 0-for-2 in Iowa and New Hampshire, two states Romney poured in millions, Romney can't afford to lose one more.

Evangelicals, surprisingly, were equally divided in New Hampshire between Huckabee, McCain, and Romney. If Romney pulls his ads in South Carolina, will the evangelicals who would have voted for Romney go for McCain or Huckabee? They are a much larger lot in South Carolina, and don't assume they will go for Huckabee. They want a candidate who can win too.

I actually feel nervous for Mitt. He is my second choice and I don't want him out before they hardly get out of the gate. I certainly hope Michigan isn't the be all for him.

Also, I would hope Edwards wins in South Carolina. It would be more fun for it to be a good three way horse race for the Democrats. My feeling is that if Obama doesn't beat Hillary in South Carolina, then it's game over. No "fresh voice" for the Democrats. No "real change." It will be more of the same.

A Study in Lies

Remember in 2006 when the leftwingers shouted with horror (and glee, because it proved how horrid the U.S. was) that a study had found 600,000 Iraqi civilians dead since the war began? I heard this number ad nauseum from my leftwing friends.

The WaPo included the number in this piece. Fox News quoted it with some skepticism. But CNN headlined it.

Turns out, Fox was right to be skeptical because it was a bunch of bull:

It's probably no coincidence that one of the authors — Roberts — just happened to oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein from his dictator's throne and has confessed he tried to influence the 2004 U.S. elections by timing the release of a previous study that made the war look much worse than it was.

Roberts also ran — unsuccessfully — as a Democrat for New York's 24th congressional district in 2006. He told the National Journal that "a combination of Iraq and (Hurricane) Katrina just put me over the top."
Meanwhile, "Burnham admitted that he set the same condition" on the second report.

IBD didn't believe the numbers from the start because they didn't jive with our government's numbers or the Iraqi government's numbers or even another anti-war group with causality numbers, which was 44,000 to 49,000. Higher than the govt's, but a BIT less than over 600,000, If you want to call 550,000 a bit less.

Naturally anti-Bush and anti-war forces have thrown the higher numbers around as if they were indisputable fact, not fraud.
At least one media outlet, though, used its journalistic instincts to take a critical look at the study. The National Journal let Neil Munro and Carl M. Cannon use that publication's Jan. 4 cover story to detail what they discovered after months of scrutiny.
Headlined "Data Bomb," the story identifies three problems:
• "Possible flaws in the design and execution of the study."
• "A lack of transparency in the data, which has raised suspicions of fraud."
The authors have refused to provide the data they used to reach their conclusions. Part of the reason might lie in what should be their professional shame for letting unsupervised Iraqis go into neighborhoods and ask survey questions.
• "Political preferences held by the authors and the funders, which include George Soros's Open Society Institute."
Almost half of the study's $100,000 price tag was paid for by "an outspoken billionaire who has repeatedly criticized the Iraq campaign and who spent $30 million trying to defeat Bush in 2004."


Yet the wildly exaggerated 2006 Lancet study was not just accepted by the media, it was exalted. Why?
Again, the National Journal has the answer: "Probably because its findings fit an emerging narrative: Iraq was a horrific mess."
Of course the National Journal's expose will never get the same media attention that was heaped upon the original Lancet study. Its sober analysis does not fit the narrative.

Of course those false numbers will continue to be bantered about. The media won't correct it. The left will most certainly not. Why be honest when you can make the U.S. look bad?

Even the much lower numbers are a sad fact of war. I don't discount or dismiss them. But to use data and stand behind a false study in order to push a political agenda, using war at the time of war, is unforgivable.

h/t BigDog

Select a Candidate!

This is pretty cool.

You answer a few questions and it tells you which candidates most mirror your beliefs.

Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter tied for first with me, with McCain coming in 2nd. Heh.

Take it and tell me in the comments who was your candidate.

h/t Bigdog

"Russia to set up missile shield for Iran"

Not good.

Russia to set up missile shield for Iran

Vladimir Radyuhin

MOSCOW: Russia will set up a massive anti-missile shield in Iran that will virtually guarantee the country against military attacks.

Moscow will supply Tehran with the advanced long-range S-300 surface-to-air missile complexes, informed Russian sources said.

“Several dozen S-300PMU-1 complexes will be delivered to Iran under a contract signed several years ago,” the Interfax news agency quoted a defence industry source as saying on Wednesday. He said deliveries could start as early as next year.

Another Russian defence source told the Kommersant daily that Moscow was planning to sell Iran five batteries of S-300 launchers at a price of $800 million. A typical S-300PMU-1 battery contains 48 missiles on 12 mobile launchers.

h/t dave bones

Chris Matthew slams Hillary

"I think the Hillary appeal has always been about the mix of toughness and sympathy. Let's not forget, and I'll be brutal, the reason she's a US Senator, the reason she's a candidate for President, the reason she may be a front runner, is that her husband messed around...That's how she got to be a Senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win it on her merit, she won because everybody felt, 'My God, this woman stood up under humiliation,' right? That's what happened. That's how it happened. In 1998, she went to NY and campaigned for Chuck Schumer as almost like the grieving widow of absurdity, and she did it so well and courageously. But it was about the humilation of Bill Clinton."

Between Maureen Dowd and Chris Matthews telling the truth about Hillary, do we on the right even need to add to it? They are doing a pretty good job.

Blogger call with McCain Today

These are always fun because I get to listen to McCain off the cuff, but they are pretty predictable with talking points and such. Details of the call are over at Captain's Quarters.

At one point when McCain is discussing earmarks, he asks us to hold on. Then you hear him say, "Lindsay, I didn't say that" and then argues a bit more. It caught me off guard because I wasn't expecting him to argue with someone off line. But he was laughing at Lindsay Graham misunderstanding and getting all upset. McCain came back to the phone and made fun of Graham, saying he was unstable (jokingly!!!) and that he needed a translator when Graham was with him (southern accent dig!!???)

It was fun to hear McCain just joking around feeling confident.

Girl Gun

Hello Kitty!

Tears of a Clown

I'm not the only one who thought Hillary's tears were calculated. Check Maureen Dowd of the NYT:

Another reporter joked: “That crying really seemed genuine. I’ll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand.”

The women over 45 fell for it:

Getting brushed back by Barack Obama in Iowa, her emotional moment here in a cafe and her chagrin at a debate question suggesting she was not likable served the same purpose, making her more appealing, especially to women, particularly to women over 45.

The Obama campaign calculated that they had the women’s vote over the weekend but watched it slip away in the track of her tears.

I knew Hillary was too smart to be bested by a rookie. But some of us, on the right and left, see through her:

....there was a whiff of Nixonian self-pity about her choking up. What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us.

I'm sure she was thinking exactly that. "How could the country not understand how important it is for me to be President!" And maybe she got emotional for another reason as well:

She became emotional because she feared that she had reached her political midnight, when she would suddenly revert to the school girl with geeky glasses and frizzy hair, smart but not the favorite. All those years in the shadow of one Natural, only to face the prospect of being eclipsed by another Natural?


*Ironically, the woman who asked the question that brought the tears voted for Obama.

The speech of a leader

Here are some excerpts from John McCain's speech last night. It's quite beautiful. (Emphasis mine)

"I talked about the country we love; the many challenges we face together; and the great promise that is ours to achieve; the work that awaits us in this hour, on our watch: to defend our country from its enemies; to advance the ideals that are our greatest strength; to increase the prosperity and opportunities of all Americans and to make in our time, as each preceding American generation has, another, better world than the one we inherited.

The people of New Hampshire have told us again that they do not send us to Washington to serve our self-interest, but to serve theirs. They don’t send us to fight each other for our own political ambitions; but to fight together our real enemies. They don’t send us to Washington to stroke our egos; but to help them keep this beautiful, bountiful, blessed country safe, prosperous and proud. They don’t send us to Washington to take more of their money, and waste it on things that add not an ounce to America’s strength and prosperity; that don’t help a single family realize the dreams we all dream for our children; that don’t help a single displaced worker find a new job, and the security and dignity it assures them; that won’t keep the promise we make to young workers that the retirement they have begun to invest in, will be there for them when they need it. They don’t send us to Washington to do their job, but to do ours.

My friends, I didn’t go to Washington to go along, to get along or to play it safe to serve my own interests. I went there to serve my country. And that, my friends, is just what I intend to do if I am so privileged to be elected your President.

I seek the nomination of a party that believes in the strength, industry, and goodness of the American people. We don’t believe that government has all the answers, but that it should respect the rights, property and opportunities of the people to whom we are accountable. We don’t believe in growing the size of government to make it easier to serve our own ambitions. But what government is expected to do, it must do with competence, resolve and wisdom.


I seek the nomination of our party to restore that trust; to return our party to the principles that have never failed Americans: The party of fiscal discipline, low taxes; enduring values; a strong and capable defense; that encourages the enterprise and ingenuity of individuals, businesses and families, who know best how to advance America’s economy, and secure the dreams that have made us the greatest nation in history.


In a time of war, and the terrible sacrifices it entails, the promise of a better future is not always clear. But I promise you, my friends, we face no enemy, no matter how cruel; and no challenge, no matter how daunting, greater than the courage, patriotism and determination of Americans. We are the makers of history, not its victims. And as we confront this enemy, the people privileged to serve in public office should not evade our mutual responsibility to defeat them because we are more concerned with personal or partisan ambition.

Whatever the differences between us, so much more should unite us. And nothing should unite us more closely than the imperative of defeating an enemy who despises us, our values and modernity itself. We must all pull together in this critical hour and proclaim that the history of the world will not be determined by this unpardonable foe, but by the aspirations, ideals, faith and courage of free people. In this great, historic task, we will never surrender. They will.


I learned long ago that serving only oneself is a petty and unsatisfying ambition. But serve a cause greater than self-interest and you will know a happiness far more sublime than the fleeting pleasure of fame and fortune. For me that greater cause has always been my country, which I have served imperfectly for many years, but have loved without any reservation every day of my life. And however this campaign turns out — and I am more confident tonight that it will turn out much better than once expected — I am grateful beyond expression for the prospect that I might serve her a little while longer.


But let us remember that our purpose is not ours alone; our success is not an end in itself. America is our cause — yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Her greatness is our hope; her strength is our protection; her ideals our greatest treasure; her prosperity the promise we keep to our children; her goodness the hope of mankind. That is the cause of our campaign and the platform of my party, and I will stay true to it so help me God."

The entire speech is here. Video is here.

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

New Hampshire

It looks like *Obama (Scratch that!) It is Hillary and McCain for New Hampshire. We still have a long way to go, but this race just keeps on getting more interesting.

Make no mistake about it. Obama, if nominated, will be a force to be reckoned with. As I said about his Iowa speech, he is exciting and electric.

I have had friends who are religious, but not political, ask me if he is pro-life, and when I say no, their face falls. They really liked him, but that is a big issue to them.

I knew then, that we had trouble.

But the nice thing about Obama being the nominee instead of Hillary (if that does indeed happen) is that we can focus on the issues instead of the personality or the morality of that person. I think Obama would wrong and even irresponsible of us to elect in this time in our history, but that would be because of his beliefs on the issues, not because of him as a person.

That might be nice to get back to, wouldn't it?

Update: I must admit I am stunned that Obama didn't win N.H. They were lined up to see him like a rock star this week. I really smell a rat here. But I am cynical when it comes to Hillary. Did the tears work? Fox is saying that she got most of the women vote. I am ashamed for my gender.

Do pretty girls poot?

We need to lighten things up a bit, don't ya think?

via Grouchy Old Cripple

Can you blame Obama?

The Guardian goes to Obama's volunteers to see what brought them to him, and it seems the Obama people ARE FREAKING PARANOID. I mean it. Check out the video

But, as Gawker mag points out: (hey, I'm just quoting here)

No one gets too close to Barack Obama. He's nervous--Hillary's killed before, after all.

What the L.A. Associated Press sees as important

Yeah, I know this is crazy California and even crazier L.A., but this is the A.P folks, not "Entertainment Tonight."

Good grief.

via Gawker

You can't ask me that, I'm black

I always hesitate to quote anything from Christopher Hitchens because it doesn't matter if he spouting things that make the right mad or the left mad, he seems to me to be a perfectly horrible human being.

But he is saying some things about this Obamamania that few would dare:

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is the current beneficiary of a tsunami of drool. He sometimes claims credit on behalf of all Americans regardless of race, color, creed, blah blah blah, though his recent speeches appear also to claim a victory for blackness while his supporters—most especially the white ones—sob happily that at last we can have an African-American chief executive. Off to the side, snarling with barely concealed rage, are the Clinton machine-minders, who, having failed to ignite the same kind of identity excitement with an aging and resentful female, are perhaps wishing that they had made more of her errant husband having already been "our first black president."

Or perhaps not. Isn't there something pathetic and embarrassing about this emphasis on shade? And why is a man with a white mother considered to be "black," anyway? Is it for this that we fought so hard to get over Plessy v. Ferguson?

I want to inject something here about Obama's mother being white as well. Remember, Obama wasn't raised by his black father. He was raised by his white mother and white grandparents. You may have heard about Obama's controversial church, if not, then check out it's mission statement:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

You see, I'm thinking Obama's Mom wouldn't be invited to the Church picnic.

Hitchens mentions this also, and being someone who hasn't found a church, faith, or religion he couldn't bash, he's pretty harsh with this as well:

I have been droning on for months about how Mitt Romney needs to answer questions about the flat-out racist background of his own church, and about how Huckabee has shown in public that he does not even understand the first thing about a theory—the crucial theory of evolution by natural selection—in which he claims not to believe. Many Democrats are with me on this, but they go completely quiet when Sen. Obama chooses to give his allegiance to a crackpot church with a decidedly ethnic character.

I believe it was candidate George Bush who spoke at Bob Jones University, where they had a ban on interracial dating, that caused such an uproar in 2000. Will the media be as offended by this? Imagine if Bush had been a member of a Church that claimed to be "unashamedly white." What a difference a candidate makes. It makes me wonder about the media and their reaction to Obama. Will he be immune to the usual interrogations and questions about his associations because of his blackness?

If so, then I'm afraid we really haven't come as far as we had hoped.

Monday, January 07, 2008

"Obama is a stripper and Hilary is your wife"

The Daily Gut. Pretty funny:

So, while watching the debates over the weekend, I figured out why Obama is rising in popularity, and why Hilary is sinking like something that sinks. Obama doesn't have to do a damn thing but sit there and look pretty, and we love him. And Hilary doesn't have to do a damn thing but sit there and look constipated, and you hate her.

In a nutshell: Obama is a stripper and Hilary is your wife.

Read the rest. via NRO

Hillary gets emotional

Maryann Pernold, a 64-year-old undecided Democrat asked Clinton how she gets up every day on the road:

“It’s not easy, it’s not easy,” Clinton said shaking her head. Her eyes began to get watery as she finished answering the question, “I couldn’t do it if I didn’t passionately believe it was the right thing to do. This is very personal for me. I have so many ideas for this country and I just don’t want to see us fall backwards. It’s about our country, it’s about our kids’ future,” she said softly crying, her voice breaking.

I just saw this video on Fox News. Here it is on ABC News. Click on "teary Hillary." or click on link in this article.

The anchor on Fox News asked the reporter if this was sincere or was it a calculated moment. The reporter said that in all the time he has covered Hillary he has never seen her emotional. He felt it was real.

Yeah, it was real. I mean it. She was truly emotional. Because she sees this moment of her being President as slipping away. She sees all the calculating political moves, the careful Senate career, and staying with that rat of a husband, as being for naught.

I'd cry too.

Illegal Immigration

It's important how we handle it. As usual, Victor Davis Hanson puts it perfectly.

Idiots among us

Take a look at these two clips. The first is McCain at a rally in Salem where so called "activists" start demanding 50 billion dollars for HIV research in Africa.

The second is Ron Paul supporters harassing Sean Hannity.

Who are these people??? I am all for protest, I have been a part of protests, but it is one thing to make your case in a civil manner and quite another to act like a fool. Do these people think they are helping their cause? Do they think the attention they receive is better than no attention? They would be wrong. They make most of us sick and that feeling of disgust makes us dismiss out of hand anything they have to say of value.

What's a Black Person To Do?

The New York Times has an excellent article on the dilemma that Democratic black political leaders find themselves in.

So many, being long time supporters of the Clintons, find themselves wondering which way to go. Should they be loyal to the Clintons or go with what well could be the first black President of the United States (Bill Clinton non withstanding, of course)?

Jesse Jackson has finally come out in support of Obama, but his wife supports Hillary. I suppose Jesse's wife and Hillary do have a few things in common though. Like being married to powerful men who cheated on them and humiliated them. It's a strong bond, I'm sure.

But things aren't looking too good for Hillary right now: prominent black supporter of Mr. Obama, Representative Artur Davis of Alabama, called this moment “a very precarious time for the Clinton campaign.”

“For black elected officials who either stayed out of this race or have supported Senator Clinton, they’re in a very dicey position right now,” Mr. Davis said, “because their black constituents are about to move overwhelmingly toward Barack Obama.”

It seems to me that Obama caught a lot of black leaders by surprise. They didn't believe in his electability, so they placed their bets on what they thought was a sure thing, Hillary Clinton. But now, it must seem to them that there is a chance of history being made here for blacks, and can they really decide not to be a part of it because of political loyalty?

The Deciding Moment For McCain

There is never a sure thing in politics, but New Hampshire seems to be the test for McCain. If he wins there, then the momentum builds and it's a real race. If he loses, it may prove that he couldn't overcome the differences so many Republicans have with him. says this:

That ingrained pride of his that forbids pandering for political gain--that would be shamed by lying about his deeply held views--is what is old about him. Old in the sense that honor of this kind is sufficiently rare, now, that it's a subject of wonderment to people when they find it in someone, as they have in John McCain.

To hear him respond to questions, as he did recently in a visit to The Wall Street Journal's offices, is to grasp his command of events and policies, of security issues, of foreign relations. It is to grasp, also, how nearly heartless seeming are any comparisons between his authority on the issues, and those of his Republican competitors. (That's not counting Democrat Barack Obama, whose stance against terrorism, should he become president, will apparently consist largely of antipoverty programs, reassuring the world of our peaceful intentions, and attending Islamic Conferences.)

That last line truly scares me about Obama, and that is something to take into consideration now that it seems actually possible that he may get the nomination. We think Hillary terrible on this issue, but Obama is even more clueless. Likability isn't going to keep us safe or help us win this war.

Which brings me back to McCain. No one has made the case more than I for this man. I believe he is who we need now in our time of conflict and brutal enemies.

So many of you can continue to hold grudges on issues that, while important, pale in comparison to the big picture of Islamic terrorism. And we all know, that in the big picture, McCain gets it. No one disagrees there.

In the debates with the Democrats, they aren't even mentioning Islamic terrorism. They are hoping that since we have not been attacked again, people will forget, and maybe most Americans have.

History has shown us that the radical Islamist are patient people. They wait in the darkness for the right time to strike. They plan for years. We know this.

But let's not worry about that. Let's forget what we have been through. Let's be like the Democrats and hope for the best and ignore history and growing threats.

Let's forget the attacks we have thwarted. Let's pretend, like the Democrats, that we are no longer in any danger.

Let's elect who we like, instead of who we know will best lead in scary times.

New Hampshire may be the one who decides that.

Let's see.

Sunday, January 06, 2008

Fox News Republican Debate

McCain obviously got the "be more happy and likable" memo. He was practically giddy.

The whole crowd needs to stop trying one liners. They don't work in this forum.

Thompson brought up John Wayne in reference to beating up Chuck Norris if he were here, reminding us that Fred seems old and tired. Why is it that McCain has so much more energy given his age and all that his body has been though?

Romney really impressed me tonight. He comes across as confident and knowledgeable.

I think all of them answered the illegal immigration problem better tonight. It's important that our position as Republicans is clear and based on what is best, not only for our country and our laws, but the illegal immigrants who are being taken advantage of and can't fully live free here.

Chris Wallace is an excellent moderator. There really was nothing knew here. McCain is counting on N.H. for a win. We shall see if the independents come out for him once again or instead, get caught up in Obamamania.

"The Clinton Campaign Has No Conscience"

Well, duh. You just now getting that Edwards?

Someone is having fun in the primiaries

And that would be McCain's daughter Meghan.

I like her blog alot. It isn't contrived or rehearsed and she looks like she really is enjoying it all. She always has lots of pictures too.

The Class President

I'm always doing the high school analogy with McCain and Romney. Michael Scherer at Time magazine compared the two in the same fashion. Pretty accurate:

Here's one thing you need to know about John McCain. He's always been the coolest kid in school. He was the brat who racked up demerits at the Naval Academy. He was the hot dog pilot who went back to the skies weeks after almost dying in a fire on the U.S.S. Forrestal.

When he sits in the back of his campaign bus, we reporters gather like kids in the cafeteria huddling around the star quarterback. We ask him tough questions, and we try to make him slip up, but almost inevitably we come around to admiring him. He wants the challenge. He likes the give and take. He is, to put it simply, cooler than us.

Now here's the thing you need to know about Mitt Romney. He is the overachiever, the do-gooder, the kid in class who always does everything right. All his life he has outperformed, as a Mormon missionary in France, as a corporate takeover consultant, as the guy who saved the Winter Olympics from financial ruin. He works crazy hours and apologizes after he makes a joke, because he is worried you won't understand his meaning. He is the one who takes endless notes in every class and has a little plastic container inside his locker for all of his mechanical pencils. He will probably be the valedictorian, and he will surely disappoint you at graduation by giving a bland speech that all the parents just love. "Isn't that boy so sweet," say all the moms.

So here is the situation that Republicans in New Hampshire face on Tuesday: Do we elect the jock or the overachiever? Do we go with cool and confident, or cautious and competent?

He had to add a post script for Huckabee:

Mike Huckabee also fits in my mythical high school typology. He is the class clown with the weight problem everyone likes, who always seemed to have his heart in the right place. When he runs for class president, you are tempted to vote for him if only because you just know he would make the weekly assemblies more fun.

I might add that no matter how hard you think about it, Fred always comes out as the Principle of the school. And who is high school would have voted for him? Maybe that's the problem.

Rudy is the bad kid who smokes cigarettes before school, wears a black jacket and gets all the girls who want the bad boy.

And we all know Ron Paul is the one who was stuffed in his locker every week. Poor guy.

Sometimes it seems in life, we are always replaying our teenage years.

h/t BigDog