In 2000, 191 countries signed an agreement known as the Millennium Goals, the first of which is to eliminate global poverty by 2025. I hope that our representatives will uphold this promise made by global leaders.

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Hillary's the one this time.

Other talk will end up supoerfously.

Obama has a few years to become better politically aquainted with the tremendous
causes now licking its oozing financial, favoratism and academia wounds fostered
by too many "bilt-ins" of privilege.

His own future will be his reward.

Wow.

SolidPolitics.com.

Pure neo-con porno from top to bottom. The most biased wackoff site for ultra rightwing crackpots on the Web.

I pray for you.

Great article. I like it and agree with you. Some people are mean, they don't have any reason to hate someone. No matter what people say, Hillary is the most qualified person for the next President. Why? Obama is diaper politician, Edwards was not enough for the President, he would be vice President now if he won his own State last election. New York citizens are higher intellectual class in America, they elected Hillary twice as New York Senator. Hillary is the most experienced and professional politician, she worked for children and women for 35 years. She is smart and strong leader, she will be a great President in our history. She has the best man as spouse only. Republican have confidence to beat Obama but not Hillary, that's why republicans cheer Obama and write Anti-Hillary articles. Americans and women, wake up and get real, be honest and be fair. I will vote her, support her and she will win. She knows the road to THE WHITE HOUSE. God blessed her and will be with her to THE WHITE HOUSE.

(furious) You won't vote for me? You BAD BOY! Sit on him for me, Lyle honey!

I see the polls are to early for me and the can change big time. Kerry was wat behind and beat all of them out. Early polling is not good for Hillary. Plus she is not leading by much.

Joelle: Your way of thinking gives credence to the claim of "La La Land." for folks like you that live in Ca. Thankfully there are not that many like you.

I'm independent. I live in California. I have voted for Arnold and i think that Maria Shriver is a terrific first lady. I think that the republican party has lost a lot... with Bush years in the white house. However, Republicans can still win in 2008. The easiest way to make it happen is for democrats to choose Hillary. I recommend this article from Time Magazine to everyone.http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1604469,00.html?cnn=yes

Certainly one of the many qualities that we need for the next president is leadership, and part of leadership is NOT being divisive. Whether you are for or against him, Bush has obviously been one of the most divisive presidents ever. And Hillary is THE most single divisive candidate from either party.

The extremist partisans, as always, are forever mindlessly set in stone and not worth our consideration. But the centrists, independents, and that rare but ever-increasing group who vote for the best candidate rather than simply by party, are going to be pushed to the Republicans if Hillary can continue to buy her way to become the Democratic candidate.

The least divisive candidate for either party seems to me to be Bill Richardson. He also has the best record of legislative and executive and international experience [if that matters]. What if he were the presidential candidate with, say, Obama as the VP nomination?

What if we considered only what is best for America, and not for what is best for a particular party or a particular candidate's self-aggrandizement?

Colin: I accept, thanks.

I think Hillary would make a fine president. I think she's smart, wonky, and good at reaching compromise with Republicans. Looking at the bills she's consponsored in the Senate, even though I disagree with her frequently she seems to have an admirable talent for reaching across the aisle. That talent is required for enacting a legislative agenda from the Oval Office.

That said, I think she's a lousy candidate, largely on the grounds that she's well-known, unpopular, and tied to the vote to authorize force against Iraq. She's cosponsored a lot of legislation with Republicans, and yet she's deeply, deeply loathed by Republicans.

She's proven that she can change people's minds about her -- she did it in New York and she did it with Republicans in the Senate -- so I don't think her nomination would be suicidal, but I don't think that of any of the 4 major Democratic candidates. She hasn't proven that she can change a lot of minds quickly, and I think that will be a real liability in the General Election.

I'm a pretty far-left liberal, but I'm also practical. I'm totally willing to nominate a candidate with whom I frequently disagree if I think it'll win the election. I'm willing to nominate a candidate who I know will lose if I strongly agree with that candidate. That said, I'm not sure why I'd want a candidate who's pretty conservative and yet loathed by many conservatives.

This is all an important dialog.
No one, however, mentions Hillary's role in the vaccine program which has caused significant health damage to the nation's children.

The huge running debate about very high levels of mercury (thimerosal) in vaccines administererd during the 1990's in Hillary's vaccine programs is perhaps a wild card out there.

It is not presently being discussed.

Perhaps it will be.

www.tinyurl.com/yjyrtn

www.tinyurl.com/32q4ve

Lylepink -- Apparently I misunderstood your point. I hadn't realized you were referring to silent hillary supporters. Rather, I thought you were insinuating that people who do not support Hillary feel that way b/c they're sexist.

My apologies for misunderstanding your point.

During and after the Health forum in Nevada, Obama was attacked for not having a detailed health plan. The media ignored his excellent informative discussion of the health plan issues showing his depth of understanding. Yet Hillary also does not have one. The media let her slide on this and ignored her inappropriate rally-like shallow discussion at this Health Forum.

lylepink - Nah, I think I'll just start a movement to mail coat hangers to NOW and other feminist groups as a sort of demonstration of what they can expect endorsing an anti-worker monster like Hillary. I'll mail one today, in fact. If you don't support my job and my right as a worker, my secpond amendment rights, I see no reason whatsoever to support your right to choice or much of anthing else.

lylepink - Nah, I think I'll just start a movement to mail coat hangers to NOW and other feminist groups as a sort of em onstration of what they can expect nominating an anti-worker monster like Hillary. If you don't support my job and my right as a worker, I see no reason whatsoever to support your right to choice or much of anthing else.

Espi i have to say that was the most intelligent comment i read on this blog for weeks. It seems to me that all the anti-Hillary comments are probably Obama consultants. The truth is Hillary is on top of her game, she knows the ropes and knows how to win. CC your articles are great keep up the good work. Who knows maybe you will be appointed to be White House spokesman for the Clinton Administration. Go! Hillary! Go!

Colin: Read my 03:29am post. That and the so called friends make fun of them. I have explained many times this same thing and you do not seem to read something that you know is true, only what you want something to be.

Even if you hate KOS (and I do) you have to admire them for one thing...they have not yet been bought by the Clintons. I wonder what the top offer so far has been? Wonder what the tipping point will be?

Lylepink -- If you weren't arguing that those of us who don't like Hillary are sexist, what exactly did you mean when you said:

"The folks that are so against Hillary will not admit to themselves the real reasons."

That sure SOUNDS like you're accusing anti-hillary folks of having some kind of nefarious reason for disliking her. If you didn't mean they're sexist, what did you mean?

Past Democratic Party leaders tell The Hill that John McCain negotiated for two months with them to abandon the Republican Party at around the same time that Jim Jeffords crossed the aisle. Tom Daschle and Tom Downey told Bob Cusack that unlike their efforts with Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee, McCain's top aide came to them.... If true, this would effectively end McCain's presidential bid. He already has trust issues with Republicans, and this will do nothing but cause them to reject him entirely.

t was all business as usual at "Red Eye," Fox's bawdy gabfest of a grab at a youthful audience, starring Gutfeld, comic foil Bill Schulz, and Marsden, a statuesque Canadian who dissects the news with as much Coulter-esque zeal as she can muster while rolling her eyes at her male counterparts. But in the Duke exchange, any viewer who knew anything about Marsden, whom Fox is clearly grooming for brand-name pundit stardom, might have felt a fleeting moment of sympathy for her. That's because the 31-year-old columnist is already well known in her native Canada as an oft-accused and once-admitted stalker who made questionable rape charges of her own 10 years ago, in a case that eventually cut short the career of a university president and changed the tenor of harassment cases all over Canada. In 1999, a professor at the same university went to the police with charges Marsden was stalking him, and in 2004 she pleaded guilty to criminally harassing a former Vancouver radio host.

The same group of clowns that HRC is signing up in NH, couldn't deliver the Democratic nomination for their hand-picked, Washington-approved, DCCC-funded, fellow-elitist, Jim Craig. What makes you think they help her in the presidential primary???

Wow. I was sort of joking when I brought that up!

I think there's some secret lab in the basement of the Heritage Foundation where they clone Cylons that all look like ken starr. Ever notice how many repugs are round and soft and pudgy and pale and bald, with beady little eyes? karl rove and then this guy in purgegate, kyle sampson? all look kinda embryonic -- but maybe that explains a lot.

winning the endorsement of Vilsack???Don't you mean buying the endorsement of Vilsack? About time a spade is called a spade. She has the money to buy the endorsements of many, obviously.

You guys (Blarg?) called it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032802174.html

Justin,

I absolutely agree that Bill Richardson would be the strongest Democratic candidate in the general election. He had been my second choice after Wesley Clark who is not running (at least yet).

I am not a fan of Edwards or Obama based on inexperience. I believe that Hillary Clinton would be a very divisive candidate. She would be a great get out the vote motivator for the Republican base in a political climate in which many of them might otherwise sit on their hands. 2008 is shaping up to be a Democratic year so I think almost any nominee could win. However, Clinton at the head of the ticket would make it extremely difficult for Democratic congressional candidates in those areas in which the Democrats are just starting to make inroads. Richardson, on the other hand, is from the West where the Democrats made big gains in 2006 and are poised to increase those gains in 2008. I think a Richardson-Clark ticket with strong foreign policy and national security credentials plus an outsider image vis-a-vis Washington would be ideal.

Yessss, people, yesss... stare blindly at the screen and follow my faithful Lyle down the aisle... I would be the first woman to be president.... IF I WERE HUMAN!

Moo-oo-ah-ah-ah-ah-ahhhhh.....

The WP fronts and the WSJ goes high with the sectarian killings that once again brought Iraq's civil war to the forefront. Two hours after two truck bombs killed at least 85 people in Tal Afar, a group of gunmen, including Shiite policemen, began going door-to-door and assassinated 70 Sunnis. The killings continued for several hours before the Iraqi army intervened and appeared to detain some police officers, although accounts differ on whether they were let go. The LAT says they were the deadliest revenge killings since October. Yesterday's events once again raised concerns that the new security plan, with its heavy focus on Baghdad, is merely pushing the violence to other parts of the country.

In anticipation of Sampson's testimony, the Justice Department apologized for inaccuracies in a Feb. 23 letter it sent to Congress. That letter said Karl Rove did not play a role in the decision to appoint his former deputy as interim U.S. attorney in Arkansas. The acknowledgment came as the department released new documents showing that Sampson was the primary author of the letter, which was approved by the White House counsel. This, of course, raises new questions of whether the Justice Department and the White House worked together to mislead Congress.

Espi: I am finally getting a few that agree with me in my support for Hillary on this blog. I have been pretty well alone these past few weeks, and if you have been reading without posting you know what I mean. I mentioned some time back that the folks that do support Hillary will not say so in public for fear of making their so called friends angry. I have had folks tell me this, that is how I know.

Presidential campaign 2008 is not a 100 meter race but a marathon. Endurance and grit marks the winner. Obama's fatal mistake was to start the campaign in January 2007, a full 23 months before election day when he had no organization or a solid track record of achievements. He believed (wrongly) that "charisma" and hype are adequate substitutes for inexperience and no grass roots organization.

Hillary's well oiled (and well heeled) political machine immediately swung into action and quickly blunted the Obama "offensive" by signing up tough, successful political mobilizers in early nomination states and raising funds at a furious pace.Her game plan is to win in the early
nomination states so that her campaign projects an air of inevitability.

Hillary has shown that she will not be swift boated by Obama by ensuring that any riposte by the Obama camp is aggressively countered and tables turned. She has chosen to use her travels to highlight her expertise in areas like health care, foreign policy and ability to connect with women.

Thus Hillary has shown her extraordinary ability to beat her enemies with her mastery over the 3 M's - money, machine and message. Her powers of endurance have been amply demonstrated in managing her tumultuous marriage, two massive wins to the US Senate and sustained ability to nurture her constituents. Upstate New York owes a lot to Hillary for saving jobs by helping firms to modernize and by getting the Federal Government to pressure China to open their market to these firms.

Obama does not have the stomach for this endurance race. Already he has run out of hype, is boringly repetitive and his railing against everything in Washington without stating his own solutions have made voters question whether Obama should be at all taken seriously! This nine-day-wonder is already on his fifth day!!

The media (not the voter) has highlighted trivia about Hillary - her "bad" voice (the most polite word used was "atonal") , poor dress sense or hairdo, her alleged "aloofness","ruthlessness","take-no-prisoners" approach. As if the "ideal" female candidate to the media must ooze sex appeal and croon like a Madonna! The voters have better sense than the media! That is why they will recognize Hillary's substance, dismiss media hyped trivia and vote for her.

So much animosity against Hillary.She is obviously smart and driven.Looks like a lot of people don't want to see that woman stand and achieve her god given potential.
She is great and some are just upset to see her be such a serious contender, if not the front the "frontrunner" for the presidency.

Justin: I agree with you except for Richardson being the strongest the dems have. He is my second choice and I have not ruled him out as the VP pick by Hillary. I think he would be a great choice for the UN or State.

I would like to say something to all supporters of Obama and Edwards. The presidency of George W. Bush proved that an inexperienced candidate should not be in the White House. The best thing for the Democratic party in the long run is to respond to the inexperienced GOP President (and possibly to the inexperienced GOP nominee if Romney's nominated) by putting forth an experienced Democratic nominee who will devise intelligent, pragmatic, and simply good policy. Look past your ideology and get someone who will simply do a good job. I hate myself for sounding like a f**king salesman, but theres no better choice than Richardson, who is not only experienced but charismatic (hispanic and western helps a lot too). He was a congressman for 14 years, the ambassador to the UN, the Secretary of Energy, and the Governor of New Mexico. That combines federal experience with state experience, foreign policy experience with domestic policy experience, and legislative experience with excecutive experience. DO NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE THE GOP DID IN 2000 BY NOMINATING AN ATTRACTIVE BUT INCOMPETENT CANDIDATE. AND DO NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE THE DEMS DID IN 2004 BY NOMINATING AN EXPERIENCED BUT UNATTRACTIVE CANDIDATE (which would be Hillary this time around). I really hate to sell, but where can you go wrong with Richardson?

Colin: No way did I mention sex. MikeB: "So, Now and lylpink and other asorted nut jobs,". At least when you try to insult me, spell my name correctly.

The criticisms of this post as biased are clearly misguided. The article simply relates the facts on the ground. It is obviously significant even to someone that doesnt follow politics closely that securing the support of the campaign chair for the past two NH primary winners, the State House majority leader and the former Dem state party director shows that Clintons campaign is making great strides. I think its a sympton of the past six years of misinformation under Bush that we can no longer recognize facts for their inherent value.

I'm still registered as a Republican even though I now identify with the Democratic Party. I think Hillary is a smart woman who MIGHT make a good president. Kerry won by the "3rd candidate phenomenon" because Dean and Gephardt hurt each other so bad from their negativity. Organization means a lot, and most general elections come down to a clothespin vote, meaning they vote for the lesser of 2 evils. 2004 was like that for me, though I hardly had a fraction of the political knowledge I do today (sorry for supporting Bush back then, I was ill informed and green back then, just starting to take an interest in politics). You guys are unfair to Chris, I've read this blog since 2005, and I've never even seen any indication of his political philosophy either on here or when watching MSNBC. He seriously takes an unbiased approach. The fact is, at this time, Hillary is the frontrunner. I just think she'd be a weak nominee. She'd only beat Romney hands down. She COULD beat McCain, but I don't know about Rudy. If early state Dems voting in the primaries would vote strategically and not ideologically I think that'd be the best for the Democratic Party. I think the STRONGEST Democratic nominee would be Gov. Richardson, and former Sen. Edwards is definitely the second strongest.

A good laugh can be had by reading Ann Colder, I just finished reading a e-mail sent to me and it is funny funny.

yet again we have the anti hillary bandwagon out in force. Yet again we have the bandwagon criticising chris yet again. And yet again, they really have no idea how presidential politics works or really any idea at all.

organisation does matter, fundraising does matter. Why else is everyone doing their very best on those issues?

get real people. Chris is doing a post on the state of play at the moment. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it's any less accurate.

a few points...all those democrats that hate hillary...well most democrats actually like hillary. If only people would look at real polls and not the ones on dailykos.

secondly....hardly anybody actually thinks hillary is incompetent.

thirdly, all other democratic candidates are principled wonderful people who are being dragged into this business kicking and screaming but only because they sincerely wish for the country to move in the right direction. And in Hillary Clinton ambition is demonic.

and I will say it yet again. You don't like his posts don't come here. And don't be so stupidly crude either. You say far more about yourselves than you do about chris and what you say about yourselves is unprintable.

Lylepink -- dislinking Hillary doesn't actuallly mean a person is sexist. I badly want to see the first female president. I'm just not particularly excited about that president being a foreign policy hawk who was wrong about the most important issue of the day; Iraq. I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, b/c she's certainly better than the GOP alternative, but I won't be excited about it.

Are you saying that makes me sexist? Because if so, that's simply ridiculous. Reasonable people can and do disagree on who their preferred candidate is for completely valid reasons.

That's telling them Rob. They just cannot get over even Hillary not having to measure the drapes. Hope you remember some of the posters here when Hillary is sworn in for they will change their name, and a good way to find them is in their writing, for that is a hard thing to do over a period of time.

correction you don't want her, however, there are many people who do. Don't presume to speak for everyone please, you don't speak for me.

Any candidate so disliked she has to buy endorsements is not worth your constant cheerleading for Hillary.
Hillary is largely hated by the netroots, the base, the public at large and yet you go on and on like she walks on water.
Sorry, but, the Clintons are yesterday and over and we don't want her.

Justin Perez: I like your honesty about Hillary. When you get a chance I highly recommend you read some Jung, great phys. The folks that are so against Hillary will not admit to themselves the real reasons.

OHa, HaBerHo, myzhchuHa.

Xullapu KluHtoH, blR... takaR cyka.

Chris, let me buy you some Chapstick. You'll need it after kissing the Clinton crowd's ass so enthusiastically.

Clinton's operation in NH is yet another arrogant, bloated Imperial Campaign. Muskie, Mondale, Dole, GW Bush, Harkin, not a solid victory in the bunch.

Chris...when do you get your check like everyone else who is endorsing Hillary? Oh did you forget to report on that? Give a break as a women and a democrat if she gets the nomination I'll set this one out. Don't hold onto that check to long

Team (management) is important if this battle is being fought on the ground. This time, as in 2004 and 2000, the victories came as a result of the activity at 40,000 feet. Remember, each team member still only votes once.

AA I'm not sure what campaign you are following but all the nasty attacks gelfin, and the youtube ad are coming from the Obama campaign. Maybe Obama should put his money where his mouth is.

Say what you will, but there are lots of Democrats out here who will NEVER, under ANY circumstances, vote for Clinton. Hillary is so uthlessly incompetent I cannot imagine why she isn't on the WHite House staff right now. So, Now and lylpink and other asorted nutjobs, go right ahead and nominate her. She will loose and loose to any candidate the Republican's throw at her. If the choice were between having her as President and (say) Newt, I'd strongly consider immigrating to Canada, but with any other Republican, I'd vote for them. I really would. A registered Democrat and I'd vote Republican.

Unless I have slept through it, neither Obama nor Edwards has personally done any nasty negative campaigning. The Hillary campaign official Penn has been the most negative of anyone actually on a campaign staff of one of these three Democrats. That negative stuff will not wear well with the public if it keeps up. All three of these Democrats look very acceptable as of this point in time [ridiculously early]. They should all concentrate on POLICY, and if they want to bash somebody bash GWB who has it coming.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

US Senate votes $122 billion in war funding while suggesting withdrawal "goal"

By Bill Van Auken
28 March 2007

The US Senate voted Tuesday evening to narrowly approve Democratic language attached to a $122 billion emergency war-spending bill that proposes a phased withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq, beginning four months after the bill is enacted and to be completed by March 2008.

The decision came through the defeat of a Republican amendment proposing to strip the withdrawal language from the legislation. The amendment, submitted by Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, failed by a vote of 50 to 48, thanks only to two Republicans--Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon--crossing party lines and voting to keep the withdrawal dates.

The vote followed several hours of debate on the floor of the Senate, in which both sides postured as defenders of US troops. As Democrats and Republicans delivered their speeches, two more Americans--a soldier and a contractor--were killed in rocket attack on Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.

Passage of the Senate war spending bill follows the passage last week of a similar bill in the House of Representatives. In both cases, the Democrats moved to supply Bush with the funds he requested to continue and escalate the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while adding language that would eventually reduce combat troops but leave tens of thousands of US forces in Iraq indefinitely.

Senate Republicans had earlier decided not to block the bill with a filibuster, as they did with an earlier nonbinding resolution opposing the Bush administration's escalation of US troop strength in Iraq. Instead, they said they would rely on Bush to carry through his pledge to veto the legislation.

"We need to get the bill on down to the president and get the veto out of the way," declared Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

The White House issued a statement Tuesday reiterating Bush's threat of a veto, declaring that any withdrawal provisions attached to the spending bill would "embolden our enemies."

Senate Republicans echoed this same theme, portraying the Democratic proposal as tantamount to treason.

For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/sena-m28.shtml

Last year in California. The democratic party choose Angelides who was doomed to lose. As an independent, I think this what is going to happen in 2008. In the latest Gallup poll, for the first time since 2003. Hillary Clinton favorable rating among all americans has dipped below 50%.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/Default.aspx?ci=27019&VERSION=p

Another treasonous republican contractor:

'The leading provider of night vision equipment to the U.S. military has admitted that it illegally sent classified information about the technology overseas, and will pay a $100 million penalty for its actions.

The fine, one of the largest ever, comes as ITT Corp. acknowledged that it had shared its technology with China, Singapore, the United Kingdom and other countries without permission from the U.S. government. The government says ITT is now the first major defense contractor convicted of a violation of the Arms Export Control Act.

According to the company's Web site, "ITT Industries produces the most advanced night vision equipment for military, law enforcement and recreational applications, enabling users to see under the darkest conditions and operate at night."

"The sensitive night vision systems produced by ITT Corp. are critical to U.S. war-fighting capability and are sought by our enemies and allies alike," Assistant Attorney General Kenneth L. Wainstein said in a statement.

"ITT's exportation of this sensitive technology to China and other nations jeopardized our national security and the safety of our military men and women on the battlefield," Wainstein said.

The government has also accused ITT of omitting key facts from reports required by the government, leaving the U.S. State Department with misleading information.'

I don't care if she has Nacky Loeb on the ground. She will self-destruct if Miss Hillary can't connect in the living rooms and firehouses of the State,with face to face contact, and her cadres of consultants can't protect her from that nor can they "spin" the outcome. Here's hoping NH voters use their honest skepticism..This country is ready for a woman as president, we're just not ready for her...

In Iraq, No Room at The Inn for Auditors
By Paul Kiel - March 12, 2007, 4:04 PM
How strained are resources in Iraq? So strained that the State Department can't afford for three auditors to make a three month visit.

The State Department recently turned down a request for three congressional auditors to make a three-month stay in Baghdad, saying that having them around for that long would be "a serious challenge to mission resources."

--However, they are paying to send some very highly partisan bloggers at RedState.com over there -- some truly radical rightwing hacks. I don't understand why, if these boys want to go, they don't just sign up and fight like men?

I am one of those who is predicting Mrs. Clinton's downfall. And you, Mr. Callizza, are one of those Washington insiders who does not appreciate that in fact, organization is NOT everything in presidential politics. How soon we forget John Kerry's rise to win the Iowa Caucus despite two vastly better organized candidates, Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt, and maybe even John Edwards. Organization is not everything. Mrs. Clinton's staff and endorsements will matter little when it comes time to actually vote.

Clinton will be one of the frontrunners until her campaign's final day, win or lose. I'm wondering if Chris might misinterpreting those who do predict Clinton's downfall. Of course, I speak only for myself, but I assume those people still think she will be a frontrunner, even if she loses in the end. I don't like Hillary, and I think she's got a bad stage personality-that is, she's not charismatic enough. I hardly take the Edwards decision to remain in the race as a final decision, because his fundraising could be hurt by the doubt that he'll always be able to make the decision to stay in the race on his own. I think his candidacy may cease to be in his hands at some point, and family realities may force him to drop out. I think Obama's has been built up by the media just to be knocked down by the media. They say that the faster they rise, the faster (or perhaps harder) they fall. Expectations of Obama are almost unrealistic for any human to fullfill. Personally, I think the strongest Democratic nominee (and likely the best potential president) would be Gov. Bill Richardson, who would likely have to fight Sen. Chris Dodd for to be the new anti-Hillary if both Obama stumbles and Edwards is forced to drop out. Richardson's experienced, not vulnerable on the tax issue, hispanic (which, if he were able to secure a majority of the hispanic vote in a general election, he'd be in a great position, since that constituency has been called the "sleeping giant"), and he's also western, meaning he could win states like New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, etc. I think Hillary is simply a weak prospective nominee, as Kerry was in 2004. By the way, if you're thinking I'm a racially biased hispanic guy, that's not true, I am a quarter Spaniard and barely tanner than an albino.

Clinton will be one of the frontrunners until her campaign's final day, win or lose. I'm wondering if Chris might misinterpreting those who do predict Clinton's downfall. Of course, I speak only for myself, but I assume those people still think she will be a frontrunner, even if she loses in the end. I don't like Hillary, and I think she's got a bad stage personality-that is, she's not charismatic enough. I hardly take the Edwards decision to remain in the race as a final decision, because his fundraising could be hurt by the doubt that he'll always be able to make the decision to stay in the race on his own. I think his candidacy may cease to be in his hands at some point, and family realities may force him to drop out. I think Obama's has been built up by the media just to be knocked down by the media. They say that the faster they rise, the faster (or perhaps harder) they fall. Expectations of Obama are almost unrealistic for any human to fullfill. Personally, I think the strongest Democratic nominee (and likely the best potential president) would be Gov. Bill Richardson, who would likely have to fight Sen. Chris Dodd for to be the new anti-Hillary if both Obama stumbles and Edwards is forced to drop out. Richardson's experienced, not vulnerable on the tax issue, hispanic (which, if he were able to secure a majority of the hispanic vote in a general election, he'd be in a great position, since that constituency has been called the "sleeping giant"), and he's also western, meaning he could win states like New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, etc. I think Hillary is simply a weak prospective nominee, as Kerry was in 2004.

Colin: Your dislike for Hillary is for sure clouding your judgement. William: The real world knows Hillary doesn't have to measure the drapes. The front loading for February gives Hillary a great chance of sewing up the nomination, not literally, by March.

Chris,

Are you on Clinton's payroll? Everytime you write a blog about Clinton it is ALWAYS positive. I am a Democrat but it will be difficult for me to vote for Clinton if she continues to criticize her opponents, particularly Barack Obama. I hope sooner rather than later you give equally glowing coverage to the other Democratic contenders.

The president's mega-failure, of course, has been his decision to plow ahead in Iraq, the verdict of the American electorate in November notwithstanding. More mysterious still has been the inability of congressional Republicans to change course on the war. Last week, just two Republican congressmen voted for the Democrats' bill to withdraw U.S. combat forces from Iraq by the end of August 2008. Yesterday, just two Republican senators voted for Democratic senators' bill setting a March 2008 deadline.

It's not as if congressional Republicans are particularly pleased with the conduct of the war. It's not as if the House Democrats' bill is unpopular. Polling released yesterday from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed 59 percent support for the bill compelling U.S. forces to leave Iraq by a year from August, with 61 percent support from independents, 34 percent support from Republicans, and 44 percent support from moderate Republicans. The roughly 1 percent support for the measure from House Republicans, then, massively underrepresents their constituents' -- even their Republican constituents' -- support for the bill.

outright lies and slander - my specialty

Chris,

"Organization is everything in Presidential politics."

Wow. I suppose let's say we had this toupe, let's call the toupe, "Chris Wig" And let's say Chris Wig had a heartbeat and a voice. Chris Wig went on to hire people like Michael Whouley and all the other "important consultants." Would it be the winner in New Hampshire?...I say, I doubt it..and I would say to put that wig back on top of your head Chris becuase it this wig has been flipped.

Time to join the HRC campaign or at least get paid for this continued non educated junk your write about campaigns on a daily basis.

'A Frist confidant familiar with the meeting between Thompson and Frist said he thought Thompson was "deadly serious" about learning as much as he could from Frist, who had considered a run for president himself '

Oh, absolutely Fred, do ask Frist for advice..

am I the only one here?

'A few minutes ago, The White House withdrew Sam Fox's nomination to be the Ambassador to Belgium. Fox, as many already know, gave $50,000 to the Swift Boat Liars and then wouldn't even admit in his committee appearance that funding outright lies and slander was a mistake.

Good Riddance, Sam
On one hand, we have the truth.

I personally believe that the truth is best showcased by the letter that eleven of John Kerry's crewmates wrote on his behalf [pdf] asking them to stop Sam Fox and his lies. This are the people who were actually in Vietnam with John and all are speaking the truth.

On the other hand, we have the supreme swift boat liar scumbag John O'Neill who NEVER SERVED ONE DAY IN VIETNAM with John Kerry. In fact, no one would have ever heard of John O'Neill if Charles Colson, Nixon's White House aide hadn't tapped O'Neill as a counter-foil to Kerry in the early 1970's. For three decades, John O'Neill's been cashing checks (like the $50,000 one he received from the Swift Liars in August 2004) and making hay out of smearing John Kerry.'

'Former British Ambassador Craig Murray is now challenging the legitimacy of the map just published by the British government in the current dispute with Iran over those 15 captured British sailors and marines.

"Fake Maritime Boundaries
I have been unpopular before, but the level of threats since I started writing on the captured marines has got a bit scary.

It is therefore with some trepidation that I feel obliged to point this out.

"The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker.

"But there are two colossal problems.

"A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.

"B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.'

'At a press conference today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded to President Bush's threat to veto legislation that included a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq in 2008. Pelosi urged the President to "Calm down with the threats, there's a new Congress in town." She went on to say, "we respect your constitutional role, we want you to respect ours."

william, I am trying to have a conversation with myself.

william, tell zouk to stop posting nonsene. it's your turn to watch him.

Why do cats bury me?

the voices are back

Hillary is way ahead in New Hampshire and Edwards is threatening to overtake Obama, whose campaign is in danger of flaming out: http://www.solidpolitics.com

god zouk you are a child.

Obviously Cillizza has not stepped foot in New Hampshire recently.

I sleep with goats

I know about rats.

About two weeks ago, we started hearing about the panic and paralysis that had taken over the Justice Department in the wake of the prosecutor purge scandal. "You have no idea," said one Justice official, "how bad it is here."

How's the nation's federal law-enforcement agency doing now? Apparently, it's getting worse -- the New York Daily News reports that "Gonzales' closest advisers [have] turned on one another."

"It's unreal - it's open warfare over there," a former Justice official with close ties to Gonzales' team told the Daily News.

The AG's ex-chief of staff Kyle Sampson will testify in the Senate tomorrow, and Gonzales' ex-counsel Monica Goodling pleaded the fifth and refused to talk. Gonzales has blamed Sampson for mistakes in how the firings were handled.

Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, who privately blames Goodling for misleading him on the matter, may also be jockeying to take over if Gonzales resigns, sources said.

In fact, it seems part of the administration's problem with this fiasco is an inability to find a convenient scapegoat. Gonzales blames Sampson, McNulty blames Goodling, the White House blames McNulty, Republicans on the Hill blame Gonzales, and no one on the right has figured out a way to blame Dems, the media, or MoveOn.org. It's a wild west, every-man-for-himself environment ... and these guys are yet to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Obviously, with so much finger-pointing, chances are these officials are going to contradict one another, making the whole bunch look worse. But just as importantly, it's also more likely that at least one of these guys, motivated purely by self-interest, will cut some kind of deal and rat his or her colleagues out to save his or her skin.

Anybody know what kind of operation Bill Clinton had in NH in '92? Seems to me it was pretty minimal but some hard numbers to back that up would be nice. Since NH voters are on the iconoclastic side I'd bet they would favor either Edwards or Obama just to stick a finger in HRC's eye. And they might be more familiar with her since NH probably sees a fair amount of exposure to the NY media content. A three-way tie?

Does having a great team in NH really mean anything now that the primaries are so front-loaded for the first time? Having a killer operation in New Hampshire sounds like a really smart way to get the nomination in 2004. At this point, I'm not sure that it means much more than having a killer operation in Rhode Island or Nebraska.

Colin, I didn't read Chris' piece as a rah-rah for HRC. Rather it reflects the reality in NH (and ONLY NH, he was careful to say).

As the frontrunner/coronationee for so long, she has had the opportunity to build this org. And as CC says, organization (and the money to fund it) is everything. The seat-of-the-pants strategy of Obama and Richardson (and maybe Gore) puts you at a huge disadvantage on that state.

Chris-

Don't forget Karen Hicks - she ran Dean's camapaign in NH in 2004 and was Jeanne Shaheen's Political Director in 2002 and now is on Senator Clinton's Campaign. She certainly adds to Senator Clinton's advantage.

The race is wide open in New Hampshire. What has been the most important vote in the past few elections in New hampshire has been the Independent vote. They sway the State. The leaders of the Democratic party did not win the election in this State George Bush lost it and the Independents crowned it.

I don't usually call anyone biased, but I must say it's pretty interesting that shortly after polling data comes out showing that 50% of the country won't even consider voting for Hillary, Chris runs a piece talking up Clinton's "organization" without even mentioning the poll.

Hillary certainly CAN win both the Dem nomination and the general. In fact, I think it's quite possible that the GOP will be sufficiently weakened by 2008 that ANY Democrat will be able to win the general. But given all the attention Chris and others in the press have focused on Senator Obama's "flaws" and the "controversy" regarding Edwards staying in the race, I must say I'm starting to wonder if Chris is a Hillary supporter.

If I'm crazy, please feel free to say so. Maybe I'm letting my own distaste for Hillary cloud my judgment.