Alan Colmes Kicks Sean Hannity's Butt on Right-Wing Hypocrisy on McCain's Affairs

So check out this clip from Sean Hannity's show where Alan Colmes renders right-wingers speechless about McCain's affair. After two right-wingers declare that Edwards was unfit to run for president because of his affair, Colmes brings up McCain's affair. All Hannity can keep yelling is that he spent five and a half years in a prisoner of war camp. The male winger tries to mount a defense, but really can't. The female winger decides to do the smart thing and not respond. It is a great thing to behold.

Needed on Sunday Morning Talk Shows: Dems With Guts and Brains

It is a common refrain on the progressive and Democratic blogs that the media is dominated by conservatives and that is why only one side is heard on television. There is some truth to this claim, but another reason why the Dems don't get their message out is that they don't take the opportunity to frame the issues when they get the chance.

An example recently was the John Edwards affair. If a prominent Democrat on one of the talk shows had told the host that he or she wanted to comment on John Edwards, then they would have been asked about Edwards.

At that point, he or she could have said something like, "Who's the bigger cad, Edwards or McCain? Well, let's look at the record. John McCain had an affair with a younger woman, so did Edwards. John McCain had an affair while his wife was recovering from a serious medical condition, so did Edwards. John McCain leaves his wife after she is disfigured in a car accident, Edwards stays with his wife. Now, how are they different? Well, John McCain left his wife, John Edwards didn't. John McCain used the inherited money of a much younger trophy wife to run for office, John Edwards didn't. John McCain offers up his wife as a contestant in a beauty contest at a bikers' rally, John Edwards didn't. John McCain reportedly uses a foul epithat to describe his wife, John Edwards doesn't. So who's the bigger cad?"

Or how about this? What if a prominent Democrat had compared Edwards, McCain, and Obama? McCain has an affair, Edwards has an affair, Obama doesn't. McCain violates his marriage vows, Edwards violates his marriage vows, Obama doesn't.

If a prominent Democrat had gone on a television talk show and laid some of that stuff down, the news reports would have been talking about it for the next 24-48 hours along with the Edwards stuff.

The same is true on the "hot white chicks" ad. Some white Dem should do for Obama what Gergen did when he talked about the coded langauge in the McCain ads. He or she should accuse McCain of playing the "race card" by appealing to the fears of whites, and in particular white males. Again, it would make news.

The above would be headline news on the 24 hour news programs. It wouldn't be because they want to help Dems or Obama, but because they need the product. The producers of the 24 hour cable news shows need product, they need something to talk about for 24 hours a day. Republicans understand this and give them product, but Democrats don't seem to get it. The problem isn't all the media, the problem is not enough Dems have the guts and brains needed to play the media's game

If Republicans Want to Talk About John Edwards Affair , Then Let's Bring it On

If Republicans want to talk about the John Edwards affair with Rielle Hunter, then we should tell them, "Bring it on!" It would be a great way to get information about how John McCain treated his first wife into the public domain. Let's go over the comparisons:

1. Both McCain and Edwards were married.
2. Both of their wives had serious illnesses or injuries. McCain's ex-wife was recovering from a bad car accident and was permanently disfigured when he took up with Cindy McCain. Elizabeth Edwards had been treated for breast cancer.
3. Both of them took up with much younger women.
4. Both of them had children by the wives against whom they committed adultery.

Now, of course, there are some differences:

1. Rielle Hunter was not a wealthy heirness, Cindy McCain was wealthy.
2. Edwards was wealthy when he got involved with Hunter, John McCain was not weathy when he got involved with Cindy McCain.
3. Edwards didn't leave his wife for Rielle Hunter, John McCain did leave his ex-wife for Cindy McCain.
4. Edwards never used Hunter's money to run for public office, while McCain did use Cindy McCain's money to run for public office.

Now, of course, Republicans may want to argue that John McCain did not father any children with Cindy McCain until after they were married. Well, so far at least, there is no direct evidence that John Edwards fathered any children with Rielle Hunter. No father is listed on the birth certificate; another man claims to be the father; Hunter has never said who she believes the father to be; and there is no DNA evidence, ie, no "blue dress", that would prove Edwards is the father.

Now, are we advocating that Democrats start such conversations? No, because we aren't crazy about this whole idea that the private lives of politicians should be the subject of public discussion. What we are saying, though, is that if Republicans want to start such conversations, then we should finish them by pointing out the similarities and the differences between John McCain and John Edwards. Our guess is that astute Republicans aren't going to want to have that conversation.

Martin Luther King III Letter to John Edwards

We got this letter from Talking Points Memo and decided it was so great, we had to reproduce it in its entirety. It speaks for itself. Here it is:

Dear Senator Edwards:

It was good meeting with you yesterday and discussing my father's legacy. On the day when the nation will honor my father, I wanted to follow up with a personal note.

There has been, and will continue to be, a lot of back and forth in the political arena over my father's legacy. It is a commentary on the breadth and depth of his impact that so many people want to claim his legacy. I am concerned that we do not blur the lines and obscure the truth about what he stood for: speaking up for justice for those who have no voice.

I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the economy, you have framed the issues for what they are -- a struggle for justice. And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election.

You know as well as anyone that the 37 million people living in poverty have no voice in our system. They don't have lobbyists in Washington and they don't get to go to lunch with members of Congress. Speaking up for them is not politically convenient. But, it is the right thing to do.

I am disturbed by how little attention the topic of economic justice has received during this campaign. I want to challenge all candidates to follow your lead, and speak up loudly and forcefully on the issue of economic justice in America.

From our conversation yesterday, I know this is personal for you. I know you know what it means to come from nothing. I know you know what it means to get the opportunities you need to build a better life. And, I know you know that injustice is alive and well in America, because millions of people will never get the same opportunities you had.

I believe that now, more than ever, we need a leader who wakes up every morning with the knowledge of that injustice in the forefront of their minds, and who knows that when we commit ourselves to a cause as a nation, we can make major strides in our own lifetimes. My father was not driven by an illusory vision of a perfect society. He was driven by the certain knowledge that when people of good faith and strong principles commit to making things better, we can change hearts, we can change minds, and we can change lives.

So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father's words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.

Sincerely,

Martin L. King, III

John Edwards Fighting Hard in Iowa

The Washington Post has an interesting article dated December 30, 2007, about John Edwards and his campaign in Iowa. The writer apparently finds Edwards's talking about corporate greed and income inequality in America surprising. That makes sense because most candidates, including most Democrats don't talk about such matters. They are apparently too afraid of being told by the radical right-wing media machine that they are preaching "class warfare." "Class warfare" is the term that wingnuts like Limbaugh use when a politician tells working Americans how much they are getting screwed over by the rich.

This is a quote from the article:

But it is his message that is most remarkable. No thought here of finishing on a sunny and positive note, as he did four years ago. His "America Rising" theme is not a variation of "Morning in America."

It is a call to arms that is raw and angry, populist and pugnacious. It is a message that is as exhausting and is it confrontational. It is a message makes Al Gore's "people versus the powerful" seem tame and timid in comparison.

One Edwards supporter, departing after a big rally in Des Moines on Saturday night, said he hasn't heard a message as passionate or strong since Bobby Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign.

It is interesting that a Washington Post reporter would find it "remarkable" that a Democratic politician would be talking about such issues in such a tone. Well, it wouldn't have been remarkable back in the 1940s, 1950s, or 1960s. It wouldn't have been remarkable when Hubert Humphrey or Bobby Kennedy were alive. The fact that it is "remarkable" in 2007 shows how far from our roots the Democratic party has strayed. Both the United States and the Democratic Party could use some of what John Edwards is selling.

UPDATE: ABC News is reporting in a story dated December 29, 2007, that John Edwards is going to pull a 36 hour all-nighter as he tries to meet as many Iowans as possible. This campaign trip is titled "Marathon for the Middle Class". Edwards plans to introduce 36 policy ideas to help the middle class over the 36 hour all-nighter.

Clinton, Edwards, and Obama on Ending the Iraq War

If you are interested in reading how the top three candidates for the Democratic nomination plan to end the Iraq War, here are three links:

Hillary Clinton plan: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

John Edwards plan: http://johnedwards.com/issues/iraq/

Barack Obama's plan: http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Although all three plans call for ending the war, there are distinct differences between the three candidates. This is what Clinton says about taking troops out of Iraq:

The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration. She would also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health care and benefits to every service member -- including every member of the National Guard and Reserves -- and their families.

Here is what Edwards says:

We must show the Iraqis that we are serious about leaving by actually starting to leave, with an immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops and a complete withdrawal within nine to ten months. We should leave behind in Iraq only a brigade of 3,500 to 5,000 troops to protect the embassy and possibly a few hundred troops to guard humanitarian workers.

Here is what Barack Obama says:

Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year.

Clinton and Obama seem to allow themselves more flexibility in removing troops than Edwards does. Clinton doesn't mention how many troops should be withdrawn or what kind of troops should be withdrawn. She states that she will develop a plan within 60 days of taking office, but doesn't say how long it would take to redeploy out of Iraq. Further she doesn't state how many troops she envisions in Iraq after such redeployment. Arguably her plan would result in no American troops left in Iraq, but she doesn't commit to that result.

Obama says that he will withdraw troops that are engaged in combat and that such troops would be out within a year of the implementation of the plan, but doesn't say how many troops will remain in Iraq after the "combat troops" are withdrawn. Again, arguably, the number of troops would be relatively small, since they wouldn't be "combat troops" but it could also be that under his plan there would be thousands of troops left in bases in Iraq, but they wouldn't be engaged in combat.

Edwards, however, sets forth a timetable of 9-10 months and at the end of the process to withdraw almost all the troops from Iraq and at the end of the process envisions a brigade left in Iraq plus a few hundred additional troops to guard aid workers.

To read more about the three plans, click on the links above.

Huffington Post Reports NYC Mayor Bloomberg and GOP Sen. Hagel Talking

The Huffington Post's Sam Stein has a story up that NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel are holding private conversations, presumably about running for president/vice-president on an independent ticket. If that was to happen, Bloomberg would be free to use his billions of dollars to finance such a campaign. There have been reports in the past that he would use up to one billion of his own money to run for president.

Such a move, if it happens, will probably spell doom for the GOP ticket in a presidential election. It brings to mind Perot's independent run for president in 1992, which got around 18% of the total vote. Although Republicans like to argue that Perot was responsible for Clinton's victory, the truth is much more complicated. According to polls taken on election day, Perot's support came equally from both Bush and Clinton and Perot's effect was to deny Clinton a majority of the vote. This led to Bob Dole questioning the legitimacy of Clinton's victory on election night and helped fuel GOP efforts to derail the Clinton Presidency from the start.

Such a result could happen again in 2008 in the sense that a serious Bloomberg run for the presidency would mean that Republicans would be competing with Bloomberg for the votes of white men, a constituency that is vital for Republican success. In 2004, according to the CNN exit poll, Bush took 62% of the white male vote and that vote accounted for 36% of the total vote. Kerry took 27% of the white male vote. Given the fact that Bush only won by 3% nationally, competition for that vote with Bloomberg would probably make it impossible for the Republican nominee to win the Presidency against Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards.

Another interesting thing about Bloomberg running would be that if either Obama or Clinton were the Democratic nominee, you would have a person who is Jewish, a woman or an Afro-American, and a white Christian male running for President. It would be a very historic election.

All in all, a Bloomberg-Hagel ticket probably ensures the defeat of the Republican nominee and puts a Democrat in the White House.

Edwards Polls Best Against Republicans, Ignored by Media

Joshua Holland, in an article for Alternet.org, argues that John Edwards is the best candidate that the Democrats can nominate. He bases this argument on several polls which show that consistently Edwards beats all Republicans by the widest margins. The question then becomes: Why isn't Edwards getting much more media attention, given his relative strength in the polls?

Holland blames it on what he calls the "usual shoddy political journalism" that we get from most of our print and electronic media. He apparently believes that this "shoddy" journalism is a result of the media's fascination with process stories like who has raised the most money, has the most endorsements, and put together the most impressive organization.

Something else could also be at work and that is the fact that the nomination of either Clinton or Obama would be historic. No major political party in the United States has ever nominated either a woman or an African-American for president. Having the top two contenders be either a woamn or an African-American is, by definition, "news."

On the other hand, a major political party nominating a white male from the South for president is not news. It has been going on every since the development of the political party system in the U.S. Such a story has no political sex appeal. Therefore, there is not a lot of political journalists wanting to write or broadcast that story.

Clinton Leads in Most SurveyUSA Polls

A SurveyUSA poll done for two television stations in Ohio has Clinton leading all Republicans listed except for John McCain. The poll was taken on November 9, 2007. A November 1, 2007 poll by Survey USA had Clinton leading all Republicans listed in Florida. A SurveyUSA poll has Clinton leading all listed Repulicans in Kentucky.

Thus, in states that were battleground states in 2000 and 2004, Florida and Ohio, Clinton leads and in a state that is usually a safe Republican state, Clinton leads. Yet, constantly from the news media we hear and read stories that question Clinton's electability. This is usually based on the relatively high unfavorables that Clinton has when compared to other Democratic and Republican candidates.

The problem with such analysis, however, is that it overlooks the ability of Republicans, with their allies in the media like Fox News, to drive up the unfavorables of any Democratic candidate who wins the Democratic nomination. Can we say "Swift-boating", children?

What we know about Clinton is that she can take and deliver a punch. We don't know that nearly as well about Obama and Edwards. The question isn't whether the Republicans are going to attack and demonize the Democratic nominee. The question is whether such Democrat will fight back. The ability and willingness to fight back may be a lot more important than the negative ratings of the eventual Democratic nominee.

Clinton, Obama, Edwards Fighting Door to Door in Iowa

The New York Times has an articleout dated Sunday, November 18, 2007, about Hillary Clinton increasing the time she is spending in Iowa. Although she has a huge lead in national polls, she doesn't have such a lead in Iowa. There the campaign is a lot closer. According to the article, a large share of Clinton's support comes from Democrats who have never participated in the caucus process. This is from the article:

More than 60 percent of those who have identified themselves as Clinton supporters, senior strategists say, have never participated in the Iowa caucuses. It is a far higher share than the campaign had been anticipating, which suggests that many of the reliable rank-and-file Democrats have chosen another candidate. So the Clinton campaign is working to expand its universe of supporters to women who have never participated.

This is what the major campaigns are doing to counteract the fact that her opponents are doing well in Iowa:

In the final seven weeks of the race, all campaigns are increasing their efforts here, placing new advertisements and investing more resources. To fight the new push by the Clinton campaign, rivals are also planning to spend nearly all their time in Iowa in December, hoping to raise doubts about her candidacy. While the Obama and Edwards campaigns have been gradually building for months toward this moment, the Clinton campaign has bolstered its activity here in recent weeks, hiring 100 new workers to concentrate on a person-to-person drive to explain the quirky process of the caucuses, with a goal of having 50,000 in-home visits by Christmas.

The article has a graphic up which shows the favorability rating for each Party's top five candidates and, where they exist, the favorability rating for the same candidates nationwide. What is interesting about this is that Clinton's favorability ratings for Iowa are less than for the nation as a whole while both Obama and Edwards have favorability ratings for Iowa that are ahead of their favorability ratings nationwide. Below are the names of each of the top three Dem candidates with the first number being their national favorability rating, the second number being their Iowa favorability rating, and the third being the percentage of Democrats who say they will vote for that candidate in the caucuses:

Clinton: 79%, 52% and 25%
Edwards: 44%, 73%, and 23%
Obama: 56%, 72%, and 22%.

You can see that Clinton's and Edwards' favorability ratings in Iowa are both the reverse of what they are in the United States as a whole. This suggests that Clinton's name recognition and generally positive national publicity are not nearly as effective for her in Iowa as they are in the U.S. as a whole. It also suggests that once people actually hear Edwards' and Obama's message, they like them better.

If Clinton was the lose both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, the race for the Democratic nomination would get a lot more interesting. On the other hand, if she wins both of these early contests, with all the publicity that she would gain from those wins, then the nomination race may be over.

Bush Administration Seeking Emergency Funds for Bunker-Busting Bombs

Bunker-busting bombs sounds like a Dr. Strangelovian form of alliteration. What they are, however, are bombs capable of going deep into the ground and destroying fortified structures. You know, the kind that we think that Iran has for developing nuclear weapons.

ABC News reported on October 24, 2007 that buried deep in the Bush Administration's request for additional funding for the Iraq War is a 88 million dollar request for funds to modify two stealth bombers to carry such bombs. This is the one sentence explanation for the funding request: "an urgent operational need from theater commanders."

As ABC News asks in its report, what urgent operational need? We aren't using stealth bombers in Iraq and wouldn't need to use them in Afghanistan against caves where we believe the Taliban is hidden. We might use such bombers, though, to attack Iran.

If Bush attacks Iran, all bets are off regarding 2008 presidential campaign. As the Washington Post reported in an articlee on its website dated October 25, 2007, both Obama and Edwards have been hitting Clinton over her vote to designate a unit of the Iranian Army as a "terrorist organization."

This quote is from the Post story explaining the Senate vote:

Iran sprang up as a campaign issue on Sept. 26, when the Senate voted 76 to 22 for a defense authorization bill amendment sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.). The amendment not only urged the administration to label the IRGC a terrorist organization but also said that the U.S. military presence in Iraq could have a critical impact on Iran's ability to pose a threat to the entire Middle East.

Clinton denies that the Senate vote could be used by the Bush Administration to justify an attack on Iran. Right, and of course, there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush only wanted to "reform" Social Security, not destroy it, and "Brownie" did do a heck of a job during Katrina.

It is dangerous to give this administration any authority assuming that it will act rationally with such authority. Passing that resolution may turn out to be as crazy as giving a loaded .45 to a baby.

John Edwards New Strategy

Salon, an online magazine, is running an article about the change in John Edwards' strategy. The change is that he is beginning to sharpen his attacks on his two main Democratic rivals, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. His populist rhetoric, which has always included attacks on corporate lobbyists and the ultra-rich, now includes attacks on Democrats who accept money from corporate lobbyists and Washington insiders. It is an interesting article. Check it out.

Media Out to Get Edwards?

There is an article in the Atlantic Online about why Edwards' haircut got a lot of media attention and Mitt Romney spending $300 of his campaign's money at a spa didn't. Here is the bottom line: a lot of reporters just don't like Edwards.

This is a quote from the article: There is a difference in the political reality: fairly or unfairly, a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn't like John Edwards. We have seen this before. The national political press corps didn't like Al Gore in 2000 and didn't like John Kerry in 2004. This antipathy was one reason why this country has been afflicted with Bubble-Boy Bush for eight years. A reason, by the way, that the mainstream media won't acknowledge.

The reason why national political reporters can afford to engage in such pettiness is that they don't really need the kind of programs that Democrats like Edwards push. They have good jobs with good health care. Their kids don't have to worry about being educated or about serving in the American military. They make a pretty good living. In short, they belong to the part of America that isn't really affected by the idiocy of this administration.

American democracy will be a lot better off when the national political reporters who live inside the Washington Beltway have a lot less power and influence. Hopefully, that day is not far off.

Clinton Maintains Lead Over Obama & Edwards

The Washington Post has an article in the Sunday, June 3, 2007 edition, about Clinton maintaining her lead over Obama and Edwards. Edwards has lost ground since the last Washington Post poll. What this poll shows is that Clinton has a sizable advantage because of her name recognition.

In the past, Democrats have been reluctant to nominate people who ran and lost presidential elections. Not so the Republicans. Nixon was on three national tickets before he won in 1968. Reagan ran in 1976 in the primary against Gerald Ford and then came back to win in 1980. George H.W. Bush ran for President in 1980 in the primary, and served as Vice-President before running for President in 1988. Dole was Ford's VP in 1976 before running for President in 1996. Finally, George W. Bush had the advantage of the Bush name when he ran in 2000. This means that Nixon was on five Republican tickets; Dole was on two; George H.W. Bush was on four; and Reagan had run before running again in 1980.

Contrast this with the Democrats. Johnson was on two tickets, 1960 and 1964. Humphrey was on two tickets, 1964 and 1968. Carter was on two and Mondale on two before he ran and lost in 1984. Clinton was on two and Gore was on three before he lost in 2000.

This advantage in name identification has been a big plus for Republicans, one that most Democrats who read political blogs like this one don't appreciate. A ticket with Clinton on it, though, would probably be a ticket which would be up against a relatively new Republican ticket. In that case, the Dems should have the name identification advantage.

Click on this entry's title to read the Post article about the poll results.

Why Media Doesn't Like Al Gore or John Edwards

Over at Talking Points Memo, Reed Hundt, who was on the FCC during the Clinton administration, has a post about how Gloria Borger and Gwen Ifill on the PBS show "Washington Week in Review" or whatever it is called now were dissing Al Gore.

Over at Daily Kos this past week, there was a post about how the media is attacking John Edwards for his supposed hypocrisy because he wants to help the poor and lives in a big house. That followed the attacks on him for his haircut and the attacks on him for consulting with a New York hedge fund.

These attacks are happening because Gore and Edwards are attacking the traditional media (Gore) and the way America treats the rich compared to the poor (Edwards). This makes the major corporations which own the media companies very unhappy. This in turn is going to be known to the reporters who work for those media companies, which will lead to negative stories about Edwards and Gore. Such stories will, ironically, prove Gore's point that he made in his book "The Assault on Reason."

The traditional media realizes that it is under attack from the left. Reporters are used to being attacked from the right, but these attacks from the left are really ticking them off. Just look at the reactions of people like David Broder of the Washington Post to bloggers. People like Broder realize that more and more readers are using the Internet for news and leaving traditional media like the Post.

The Post, for example, is suffering a decline in readers even though its only competition in D.C. is the Moonie paper, the Washington Times. Its not that the Times is picking up readers at the Post's expense. More than likely younger people, and Washington is a pretty young city demographically, are using the Internet and not the Post for information.

This lost of readers to the Internet threatens the Post's parent company's bottom line, which impacts Broder's salary. It also threatens the self-image of the Post, which prides itself on being one of the nation's premier papers. The Post's self-image, in turn, is probably important to Broder's self-image. It is hard to maintain that self-image if the Post is losing readers to bloggers.

There will be more such attacks in the future. Any politician, like Gore, who is seen as supporting the use of the Internet in public discourse runs the risk of being the subject of such attacks. Maybe what Democrats should do is create a website where such attacks are listed and any candidate who is not being attacked by the traditional media shouldn't be supported by Democrats.

Clinton Appealing More to Women Donors While Obama Targets Younger Professionals

The Washington Post has an interesting story today about Clinton stepping up her appeals to women donors. The Clinton campaign has decided that women donors are an untapped resource for political contributions. The Clinton campaign is developing explicit strategies to solicit donations from women, different from those used to solicit from men.

Meanwhile the Obama campaign is targeting what it calls "Generation O" for political donations. While the campaign believes that such donors can't always give the maximum donations, they can give donations in the $500 range. The Obama campaign, two days after announcing its first-quarter fundraising totals, announced that it had received contributions from another 40,000 people via the internet. If those contributions averaged just $25.00 per donation, that would be another $1,000,000.00 raised via the internet.

All of this is good for both the Democratic Party in particular and progressives in general. Once people get active politically a lot of them stay active. People who get involved in presidential campaigns in 2008 will be people that can be motivated for future campaigns. Not all of them, to be sure, but enough of them to make a difference in future campaigns. What is sometimes overlooked is that campaigning is like any other activity, the more you do it, the better you become at it. Volunteers who participate next year in the 2008 presidential campaign will be more experienced when they help out in future campaigns.

Further, since presidential campaigns have to list their donors, local party and progressive organizations will have the ability to access these donors for other campaigns. People who make political donations in 2008 will be people who might make such donations in the future.

You can click on the link in this entry's title to read the Washington Post article.

Dr. Ruth's Advice for Politicians

If you click here, you can read a short story about Dr. Ruth Westheimer and listen to an interview with her. Now you are probably wondering why we are posting a link to an interview with a sex therapist on a blog about Democratic politics and political issues? Well, in the interview, she tells the interviewer that she credits a lot of her success to an old Yiddish saying that "a lesson taught with humor is an lesson remembered." We think that is good advice for Democratic politicians.

It is easy for politicians to be serious and these are very serious times, but Dr. Ruth's advice is sound. If you can work humor into your presentation, into your message, there is a better chance that your audience will remember it and pass it on. Think about it, are you more likely to tell a friend or a family member about a speech with statistics or a speech with some humor in it?

Of course, being humorous is not easy. It is very hard work. Anyone who has ever told a joke at the beginning of a speech only to have it fall flat can tell you how hard it is. Yet, humor is more effective at turning aside attacks or countering your opponents than anger.

One of the more effective uses of humor during a political debate was when Ronald Reagan said in one of the debates with Walter Mondale in 1984 that he wouldn't hold his opponent's age against him. It was a good line because it dealt with an issue that the Reagan people were worried about and that was the fact that Reagan was old and might cause Americans to wonder if he was sharp enough for the job. Reagan's joke was both a way of acknowledging the issue and then dealing with it.

More recently, just this past month, John Edwards had to deal with the media obsession with his $400 haircut. One way he is doing that is working it into his standard speech. He does this by saying things like he wants an America where every child can dream of growing up and getting $400 haircuts. It gets his audience laughing and is much more effective than whining about how unfair it is that the media is making a big deal over the haircut.

So when you are crafting a political message, take Dr. Ruth's advice and use humor to make your point. If it works for a sex therapist, it should work for a politicians.

Responses to Our Question: "Should Al Gore Run for President in 2008?"

Hello:

Below are the responses we got to our question from people who responded to our question by email. We also had people who gave their responses directly by posting them as comments to the original entry. The original entry and the comments can be viewed here.

All told we had 27 responses to our question. Of those 27 responses, 14 were for a Gore candidacy; 11 were opposed; and the other two were entries that were mixed. Thanks to all who responded. We will be posting similar questions in the future and look forward to your responses.

Joyce
______________________________________________________________

JOYCE.....NO. He should not seek the nomination. He should be appointed SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. His interest, study, research, and extensive volume of knowledge about the earth and it's environment, would best serve the earth, world,and the United States preserving life on earth, both human and animal . GALE NORTON was the puppet of GEORGE BUSH destroying the environment and all therein. BARABK OBAMA, his wife, and family are the compendium of today's society,and current very complex global issues. They represent life in today's world. Barack was born of biracial parents, his father black from Kenya, and his mother white, a highly educated anthropologist from Kansas. They understand today's crises in education,cultures,relationships, health care, environment,the work ehthic, and are not endowed with politics as usualEnough of the BACK ROOM scratching backs and " GOOD OLE BOYS " politics. We need to break the cycle, and BARACK OBAMA is the one to do it. HILLARY CLINTON did not stand up to BEORGE BUSH, which to me showed intimidation which has no place in a leader. OUT WITH THE OLD AND IN WITH THE NEW ! A NEW BROOM SWEEPS CLEAN .
___________________
By the way I don't think Al Gore should be nominated I fear he'llturn into wuss material again. Al Gore would at least do better than Hilary and Obama. Though we all know if my boy Edwards doesn't make it there will be a continuation of the mourning I'm already in
___________________
I think Al Gore's time and energy is better spent on his cause to save the planet and the global warming issues. He is effective and passionate about the message and we certainly need a spokesman like him to give this issue the priority it needs.However, as a presidential candidate...I say no. I just don't think he's got what it takes to beat the well-oiled Republican machine. And we definitely need someone that can. The question is, who is that person?
___________________
I would Love to see Al Gore run for President. I believe that he would have a good chance at winning . The other candidate that I really like is Barack Obama. I am looking forward to watching the Democrats Presidential candidates debate this Thursday. Wouldnt Al Gore and Barack on a ticket be phenomenal? What about Barack and Hillary? Wow!
___________________

Should Al Gore run? In my humble opinion, He does not have a fresh image, even with his documentary , environmental expertise and experience as VP.
___________________

no he should not .Back Edwards
___________________

I would not want Al Gore to run for President. While he certainly has the credentials, I don't believe he could win. He doesn't have the ability to excite people, to make them want to get out there and stomp for him. His movie is commendable but he needs to stick to that sort of thing, not run the country. He can do much for the next presidential candidate by exploiting what environmental problems have mushroomed since the Bush administration has taken over.
Of course, Al Gore hasn't had a $400 haircut; maybe that would help...I like Edwards but stuff like that hurts him and our chances to regain the White House...Hillary needs to get a voice; I haven't heard much from her...maybe she should be on The Daily Show...
___________________

Hi Joyce,

Gore is an appealing candidate, but, in my opinion, should run only
if he is driven to do so by his own conscience. That is, he should
not be drafted.
___________________

Gore should run and probably would win. It would be really good to see Bill Bradley as his running mate or possibly Edwards as VP again. Either VP choice would give an intelligent, trustworthy choice for VP.
___________________

Yes, I think Al Gore should run.
___________________

We are backing John Edwards. If Al Gore entered the
race we would give him strong consideration and
probably back him if Edwards was still in third place.
Obama is too inexperienced and Hillary is too
divisive.

____________________
Joyce:
If Al Gore entered the race, I think that he would be the immediate
odds-on favorite, and deservedly so. He has the right experience and comes
from the right area of the country. I just don't have any sense that he's
going to do it.
___________________

Simply - YES - (2 votes) (Our 3 teenagers agree too, but they aren't old enough to vote yet!)
__________________
Will Gore fight for it if they attempt to steal another election?
John Kerry didn't. Gore didn't fight long enough in 2000. We can't risk another candidate that will allow the theft of our presidential election, and worse yet, not speak of it later. I've personally put the evidence documents in John Kerry's hands in 2006, the evidence of his stolen election. My brother gave them to John Edwards in 2005. Yet neither man has uttered a syllable about this election theft. NEVER AGAIN! They must not concede if they won, or they are part of the problem. What does Gore have to say about the elections now? I've not heard him address it. I am very glad he is addressing the environment.
Thanks for asking, and for all you do Joyce.
__________________
To be honest, I do not believe that he could win the presidency. I also do not believe that Hillary Clinton could win.Gore's newfound "celebrity, actor status" (which, in my mind, he is not an actor, but it is the way the R's will cast him - forgetting of course Ronnie Raygun playing with Bonzo, and the Terminator, and Sonny Senator....) will be used against him - even though many folks are starting to wake up to the fact that human activity has raped and plundered the earth (Jim Morrison was singing about this decades ago). You have my nickle.

Obama Joins Clinton in Raising a Ton O' Money

The Chicago Tribune ran an article this morning pointing out that Sen. Barack Obama had raised close to 25 million in the first quarter of 2007. This puts him right behind Sen. Clinton and in front of Sen. John Edwards. Another interesting thing about those figures is that Obama is reporting that he has received over 6 million dollars from online donations. Sen. Clinton reported raising her money from about 50,000 donors while Sen. Obama reported raising his money from over 100,000 individuals. Obama reported having 50,000 contributors give him money online.

The problem for Clinton is that there are usually only four story lines that reporters used when covering the "horse race" aspect of campaigns. Those lines are who's in front, who's behind, who's coming up and who's going down. All of these story lines are used to spur reader and viewer interest in the "horse race" between the candidates. The media hates a campaign that doesn't have a "horse race". This means that Obama's figures will be used by the media in story lines about how Clinton's nomination is not a "sure" thing and about how the campaign will be much more difficult than she first thought. This will, in turn, lead to more donations coming in to Obama.

There is also a problem for Obama, although it is one that he won't mind having. That problem is now the media will increase its scrutiny of his candidacy. The media goes through the following cycles with "new" faces. First they ignore them, then they fall in love with them, and then they have buyer's remorse. Obama is long past the ignoring stage. Some reporters are still falling in love with him, but others will now start going through the buyer's remorse stage. That means that he is likely to have more negative stories coming out in the future.

Of course, given the 24 hour news cycle, the growth of the Internet, the rise of blogs, and the need to keep the news monster fed, all of the above stages take place so much faster now than they did in 2000 or even 2004.

Why Katie Couric Went After John & Elizabeth Edwards

If you click on the link in this entry's title you can read one of entries on blogs today attacking Katic Couric for her questions of John and Elizabeth Edwards on 60 Minutes. Many such commentators are wondering why she chose the questions she did, why she was so negative in her approach, and why she chose to hide between such questions as "some people say" or "other people say." Many of these same commentators are arguing that Katie Couric is a person who just reflects Republican talking points or that she is an example of the cluelessness of modern day journalists, especially those on television.

Our take is a little different. We think that Ms. Couric knew exactly what she was doing and that was trying to torpedo the candidacy of a populist Democrat. Why would she want to do that? Katie Couric makes a lot of money. She has benefitted from George W.'s reckless tax cuts. She doesn't want her taxes to increase. A Democrat like Edwards, who is pushing an agenda that would benefit the middle and working classes is more likely to increase Katie's taxes. If you want to know why millionaire journalists and pundits parrot Republican talking points, just follow the money, honey.