Norris Says McCain Too Old for President
I agree. Although, after watching their "Chuck-Huck Facts" video, I don't think these two were ever trying too hard to seem "professional." But besides being unprofessional, it also just seems pretty silly given Chuck Norris is only four years younger!
So, even though I prefer other candidates, I keep trying to tell myself that, as a Democrat, I should still be happy if Clinton ends up winning the nomination. But certain things about her just rub me the wrong way. One of the impressions I have is that she is just too cynical.
Like James Clyburn, I found her recent comments on MLK to be really disturbing. I mean, let's all give LBJ the credit he's due, but really? It is just plain disrespectful to say the selfless, inspirational civil rights leader would've been ineffectual without LBJ to carry out the work he (and JFK on the Civil Rights Act) started. It's stuff like this that makes Obama's message that we need more hope look less cheesy and actually true.
But what about her economic stimulus package announed today? My initial reaction to that was, "Oh, isn't that convenient, to come out with this plan that basically the whole party has been working on but preempt party leaders and call it your own." Now I feel like I'm being the cynical one.
Is my skepticism of Clinton keeping me from judging her fairly? Or is my cynicism merited?
Ohmygod, PLEASE let Huckabee win the nomination
So, I don't think I've ever seen Colbert out of character since he started his show. And he took his character to the next level when he tried to get on the Democratic ballot in South Carolina. So if Huckabee actually wins the Republican nomination, is Colbert going to keep up his insistence on being his running mate? God, I hope so.
For some reason, Comedy Central won't let me embed the video :( so here is the link to it.
This is an overall pretty entertaining interview. Huckabee always comes across as very charming-- I'm glad he got in that bit about evolution and that swipe at gay marriage at the end to remind me why evangelical politicians scare me.
Also of note, Colbert says he's going to give voters a taste of their own medicine by not telling them who they want to vote for, after folks bucked predictions in New Hampshire. Turns out, that's actually how pollsters are reacting, at least when it comes to Nevada.
Huckabee/Colbert '08!!!
Emotional Clinton Says, This Is Personal
I don't doubt her tears... but talking about the race being "personal" seems rather odd after she seemed so dismissive of Edwards' claim on Saturday night that the race was personal. Perhaps her change of heart has to do with the pundits' positive reactions to Edwards' performance Saturday...
Emotional Clinton Says, This Is Personal
<div class="special-box" style="width:270px;">
<div style="border:solid 1px #CCC">
<div class="ta-c p-10" style="background:#FFF;border-bottom:solid 1px #CCC">
<a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/news/emotional-clinton-says-this-is-personal/25740/photos/&imageId=6858">
<img src="http://image.politicalbase.com/uploads/people/3000/2297/09aedf66-628a-4545-97ce-80191294fc4f_240.jpg" style="border:solid 3px #CCC;"/>
</a> <br/>
<div class="ta-l p-8" style="border:solid 1px #DDD;">
<span class="strong">Hillary Clinton</span><br/> <span class="dgray f-10">Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., center, speaks to women at a cafe in Portsmouth, N.H., after become emotional while answering a question from an undecided voter there Monday, Jan. 7, 2008. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola)</span>
</div>
<table class="list">
<tr>
<td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/hillary-clinton/2297/">Biography</a></td>
<td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/hillary-clinton/2297/issues/">Issues</a></td>
<td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/hillary-clinton/2297/money/">Fund Raising</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/hillary-clinton/2297/rivals/">Rivals</a></td>
<td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/hillary-clinton/2297/supporters/">Supporters</a></td>
<td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/hillary-clinton/2297/affiliations/">Affiliations</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/hillary-clinton/2297/photos/">Photos</a></td>
<td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/hillary-clinton/2297/videos/">Videos</a></td>
<td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/hillary-clinton/2297/forums/">Forums</a></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/hillary-clinton/2297/">Hillary Rodham Clinton</a>'s eyes welled up and her voice broke repeatedly Monday as she talked with voters in a restaurant about her campaign for the presidency. The former first lady was making a last-minute pitch for support as she spoke on the eve of the state's primary, with polls showing her trailing Democratic rival <a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/barack-obama/3221/">Barack Obama</a>.</p>
Asked by a sympathetic voter how she keeps going in the grueling campaign, she replied, "It's not easy. It's not easy."
"And I couldn't do it if I just didn't, you know, passionately believe it was the right thing to do," she said, her voice catching.
"You know, I've had so many opportunities from this country, I just don't want to see us fall backwards," she said, her voice trailing off. The voters crowded into the restaurant applauded encouragingly.
"So," she continued, then paused, seemingly to control her voice as her listeners applauded again. "You know, this is very personal for me. It's not just political. It's not just public. I see what's happening, and we have to reverse it. And some people think elections are a game. They think it's like who's up or who's down.
"It's about our country. It's about our kids' futures. It's really about all of us together. You know some of us put ourselves out there and do this against some pretty difficult odds. And we do it, each one of us, because we care about our country. But some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready and some of us are not."
She concluded, "And so when we look at the array of problems we have and the potential for it getting really spinning out of control, this is one of the most important elections America's ever faced. So as tired as I am and I am and as difficult as it is to try to kind of keep up with what I try to do on the road like occasionally exercise and try to eat right it's tough when the easiest food is pizza I just believe so strongly in who we are as a nation so I'm going to do everything I can to make my case and, you know, then the voters get to decide."
After she spoke several of the people in the Cafe Espresso audience crowded around Clinton and offered sympathetic support.
<br class="clear-both"/>
Actually, quite a few of the presidential candidates have said we should toughen penalties on employers who hire undocumented workers, including Romney, Huckabee, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden and Richardson. I do agree, though, that this aspect of immigration reform doesn't get as much emphasis from the candidates or media as flashier, if less effective, policies like building a fence do. Sadly, it seems that this is such a divisive issue, that people don't want to think about the reasonable approaches.
I agree with Kate that the illegal workforce is a lot more benign-- and probably a lot more helpful-- than most people want to admit. But regardless of whether you think that illegal workers are harmful or helpful, it's definitely the employers that should held liable.
AG Denies Details in CIA Tapes Inquiry
Sooo basically, we can't risk making the investigation vulnerable to political pressure from Congress, so we're just going to have to trust that it's not vulnerable to political pressures from the administration. Hmmmm.
AG Denies Details in CIA Tapes Inquiry
<div class="special-box" style="width:270px;">
<div style="border:solid 1px #CCC">
<div class="ta-c p-10" style="background:#FFF;border-bottom:solid 1px #CCC">
<a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/news/ag-denies-details-in-cia-tapes-inquiry/17256/photos/&imageId=5309">
<img src="http://image.politicalbase.com/uploads/people/18000/17177/f1ce8269-add0-44b3-a01b-3ffbaed29556_240.jpg" style="border:solid 3px #CCC;"/>
</a> <br/>
<div class="ta-l p-8" style="border:solid 1px #DDD;">
<span class="strong">Michael Mukasey</span><br/> <span class="dgray f-10">Attorney General Michael Mukasey speaks during a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2007. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) </span>
</div>
<table class="list">
<tr>
<td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/michael-mukasey/17177/">Biography</a></td>
<td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/michael-mukasey/17177/issues/">Issues</a></td>
<td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/michael-mukasey/17177/money/">Fund Raising</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/michael-mukasey/17177/rivals/">Rivals</a></td>
<td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/michael-mukasey/17177/supporters/">Supporters</a></td>
<td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/michael-mukasey/17177/affiliations/">Affiliations</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/michael-mukasey/17177/photos/">Photos</a></td>
<td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/michael-mukasey/17177/videos/">Videos</a></td>
<td class="alt"><a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/michael-mukasey/17177/forums/">Forums</a></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>Attorney General <a href="http://www.politicalbase.com/people/michael-mukasey/17177/">Michael Mukasey</a> refused Friday to give Congress details of the government's investigation into interrogations of terror suspects that were videotaped and destroyed by the CIA. He said doing so could raise questions about whether the inquiry is vulnerable to political pressures.</p>
In letters to leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary committees that oversee the Justice Department, Mukasey said there is no need right now to appoint a special prosecutor to lead the investigation. The preliminary inquiry currently is being handled by the Justice Department and the CIA's inspector general.
"I am aware of no facts at present to suggest that department attorneys cannot conduct this inquiry in an impartial manner," Mukasey wrote Friday to Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat and Republican, respectively, on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "If I become aware of information that leads me to a different conclusion, I will act on it."
Addressing congressional demands for facts in the CIA tapes inquiry, Mukasey noted that the Justice Department generally does not give out information about pending cases.
"This policy is based in part on our interest in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence," Mukasey wrote. "Accordingly, I will not at this time provide further information in response to your letter, but appreciate the committee's interests in this matter."
An almost-identical letter was sent Thursday to Democratic leaders of the House Judiciary Committee.
Responding, Leahy suggested that Mukasey's refusal amounts to a stonewalling of congressional oversight of the Justice Department.
"I am disappointed that the Department of Justice declined to provide us, either publicly or in a classified setting, with any of the information Senator Specter and I have requested," Leahy said in a statement.
"Oversight fosters accountability," Leahy said. "This committee needs to fully understand whether the government used cruel interrogation techniques and torture, contrary to our basic values."
Leahy said the tapes would be a top topic at his committee's hearing next week to consider the nomination of U.S. District Judge Mark Filip for deputy attorney general, the Justice Department's No. 2 official. It also will come up at oversight hearings of the Justice Department that Leahy said he would schedule for early next year.
The videotapes, made in 2002, showed the CIA's interrogations of two terror suspects. They were made to document how CIA officers used new, harsh questioning techniques approved by the White House to force recalcitrant prisoners to talk. The CIA destroyed the tapes in 2005.
<br class="clear-both"/>
GOP Blocks Senate Interrogation Bill
<p>Senate Republicans blocked a bill Friday that would restrict the interrogation methods the CIA can use against terrorism suspects.</p>
The legislation, part of a measure authorizing the government's intelligence activities for 2008, had been approved a day earlier by the House and sent to the Senate for what was supposed to be final action. The bill would require the CIA to adhere to the Army's field manual on interrogation, which bans waterboarding, mock executions and other harsh interrogation methods.
Senate opponents of that provision, however, discovered a potentially fatal parliamentary flaw: The ban on harsh questioning tactics had not been in the original versions of the intelligence bill passed by the House and Senate. Instead, it was a last-minute addition during negotiations between the two sides to write a compromise bill, a move that could violate Senate rules. The rule is intended to protect legislation from last-minute amendments that neither house of Congress has had time to fully consider.
Although it's not unheard of for new language to be added in House-Senate negotiations, the rules allow such a move to be challenged and the language stripped from the bill.
In a separate development related to CIA interrogations, Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused Friday to give Congress details of the government's investigation into the CIA's destruction of videotapes of interrogations of terror suspects. He said doing so could raise questions about whether the inquiry is vulnerable to political pressures.
In letters to leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, Mukasey also said there is no need right now to appoint a special prosecutor to lead the investigation. The preliminary inquiry currently is being handled by the Justice Department and the CIA's inspector general.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., expressed disappointment and said the tapes would be a major topic at his committee's hearing next week to consider the nomination of U.S. District Judge Mark Filip for deputy attorney general.
The Senate was prevented from voting on the intelligence bill because Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., placed a hold on it while the GOP procedural challenge goes forward.
"I think quite frankly applying the Army field manual to the CIA would be ill-advised and would destroy a program that I think is lawful and helps the country," Graham said in an interview.
If the Senate were to approve a stripped-down authorization bill next week, it would then have to go back to the House for another vote.
The field manual amendment was pushed by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and backed by two Senate Republicans, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
Feinstein defended the provision and said the Senate should debate it. "The Army Field Manual has been an effective guide for the military," she said. "It was very carefully written and reviewed. It has not come under criticism, unlike the constant criticism in the CIA arena .... It is my belief that America is not well served by torture."
The White House threatened to veto the bill this week over the interrogation restrictions and a list of other issues. The CIA denies that it tortures detainees.
The Army field manual, adopted in 2006, prohibits forcing detainees to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; placing hoods or sacks over detainees' heads or duct tape over their eyes; beating, shocking, or burning detainees; threatening them with military dogs; exposing them to extreme heat or cold; conducting mock executions; depriving them of food, water, or medical care; and waterboarding.
Waterboarding is a particularly harsh form of interrogation that involves strapping down a prisoner, covering his mouth with plastic or cloth and pouring water over his face. The prisoner quickly begins to inhale water, causing the sensation of drowning.
The CIA is known to have waterboarded three prisoners but has not used the technique since 2003, according to a government official familiar with the program who spoke on condition of anonymity because the information is classified. CIA Director Michael Hayden prohibited waterboarding in 2006.
The White House gave the CIA special latitude to conduct harsh or "enhanced" interrogations in 2002 to break down recalcitrant terror suspects.
<br class="clear-both"/>
2008 Candidates and Their Nicknames
Of course Clinton says she didn't have a nickname. Her team probably hasn't yet polled what nickname people think would fit her best.
2008 Candidates and Their Nicknames
<p>Meet the presidential candidates by another name Barry, Bird Legs, Coyote Bill.</p>
Such are their childhood nicknames.
Several of the candidates go around today with names altered in their youth. Mitt Romney, for example, was named Willard Mitt Romney. In a twist from the usual nickname progression, Fred Thompson actually was named Freddie, and John Edwards was named Johnny.
Rudolph Giuliani is running under the less formal Rudy, the name by which his friends and close associates have known him for decades.
Behind those modest alterations are a few truly fanciful monikers. They emerged when AP asked them about their childhood nicknames in a series of questions about their personal side. Thompson's campaign, in response, indulged in a touch of whimsical wishful thinking.
The candidates by their full names, and their nicknames:
DEMOCRATS:
New York Sen. Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton: No nicknames that stuck
Former North Carolina Sen. Johnny Reid Edwards: John
Illinois Sen. Barack Hussein Obama Jr.: Barry
New Mexico Gov. William Blaine Richardson: Coyote Bill
REPUBLICANS:
Former New York Mayor Rudolph William Louis Giuliani: Rudy
Former Arkansas Gov. Michael Dale Huckabee: Mike and Huck
Arizona Sen. John Sidney McCain III: Johnny
Former Massachusetts Gov. Willard Mitt Romney: "In high school, my friends called me Bird Legs. And how did I get it? Take a guess."
Former Tennessee Sen. Freddie Dalton Thompson: Mr. President
NEXT: COFFEE TALK
<br class="clear-both"/>
National Initiative for Democracy
I think it's an interesting idea, too. I think Gravel has had some really thought-provoking things to say, and it's sad that he's been marginalized as a candidate and left out of debates. Like Kucinich, he may not be a realistic candidate, but he's at least interesting for the purposes of keeping the other guys honest and thinking on their toes.
First Negative Ad Against Clinton
That's a good point, JDubb-- I'm wondering how the tone of the Republican campaigns will change now that Clinton no longer looks like the inevitable candidate. So much of their campaigning has seemed to be focused on how qualified they are to beat her specifically.
Jay Z flossin' Euros- should I be worried?
I've only just seen the new Jay Z video for his song Blue Magic, which I guess was released about a week or so ago. In it, Jay Z flashes wads of Euros instead of dollar bills. Jay Z knows whats up-- the dollar has reached new lows, and the euro is at an all-time high. Thankfully, the decline of the dollar has stalled slightly in recent days, keeping oil prices from reaching $100 just yet (among other factors, like OPEC saying they could increase output).
In any event, I'm inclined to agree with Jay Z that it sucks the dollar is so low, and not just because he is a mothaF'ing balla. After having just arrived home from a European vacation-- and then a drive across the country, during which I probably saw gas prices under $3 a total of two times-- I've been hit pretty hard by the weak dollar.
But I understand the arguments that a weak dollar isn't exactly the worst thing in the world, such as that it benefits domestic production of goods.
So much of economics seems to be so theoretical, that it's hard for me to gauge what makes good economic policy, or even how serious a weakening dollar is. Should this be a big issue? Is this something the presidential candidates should be talking about?
I guess YouTube won't let you embed this video, so here is the link.
I was at first pretty baffled when I read the White House's response to the public's overwhelming opposition to the war. After reading it a couple more times and watching the accompanying video, it all at once made more sense and yet was even more confusing.
CNN says that 68 percent of Americans "oppose the war." Yet the White House responded as if that meant 68 percent of Americans think the "surge" was a bad idea. Are they one in the same? Does opposing the war necessarily mean being in favor of immediate troop withdrawal?
I, for one, am and always was "opposed to war." However, now that we are in this mess, I am not sure what I think the best thing to do now is. Maybe we'd be better off leaving immediately, maybe we'd be better off staying for the long haul. Just because I may not be opposed to keeping some troops in (again, I haven't actually decided), doesn't mean I'm not opposed to the war in general-- I just think it may be the least bad option. In other words, I think the war is totally stupid, but there may not be much else we can do about it now.
But in terms of how politicians respond to polling figures, maybe it is best to assume opposition to the war means being in favor of troop withdrawal. My main concern would be expressing disapproval with the war so there are no similar blunders (like, say, in Iran) in the future. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Still running on name recognition?
There is no question that with the primaries quickly approaching (the holiday season always goes by fast, and the primaries will quickly follow), Clinton has the strong lead in both national and state polls.
I was particularly interested today in a stat that this CNN blurb mentions: Barack Obama trails Hillary Clinton by 30 points among workers who make less than $50,000. I tried to find this particular poll, but only came up with what seems to be a more general poll; when I clicked on the link to view the PDF of the complete poll, it made no mention of breaking down the poll by income. It did show that Clinton's national lead among registered Democrats continues to hold strong at 44 percent to Obama's 25 percent, although her lead dropped a bit from October.
In any event, these stats interest me because the nomination has always been Hillary's to lose in part because of her strong name recognition. Clearly, the other candidates, especially the charming Mr. Obama, have since had time to make headway in that department. However, everyone knows that most voters don't make up their minds about who they will vote for until a week or two before they turn in their ballots; I'm assuming this means they don't pay a great deal of attention to the campaigns before then either.
Does this mean that Clinton's lead is still greatly due to the fact that people know who she is? What about among lower-income democrats? People with lower incomes certainly have enough to think about on a daily basis besides politics-- have they even really considered other candidates yet? Moreover, is that particular stat about lower income workers a reflection of primary voters? Certainly being registered raises your chance of voting in primaries, but are they less likely to vote in the primaries than higher-income Democrats?
I happen to know a handful of people who work at Facebook, so I've gotten a little more of an inside perspective of it than the usual user. I haven't asked about this specifically, but based on other conversations, I think the people at Facebook consider it in their best interest to keep the site truly nonpartisan. It probably was just a bug-- they've been growing so fast, new bugs pop up every second. If it was an intentional incident, my guess would be to blame it on unruly users-- Paulites can get pretty rowdy on the web, and maybe they violated some Facebook rules or something. But I doubt that's the case, otherwise, I think they would've just said that.
