Bill Clinton treats black people like he treated Monica

So says Obama's preacher:

Rev. Jeremiah Wright preached on Sunday morning.

..amid intensified crossfire between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Obama over the use of race in the Democratic presidential campaign - Wright was preaching from the Gospel of John, using his powerful style to link the story of the loaves and fishes to a contemporary political message…

Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton “because her husband was good to us,” he continued.
“That’s not true,” he thundered. “He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky.”

Many in the crowd were on their feet, applauding - amazed, amused and moved by the fiery rhetoric of their preacher, who is about to retire.

I saw this yesterday at Ace's and was wondering when the msm would get a hold of it. I mean that's pretty strong rhetoric. But no such luck. Other than the Baltimore Sun, that wrote the story, I can't find it reported anywhere. It's not that it is the most important thing in the world, it isn't, but it is red meat stuff in a political campaign. Why wouldn't the media report it? My feeling is that they really like Obama and they don't want to add fuel to the fire.

The Utopia that is Cuba

Paradise!

h/t BigDog

Conservative Bigotry

It's the new black.

William Kristol was announced as the new conservative columnist for the NYT left-leaning Op-Ed page after William Safire retired:

The choice of Safire, who retired in 2005, set off a storm of protest. “The Times could have saved themselves about 50 grand a year if they just sent an office boy over to the White House to pick up the press releases,” fumed Nicholas von Hoffman of The Washington Post. Kristol’s appointment has not fared any better. “Pretty much the worst idea ever,” grumped Gawker, the New York media gossip Web site.

Editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal received particularly hateful e-mail:

“That rotten, traiterous [sic] piece of filth should be hung by the ankles from a lamp post and beaten by the mob rather than gaining a pulpit at ANY self-respecting news organization,” said one message. “You should be ashamed. Apparently you are only out for money and therefore an equally traiterous [sic] whore deserving the same treatment.”

This sort of thing even has the liberal author of the article a bit unnerved:

Kristol would not have been my choice to join David Brooks as a second conservative voice in the mix of Times columnists, but the reaction is beyond reason. Hiring Kristol the worst idea ever? I can think of many worse. Hanging someone from a lamppost to be beaten by a mob because of his ideas? And that is from a liberal, defined by Webster as “one who is open-minded.” What have we come to?

What have we come to? Well, isn't it obvious? We have come to a place in the liberal mind where no other idea or opinion need apply.

Sulzberger said The Times wanted “a columnist who brought to our pages a deeply held and well articulated point of view in line with what you might call the conservative Republican movement. ... Our Op-Ed page is a marketplace of ideas. He’ll strengthen the discussion.”

But don't you understand? They don't want discussion. They want the right shut down.

You know what they call this, right?

h/t BigDog

Oh, those funny Arabs!

Arab Sitcom Becomes Surprise Hit in Israel

It's called "Arab Work."

The show focuses on an insecure journalist named Amjad, who lives with his wife and 5-year-old daughter and works for an Israeli newspaper.

The show's main writer, Israeli-Palestinian Sayed Kashua, 32, says the series is loosely autobiographical.

"It's just a comedy of being on one side Palestinian or Arab and on the other side an Israeli. Already this definition is comic and tragic at the same time and that's what I tried to do," he says.

.....

In one episode, Amjad decides it's time for his daughter Maya to go to kindergarten, instead of playing poker with his parents all day. He first tries an Islamic school where his daughter dons a headscarf, learns the Quran and tells her father he will be punished for being a nonbeliever. Maya tells her mother she's only pretending to be religious so she can go back to playing poker.

Punished? As in "head cut off" punished? Hilarious.

In another episode, Amjad proposes a hard-hitting piece on the barrier Israel is building in and around the West Bank. His editor says no and demands something hipper and lighter, so Amjad finds a sheep that's been trained to pull its owner's ID card out of his pocket at Israeli army checkpoints. Sheep prove difficult to interview, but his story makes the front page.

West bank humor? Alrighty then. Wouldn't it be like a sitcom about Iraq playing here? Seems strange to me. But if they can laugh at it all despite the world around them, who am I to judge?

Some Israeli reviewers have compared it to The Cosby Show. Like the Huxtables, Amjad and his family are credited with facilitating cultural understanding, but they are also accused of reinforcing negative stereotypes.

Did anyone feel like they were learning about black culture with the Huxtables? I didn't. It was just a funny show about family to me. And I certainly don't remember any negative stereotypes about blacks. You can watch the Dave Chapelle show for that.

"This is the first time that Israelis can see what Arabs think of themselves. It's done in a humorous way, but if you look through, the humor has a lot of sadness in it," says Jerusalem lawyer Jonathan Livny.

Interesting. I'd like to see it, wouldn't you?

The Sexual Revolution...

...just keeps giving us payback.

via LST

Prayers of the faithful

From Iran that is:

"Our country experiences severe pressure from outside. What ever we do, they protest against us. We exercise the law of Islam by cutting the hands of thieves, and those countries who prohibit execution of the law of Islam criticize us...---Ayatollah Mohi al-Din Ha'eri Shirazi, Friday Prayers.

Can you imagine? In Iran they PRAY about the rightness of cutting off hands as punishment, and yet this doesn't seem to bother the left in this country who pretend that the U.S. somehow violates human rights on a daily basis.

Romney wins Michigan

It's quite the horserace, isn't it? According to First Read, the independents just didn't come out for McCain like they did in 2000. It certainly helped Romney to have been born there, having a father who was a governor and chairman of American Motors, and to have outspent McCain 2 to 1.

Also of interest, 41% of those who identified themselves as evangelical Christians went half for Romney and half for Huckabee.

One of the mistakes that I think McCain is making is to keep talking about the things that make conservatives mad. I heard him go on and on about global warming yesterday. Why??? There are so many things to talk about that are more important than buying into the extreme beliefs of the global warming crowd. The irony of this, which I read about at NRO, is that the cold snowy weather played a big part in turnout in Michigan.

He also chooses to focus on justifying his illegal immigration stance instead of focusing on the things that he does want to do that we agree on. He drives me crazy when he does this. That might be fine for the general election, to appeal to a broader electorate, but for now...PLEASE, focus on conservative issues.

South Carolina will be important. Now that we have three winners, it will propel one of them to seem more as the winner of winners.

And then there is Fred. Can he make any head way in South Carolina? Huckabee seems to have the advantage here.

Hillary didn't honor agreement. Shocking!

From Gateway Pundit:

The Detroit Free Press reported:

The Michigan Democratic ballot is a sham that was rigged by Hillary Rodham Clinton, her husband and her supporters to give the nation the impression that she’s the leading candidate in Michigan, an angry former Sen. Don Riegle said Monday.

Riegle appeared at a rally in Detroit today to encourage would-be supporters of Barack Obama and John Edwards to vote uncommitted in Tuesday’s primary. Riegle said he supports one of the two, but wouldn’t say which.

“What happened in Michigan is not very different from what used to happen in the old Soviet Union,” Riegle said. “The Clinton machine manipulated the ballot. They don’t care how they win, only that they do. It’s wrong and people need to know that.”

Riegle said the Democratic candidates had an understanding, after Michigan defied the party and tried to become the first state to hold a primary, that none of them would compete in Michigan. Obama and Edwards honored the agreement, but Clinton did not and put her name on the ballot, he said.

“People should not permit the Clintons—both Bill and Hillary—to have an unfair advantage in Michigan,” said Riegle.

Oh, did I mention that Riegle is a former Democratic Senator?

Glad to see some Democrats are getting the picture.

h/t Dave Hagan

Open Thread

I have had a terrible few days, a few bothersome things not worth mentioning, and then one of my dogs got out (the black lab mix, Shaq) and was hit by a car. I thought he had paralyzed his back legs at first and he wouldn't move at all. I thought we might have to put him to sleep and I have been very upset. I finally got him to the vet and the GOOD NEWS is that it isn't nerve damage and possibly not even a fracture either. They think it is a soft tissue injury and put him on antibiotics. I can't tell you what a relief it was. I burst into tears at the vet, which I am sure they are used to, but I had been so stressed about it, and to hear that he was probably Ok, was just such a relief.

Anyway, dave bones, my leftwing radical from across the pond, wanted me to have an open thread. I think he wants to ask us Republicans some things. There is no telling when he will get here, so talk amongst yourselves.

"Scientologists see things the way they are"

Tom Cruise cruising down crazy lane.

via HotAir

Michigan fun

My sweet friend E.M Zanotti has an amusing look at what is going on in Michigan. Check it out at NRO.

Hillary makes nice with Obama

From NRO:

This statement just in, from her campaign:

“Over this past week, there has been a lot of discussion and back and forth - much of which I know does not reflect what is in our hearts.

“And at this moment, I believe we must seek common ground.

“Our party and our nation is bigger than this. Our party has been on the front line of every civil rights movement, women's rights movement, workers' rights movement, and other movements for justice in America.

“We differ on a lot of things. And it is critical to have the right kind of discussion on where we stand. But when it comes to civil rights and our commitment to diversity, when it comes to our heroes - President John F. Kennedy and Dr. King – Senator Obama and I are on the same side.

“And in that spirit, let's come together, because I want more than anything else to ensure that our family stays together on the front lines of the struggle to expand rights for all Americans.”

The year 2051

Dang it! The TV news will still have that annoying scroll! Oh yeah, and NYC will be under water. Global warming and all that, ya know.

via Gawker

"The enemy is the human!"

From Gawker:

Here's an audio clip of one of the most amazing newsroom tantrums I've ever heard. That man yelling, with growing fury, is Matthew Winkler, head of Bloomberg's news organization.

Pretty funny.

"Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians”

By Judicial Watch. No surprises, except Mike Huckabee. Click link for explanation of why each are the most corrupt. It's an interesting read.

1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)

2. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)

3. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID)

4. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA)

5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY)

6. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR)

7. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby

8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)

9. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

10. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)

via LST

I ask Democrats this all the time

Why on earth would we choose to put the Clinton family drama at the center of our politics again?

It is a nice reader's digest version of all the lies of the Clinton's too.

I remember when Drudge said he wanted Hillary to be President, because she was his "bank." In other words, the drama, the lies, the headlines, the disgust, the hatred, the hypocrisy, and the manipulation, would be money rolling in for his web site.

With all respect to Drudge's finances, I'd rather have a President without drama, baggage, and lies.

We can do better than this America, can't we?

Why so many find the NYT ridiculous

NRO has this:

On Sunday The New York Times editorialized:

Mr. Bush has nothing to show in the way of political progress, which is even more important for ending the war.… Mr. Bush’s troop buildup was sold as a way to buy Iraqi politicians breathing room to finally address the tensions driving sectarian violence, including an equitable division of oil wealth and strategies to bring more Baathists and Sunnis into the Shiite-led government. Those goals have not been met, and the administration has virtually abandoned them.

On Sunday The New York Times reported:

BAGHDAD — The Iraqi Parliament passed a bill on Saturday that would allow some former officials from Saddam Hussein’s party to fill government positions but would impose a strict ban on others. The legislation is the first of the major so-called political benchmark measures to pass after months of American pressure for progress… President Bush, traveling in Kuwait and Bahrain on Saturday, praised the vote, calling it “an important step toward reconciliation.”

Why would editors run an opinion piece that is false on the same day they report a story that proves such?

BET Should Be Ashamed

First read has the story of BET founder Bob Johnson, who introduced Hillary Clinton at a town hall today at Columbia University, took a low blow at Barack Obama:

"As an African American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues, when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood that I won't say what he was doing but he said it in his book... When they have been involved, to say that these two people would denigrate the accomplishment of civil rights marchers, men and women who were hosed, beaten and bled, and some died... To say and to expect us now all of a sudden to say we are attacking a black man.

......

The Obama campaign later produced this statement from former South Carolina Rep. "I.S." Leevy Johnson:

“It’s offensive that Senator Clinton literally stood by and said nothing as another one of her campaign’s top supporters launched a personal, divisive attack on Barack Obama,” said Johnson. “For someone who decries the politics of personal destruction, she should’ve immediately denounced these attacks on the spot.”


The Clinton campaign then produced this comment from Johnson: “My comments today were referring to Barack Obama's time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect.

His comments were referring to Obama's time has a community organizer!?? Give me a break. Is there anyone who believes that??? Let' look at it again:

when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood that I won't say what he was doing but he said it in his book...

Of course he was referring to the drug use of Obama's. We are not idiots. "I won't say what he was doing."

Sure, because one not dare utter the words"community organizer!"

What is insulting is to try to make us believe anything but the obvious, which was a shot at Obama's drug use he wrote about in his book.

MCain is having a good month

NRO points to this The new New York Times poll showing presidential preference among Republican primary voters. To the quesiton, "Who would you like to see the Republican party nominate as its presidential candidate?" Republican primary voters answered:

McCain 33
Huckabee 18
Giuliani 10
Thompson 8
Romney 8

In a poll released December 10 the numbers looked like this:

Giuliani 22
Huckabee 21
Romney 16
Thompson 7
McCain 7

What a difference a month makes!

Since Bigdog in the comments only respects Rasmussen polling, try this one on for size:

McCain vs. Clinton matchup

McCain 49% Clinton 38%

Also this.

Forgot to mention

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

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.

Awesome!!

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.

But.....

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

From Wired.com:

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%.

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 AP.

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?

Bingo!

*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.

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.

"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:

...one 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.

WSJ.com 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.

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

N.H. Debates

The Republican debate was all about ganging up on Romney, who handled it well at times, and not so much at other times. Fred was like the patient father shaking his head at all the nonsense around him. Fred says all the right things. Why can't he gain traction? Huckabee seem to lose some steam and McCain was presidential (but you knew I would say that) Rudy was Rudy.

The Democratic debate was interesting because Hillary did so terrible. Which I find so great. She got ticked at one point, and that mood just doesn't work for her. Since it is difficult for me to be objective about her I wandered over to the left side of the web to see what they were saying. Can you say "harsh?"

From the liberal American Prospect:

R.I.P., THE CLINTON ERA, 9:34 P.M. EST.

Wow.
Get your kids out and put them in front of the TV: The Clinton Era officially ended at 9:34 p.m. EST when Edwards paired with Obama to bury Hillary as a non-agent of change.
Wow, again.
--Tom Schaller

Nice. Even the Kos Kids didn't have nice things to say about her. Could it possibly be true?

I may enjoy this political season more than I ever imagined.

Oh yes, and one more thing. If one was playing a drinking game during the debates and took a drink every time someone said the word "change," one would be drunker than cooter brown right now.

A Leader

A dirty bomb. Millions dead in a U.S. city . Chaos. Panic. Immeasurable grief. The images of destruction and death on TV news replayed over and over.

Tell me this never entered your mind after 9-11. Tell me that somewhere in the back of all our minds we did not wonder if something like that could happen. Tell me you didn't think about it. I won't believe you. We all did.

If, in the 90's, Hollywood had made a movie about planes of people being flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we would have shook our heads at the imagination of the writers. We never imagined it, we never saw it coming.

Now we do imagine it. We think about some thing put in a water system in a big city, poisoning millions. We think about radical Islamists taking over several elementary schools, like they did in Beslan. We shudder at the horror the parents would feel. We wonder what actions we would take. We think about suicide bombers in the subways and in malls. We don't think about those things much. Just in moments. When something on TV reminds us. We push it out of our minds. We can't live in fear.

But we know. We know it could happen.

This isn't about fearmongering. It's about the "what if." If any of those things happened, would you be shocked? Or would we know deep in our hearts that we knew all along it was possible.

Now close your eyes and see those things for a moment. In your mind's eye you see the bombed out buildings of downtown LA. You see the people brought in on stretchers to hospitals from poisoning. You see the military and swat teams as they surround the elementary schools. You see our fighter jets in the sky. Do you see it?

Dramatic? Yes. Impossible? We all know the answer to that.

Now think about who you would want to be President if any of this happened.

Would you want a small time Governor from Arkansas with no experience, but a really great guy?

Would you want a Congressman turned actor?

Would you want a pretty rich boy who knows how to run a business and a state, but not our military?

Would you want a liberal woman with no military experience or an inspiring black man with even less?

No, I'll tell you who you would want. John McCain. A man who knows war. A man who understands a brutal enemy.

Because if any of those things happened, no one would care about McCain/Feingold or granting amnesty to illegal aliens. Those concerns would vanish. All we would focus on is a leader.

A leader.

Obama Wow

I just watched Obama's speech after winning in Iowa.

Wow.

It was one of the best political speeches I have heard In a long long time. It was inspiring and electric. When Obama is fired up, he delivers.

For the first time I felt some hope that Hillary might not win the Democratic nomination.

Obama's speech was excellent. It was all about "uniting" and "hope." That all sounds good, but you can't unite a people who disagree with just about everything you believe in.

Make no mistake about it, Obama is as liberal as Hillary. He is the same big government big spender. He is the same mindset that doesn't understand this war and he doesn't understand the horror that is abortion.

But for now, I pray he stops Hillary. And it looks like he just might.

It's done for Iowa

No surprise that Huckabee won. But get this at First Read (msnbc):

In an unusual expression of faith at a political party headquarters, supporters are standing in circles, holding hands and offering prayers in the middle of the Huckabee ballroom. They appear to be families with adults and children standing together. This is happening amid the piped in rock music, media standups and giant screen coverage.
We are shooting tape. Lots of still cameras buzzing around the group too.
We'll find out who they are when they're finished praying.

"Who are these strange creatures that pray???

This is the kind of thing that is going to keep Huckabee on a roll. The media acting like Christianity and prayer is some sort of bizarre custom from another planet. Give me a break.

Also no surprise, Obama won. But even sweeter is Hillary coming in third. Bill, watch the lamps in the hotel room tonight!

Romney came in 2nd, but it's gotta hurt with all the time and money he put in. Fred coming in third will keep him in the running.

Btw, I copied the pic from Fox News and you know how when you "save picture" it gives you a file name? The file name given on this was "doomsday1." Heh.

Oh dear, oh dear.....

I just watched Huckabee on Leno (2 parts). This guy is good. Likable and down to earth. No wonder he has come from nowhere to lead in Iowa.

As opposed to the more libertarian rightwing bloggers like Ace and Allah, I think Huckabee is sincere. They see something sinister about him, but they are wrong. He really is a nice guy that tries to do the right thing. People are responding to that.

The problem is that he cannot possibly win the general election. He has no foreign policy experience at a time where it is imperative that our leader can lead from a global perspective. We are at war and we need someone who understands that fight.

When it comes to tax hikes and spending and crime Huckabee isn't so conservative, but I don't think that is what the public is focusing on right now. Right now they are looking for someone they can relate to and Huckabee connects with people, there is no doubt.

For a pretty harsh look at his record from what should be an ally, go here.

I may have spoken to soon before. There may yet be more of Huckaboom. But imo, the person who loses the most here is Romney. Those flocking to Huckabee probably would have voted for Romney.

The Leno show was a gambit that paid off for Huckabee.

Oh dear, oh dear.

Sex will get you every time

After the Clinton/Lewinsky affair, nothing surprises me when it comes to politicians and sex. Nothing. Even the most powerful intelligent men on the planet will lose their minds for a little on the side. It's completely crazy that a man will risk his reputation and legacy (as Clinton did) in a haze of lust and desire. But it happens over and over.

We are seeing that here in Texas. District Attorney Charles A. Rosenthal Jr., one of Texas' most powerful prosecutors for 30 years, was forced by leaders in the Republican party in Houston to ditch his re-election plans for a third term as district attorney because of some sexy e-mails he wrote on office computers to his secretary that came to light. (yes, he's married)

People. Please. Use some common sense. E-mail, instant messages, message boards, EVERYTHING you write on the net, whether private or not, can be accessed and read by everyone. It can happen. Even to you.

Here is a man, like Clinton, who had everything going for him and now, like Clinton, he will be remembered with giggles and jokes.

Is it worth it?

via LST

What could have been

Fred Thompson entering the presidential race was like getting a birthday present a month late, and it wasn't what you asked for.

When asked why he didn't do this or that in this race, I've heard Thompson say, "That isn't how we do things in Tennessee."

Well, the way they do things in Tennessee doesn't fly in a Presidential race. We were all disappointed in the way the campaign has been run. Thompson has all the conservative creds, but none of the passion or desire (or money) to be President.

HotAir has linked a Politico article that says if Thompson finishes poorly in Iowa, he will drop out, give his support to McCain and perhaps in exchange for that, McCain will name him Attorney General in his administration.

Not a bad deal.

If all this happens, and that is a big if, could the winds of luck be blowing any harder for McCain these days?

Fred is denying any truth to the Politico article.

I suppose it's all speculation and hearsay. Either way, I think this is the beginning of the end for Fred. It also shows how important it is know what your doing when running for President. Staff, money, and organization all matter a great deal. You can't just mosey into a Presidential race.

We will always wonder what could have been with Fred.

For the far left, Obama is too conservative

Which goes to show you how insane they are. But, thank goodness they spend more time blogging their anger than actually voting.

So while the code pinkers, Kos, and the like continue to spit, rage, and gnash their teeth, the reasonable middle America Democrats in Iowa will vote for who they see as the most honest and refreshing candidate.

Obama will win Iowa, which will be sweet. Not because he isn't as wrong on every issue, he certainly is, but because it would be sweet to see Queen Hillary's crown snatched from her carefully coiffed head. But I fear the political machine that is the Clintons will roll over those good folk in Iowa, and win in the later states.

I could be wrong. I hope I am.

Objective interviewing?

Please!

Take a look at the Today's show this morning as they interview Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

Mitt gets a grilling and Obama might as well be having coffee with his grandma.

Caucusing for Dummies

Just in case you were wondering about the exciting fun that is Caucus. They actually made something pretty boring into a cute video and got in a few funny lines.

via Slate

Why McCain?

I started to read Victor Davis Hanson's column about McCain this morning hating and worrying about the fact that I would disagree with someone I have so much respect for.

Hanson is probably the most intelligent thoughtful informed writer out there writing about politics today.

He started off his column today describing all the ways McCain has made us angry. He described McCain's setbacks and even his age and looks.

Just as I was really starting to feel uncomfortable, Hanson started describing why McCain is who he is and why is the most qualified to be President.

And I began to smile.

Second, McCain has the most diverse experience of any of the candidates in either party. Sens. Obama and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., may bicker over whether being first lady or growing up in Indonesia constitutes the better foreign-policy background. But no one would question McCain's far greater breadth of service: carrier aviator, combat pilot, wounded veteran, tortured while a prisoner of war for five and a half years, U.S. congressman and senator for a combined quarter-century, 2000 presidential candidate. And the list only goes on.
..........

In this war, having a veteran fighter and savvy old statesman as commander-in-chief makes a lot of sense.
I don't know whether plain-speaking John McCain will win the presidency. But so far he's proved the most experienced of the candidates, and he's run the most principled and honest of the campaigns. Other candidates may be younger, better financed and more charismatic; none has more earned America's trust.

In the end, this is why we will forgive McCain for the things we disagreed with him. His service, his experience, and his honesty.

Read Hanson's column. It does describe the good, the bad, and the ugly about McCain, and why people are taking a second look.

*note: I promise to try to keep my McCain crush posts to a minimum. I know many of you are like "yeah, we get it, you like McCain."

Iowa college newspapers endorse Obama and McCain

Naturally I'm happy about the McCain endorsements, but Hillary has to be feeling the pain of rejection, not only from the Iowa young, but from her own alma mater.

Who is America's BFF??

If they are fighting over it, maybe our "reputation around the world" isn't as bad as the Democrats want it to be:

After decades of Anglo-French rivalry, in which France has vehemently deplored the global influence America and Britain have attained and what every president of France since Charles de Gaulle has described as "Anglo-Saxon culture," Mr. Sarkozy claimed during his visit to Washington last week that France, not Britain, is now America's best friend and partner.

via Instapundit

New Mitt Romney Ad

Who would have thought that Chuck Norris, of all people, would be front and center in a primary fight?

Crazy.

via Ace

New National Poll

From the Pew Research Center.

Wow, look at Rudy. How the mighty fall. As all of you know, I just couldn't wrap my mind around Republicans nominating a pro-abortion liberal from New York. I mean, that is what the Democrats are going to do. Maybe my instincts were right. The closer the primaries came, the more people thought about it, the more they realized that we need a leader to beat a NY liberal, not nominate one.

Let's get ready for Iowa

Happy New Year to everyone! Let's look at Iowa. It's coming down to the wire.

Political Wire got an advance look at a new Strategic Vision poll in Iowa that shows Sen. Barack Obama leading the Democratic presidential race with 32% support, followed by John Edwards at 29% and Sen. Hillary Clinton at 27%.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney leads with 30%, followed by Mike Huckabee at 28%; Sen. John McCain at 16% and Fred Thompson at 13%.Like other polls we've seen in the last week, both races are essentially statistical ties.

Interesting:

"What if at the end of Thursday, the three leading Democrats — former Senator John Edwards and Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama — are separated by a percentage point or two, leaving no one with the clear right of delivering a victory speech (or the burden of conceding)? A number of polls going into the final days have suggested that after all of this, the Democratic caucus on Thursday night could end up more or less a tie."

Maybe I'm the only goober who watches C-span when the candidates and their wives go to people's homes in Iowa and speak to small groups. I think it is a wonderful thing. Just normal everyday people. No designer dresses or handmade suits. No catered dinners or arranged place settings. Just finger foods spread out in the kitchen and people bundled up in coats waiting to hear how the candidates will serve their country.

Watching these things makes me appreciate the process a bit more. I think it grounds the candidates to the task before them. I think it makes them see that what they do will affect real people, living and working in America.

I think the people in the early primary states take this very seriously. I don't think anything should change in that regard. These are people like you and me, and maybe they won't vote for the eventual winner, but they do make us think. They do make us consider someone we might not have before.

It looks like Iowa will be pretty exciting for the Democrats. For Romney, it's extremely important. Huckabee may keep Romney from the early roll he counted on, or...maybe not.

Stay tuned.

Here is the early primary timeline:

3 Jan - Iowa caucus
5 Jan - Wyoming caucus (Rep)
8 Jan - New Hampshire
15 Jan - Michigan
19 Jan - Nevada caucus, and South Carolina primary (Rep)
26 Jan - South Carolina primary (Dem)
29 Jan - Florida primary

Update: I thought this an interesting turn of events for the Democrats from the AP:

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich on Tuesday asked his supporters to make rival Barack Obama their second choice if he doesn't meet a cutoff point for voting in Iowa's caucuses.

Update 2: Huckabee will be on Jay Leno tonight instead of being in Iowa. Good idea? Maybe, maybe not. On the one hand, Huckabee is very good in these venues. He's funny and this is a perfect outlet for him. But on the other hand, will more people in Iowa watch him on Leno than will get out of their cozy homes to vote for him? We shall see. I think Huckabee will win Iowa. But I think that is where the Huckaboom ends.

Hillary mis-steps?

Hillary has spent her whole life preparing for this moment. She didn't take a breath that wasn't calculated in the Senate for the campaign for President. As I have said many times before, I didn't think she could mis-step.

Maybe I was wrong.

In related news, awesome.

Also, good news.

Go Anyone But Hillary!!!