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

Now if we can only enforce legislators to read the bills in the future.. :/

Roo - the problem with the interim appointments was cured last week with the change to the Patriot Act returning the process to the way it was for a couple of decades. The change will have to be approved by both chambers and signed by the President, but nobody is opposing it; so you can consider that done.

JD, Blarg et al. -- Actually, while Blarg is absolutely correct in stating that this is completely dissimilar to what was done by Clinton (and Bush Sr. and Jr. as well as Reagan) and while JD is correct in stating that it was perfectly legal to do so, it would behoove you all well to remember the little PATRIOT Act clause--which was inserted by none other than one of the new USA appointees without the knowledge of any elected official--that is allowing the 'interim' appointees to serve indefinitely.

Justice is doing this precisely because the Congress no longer has oversight on who these new appointees are. When aforementioned purges and the occasional individual changes occurred, the nominee had to eventually be confirmed by the Congress (for what little that was worth.)

This is not about the firings, it is about the appointments.

I would invite you to explore the moral side of the equation as well. Do you really, really want to have prosecutors fired because they refuse to base their decisions to investigate and indict on partisan reasons rather than, say, the LAW when they are otherwise apparently doing a fine job?

Oh, and Vilsack does not matter.

Just to be clear, I don't think it's "politics as usual" if we find out that US Atty's were removed because they either (1) prosecuted culpable republicans; or (2) decided not to prosecute democrats because there wasn't enough evidence. All US Atty's certainly serve at the pleasure of the President, but once they're installed the President cannot interfere with ongoing investigations for purely political reasons. At the very least that's unethical.

Now, I'm not saying that's what happened. But there's quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that at least hints that something of that sort happened. From my vantage point, Congress is obligated to find out what really occurred and to then hold the proper individuals accountable based upon the evidence they unconver. You know -- sort of like what the US Atty's were trying to do....

Make that, All bets are off!

stevieb - This headline is on the Post webpage now.

Gonzales Aid Refuses to Testify

Senior counselor invokes Fifth Amendment and will not go before Senate Judiciary Committee.

Forget what I just posted above. All best are off. This is a sign that somebody was doing something with the sausages that they shouldn't have been doing.

stevieb - It may not have been illegal. It may not have been improper. But, it has all of the characterisics of being unseemly - "Doesn't past the smell test" - all the while being legitimate.

Remember the "politics is like a sausage factory" analogy. You may love sausages, but you probably don't want to really see how a sausage is made.

That's why they would want to keep all of the shenanigans out of sight - they could easily be legitimate, but just look bad.

But, I sure would like to see what's inside this sausage factory.

JD, you are correct that this is not the ideal situation. The ideal situation is what we had before. US attorneys were appointed when a president took office and were left in place, barring poor performance, until the president left office. This created the appropriate balance of political loyalty to the president who appointed them and prosecutorial independence. This set of firings became an issue because the administration upset that balance with middle-of-term firings for what appear (but have not been proven) to be partisan purposes.

The administration that fires law enforcement officials for not using their power to harrass the opposition makes a mockery of the concept of democracy. Thus, Bush should be begging for the opportunity to explain why these attorneys were fired, not stonewalling. This type of behavior is why I currently identify my political affiliation as "ex Republican." Bush has destroyed what the Republican party stood for, and this situation is a good example of how he has done so. I have yet to read a convincing explanation of why, beyond partisanship, Republicans support Bush on this rather than demanding better.

*yawn*

As Jon Stewart might note, who cares who the Aflac duck is endorsing.

stevieb: You just might be on to something. What appears to the public, right or wrong, is the drive that will play out soon. Gonzales, imo, will be gone shortly.

It's really very simple. If there was nothing either illegal or improper about the way the US attorneys were removed, Gonzales and his cronies would not have been working so hard to keep the details of what happened out of the light of day.

NorEaster, it's not the ideal situation, I grant you, but it's better than the alternatives (having USAs elected themselves, or nominated by the Bar Association, or some such thing).

Lags are built into the system of federalism and (little-r) republican government. The only alternative, if you want instant gratification, is impeachment.

JD - You've mentioned the ballot box solution a couple of times.

The ballot box is good for remedying many, but not all, political problems.

A Criminal problem should be handled first in the legal system, and then at the ballot box if necessary.

Personally, I accept that the President has unlimited power to remove any or all U. S. Attorneys. It's all political. If you don't like what a President does, you may have a second opportunity to express yourself at the ballot box.

There may have been Criminal activity in the information presented to the Congress and what went on in the planning (think "conspiracy," it may apply). The Congress has ways of dealing with that. As do prosecutors, depending on the activity.

There may have been Criminal activity on the part of Wilson and Domenici. The Congress has ways of dealing with that - usually to sweep it under the rug. The law enforcement officials have equally legitimate ways of dealing with that, if the Congress doesn't grant immunity from prosecution before an indictment can be made.

A third method is the Court of Public Opinion. When an official gets to be too much of a political liability for their boss; they either resign or are asked to resign. That's political also. The current example is the GOP Senators slowy lining-up against Attorney General Gonzales.

Your ballot box solution may be appropriate in one instance, and not in another.

My guess is that Public Opinion will have the most immediate impact, and that some type of Criminal prosecution is likely to come into play before the ballot box.

But, a question for you though. The problem is not with the Republican Party as such. It is with how officials who are serving in what happens to be a Republican Administration. The next opportunity we have to register our support or dissent at the ballot box is in November 2008. But it won't make any difference then, because all of the significant officials will be gone by January 20, 2009 anyway.

So, given that reality, what good does it do us to wait to use the ballot box in a situation a such as this?

What I'm saying is, if I did have a problem with that, the way to address it is via the ballot box.

So you wouldn't have a problem if the DOJ never prosecuted any Republicans, and went after Democrats for every offense? What if the DOJ agreed to call off an investigation in return for a donation to the RNC? Would that be okay too?

Blarg said:

"If Gonzales had stepped up to the podium and said "Yes, we fired those attorneys, because they weren't loyal enough to the administration. We've replaced them with new attorneys who will defend our allies and prosecute our enemies.", that wouldn't be okay."

Blarg, I think you misunderstand the concept behind 'political appointees'. If you think the DOJ is too partisan, the way to rectify it is at the ballot box in 08. See the Slate article that I referenced a week ago, it sums it up well.

Yay for HRC..... She got the endorsement of a guy who declared in November, was out by February, and couldn't poll above 4th in his home state. I'm impressed.

Forgot to mention, I had predicted early on that Vilsack would be a great Agriculture Sec., and was suprised when he got in the 2008 race, but was not when he dropped out. Others I predicted early were: Obama-UN or State. Richardson-UN or State. Edwards-Atty Gen. Clark-Def. Gore-EPA., which I now doubt. Napalatino-Homeland Sec. Sibelius-National Sec. Dean-HHS. Hillary is doing just fine on her way to The White House.

E-Mail Article

Listen to Article

Printer-Friendly

3-Column Format

Translate

Share Article

Add to Clippings

Text Size

NORTH CONWAY, New Hampshire: Senator John Sununu knows that his political future hinges on the war in Iraq, try as he might to change the subject.

For weeks, Sununu and Republican colleagues who face re-election next year have trudged through an on-again, off-again Iraq debate in Congress. So the annual Lincoln Day Dinner that he attended here in his home state Saturday evening, with its friendly audience, might have been expected to offer a respite from the realities of Washington.

But even among the ladies and gentlemen of the Carroll County Republican Committee, more than a few of whom wore elephant neckties and broaches to celebrate the symbol of their party, the vexing issue of Iraq was the real elephant in the room, the topic everyone wanted to know about.

"Nobody is happy with the way the war is going," said Richard Hickey, an accountant and loyal Republican who at the event. "It was a Republican project, so my guess is that he's in trouble. Senator Sununu has been such a big supporter of George W. Bush, the Democrats will take a good shot at him."

Will Michael Bloomberg run for president? "Observers" say probably!

The 11th paragraph, though, points out that you're an idiot for reading the whole thing!

Stu Loeser, Bloomberg's press secretary, said flatly last week that his boss is not considering a presidential campaign. "He has dinner with people. People ask him questions. He engages in conversation," Loeser said, explaining the genesis of stories about the mayor's presidential ambitions. "He has been very clear and explicit that he is not running for president."

'And so I wanted to begin my discussion by saying that -- that cautious optimism is a good sign, and something that I had not returned from Iraq with, I guess over the last 20 months.'

wow -- that's overwhelming! he's trying to put the best possible spin on it, and that's the best he can do? He's h ad NO optimism for the last 20 months, and now he's CAUTIOUSLY trying to be optimistic.

Really a bell-ringer of an endorsement...

Witnesses have told congressional investigators that the chief of the General Services Administration and a deputy in Karl Rove's political affairs office at the White House joined in a videoconference earlier this year with top GSA political appointees, who discussed ways to help Republican candidates.

With GSA Administrator Lurita Alexis Doan and up to 40 regional administrators on hand, J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, gave a PowerPoint presentation on Jan. 26 of polling data about the 2006 elections.

atrexler's diary :: ::
When Jennings concluded his presentation to the GSA political appointees, Doan allegedly asked them how they could "help 'our candidates' in the next elections," according to a March 6 letter to Doan from Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Waxman said in the letter that one method suggested was using "targeted public events, such as the opening of federal facilities around the country."

On Wednesday, Doan is scheduled to appear before Waxman's committee to answer questions about the videoconference and other issues. The committee is investigating whether remarks made during the videoconference violated the Hatch Act, a federal law that restricts executive-branch employees from using their positions for political purposes. Those found in violation of the act do not face criminal penalties but can be removed from their jobs.

Stuart Bowen Jr, the special inspector general for Iraq Reconstruction, testified on Capitol Hill on Thursday.

According to the coward, Mr. Bowen must be 'drinking the Koolaid'.

I'd sooner believe him than you, coward.

Reported Bowen: "I returned last week, my fifteenth since I was appointed three years ago, and I returned with a sense of cautious optimism about the progress in the Baghdad security plan. I met with the senior leadership, across-the-board military, and in the embassy -- and, in particular, had very good visits with General Petraeus.

And what I learned across-the-board is that the preliminary results of this latest initiative in the Baghdad security plan have been positive.

And so I wanted to begin my discussion by saying that -- that cautious optimism is a good sign, and something that I had not returned from Iraq with, I guess over the last 20 months.

So, in sum, I have a sense of cautious optimism ..."

Political hirings/firings scandal to cost $12 million.

Democratic Mayor Daley of Chicago agreed Wednesday (3/21/07) to establish a $12 million fund to compensate victims of City Hall's rigged hiring system and abandon his five-year-old effort to vacate the federal Shakman decree banning political hiring. Daley's former patronage chief was convicted of rigging city hiring and promotions to benefit Daley supporters and Democratic Party workers. Plaintiff Michael Shakman said the city "should have fixed its hiring system a long time ago" -- long before Daley's patronage chief was convicted of rigging city hiring. The $12 million fund, disclosed last month by the Chicago Sun-Times, would be administered by federal hiring monitor Noelle Brennan. Brennan was appointed in August 2005 by a federal judge livid with the city for making a mockery of the Shakman decree, which was supposed to end political hiring and firing.

Source: Daley agrees to set up fund to compensate victims of hiring scandal, March 21, 2007, Chicago Sun Times, by Fran Spielman, City Hall Reporter.

'But it's time to stop thinking so hard about how to lose, and to think instead about how to reinforce and exploit the success we have begun to achieve.'

Oh yes, the credibility of the weekly standard, who predicted the war would last 3 months, at most and that iraqi oil would pay for it.

Pass the koolaid.

'Soldiers headed for Iraq are still buying their own body armor -- and in many cases, their families are buying it for them -- despite assurances from the military that the gear will be in hand before they're in harm's way.

Body armor distributors have received steady inquiries from soldiers and families about purchasing the gear, which can cost several thousand dollars. Though the military has advised them not to rely on third-party suppliers, many soldiers say they want it before they deploy.'

No, JD, we're not in agreement. I think the firings themselves were wrong. The way the firings was handled compounds the problem, but it's not the whole issue.

There is an increasing amount of evidence that those attorneys were fired for not being sufficiently partisan. They didn't investigate Democrats enough, and they investigated Republicans too much. That is a problem, because it makes the Department of Justice into a partisan political bureau, and it's not supposed to be. That's not what justice is about.

If Gonzales had stepped up to the podium and said "Yes, we fired those attorneys, because they weren't loyal enough to the administration. We've replaced them with new attorneys who will defend our allies and prosecute our enemies.", that wouldn't be okay. Instead he lied about why they were fired, which is worse. But even if he had told the truth, this would be a scandal.

"The land of milk and honey has become sour grapes."

But it's time to stop thinking so hard about how to lose, and to think instead about how to reinforce and exploit the success we have begun to achieve.

The debate in Washington hasn't caught up to the realities in Baghdad.

Until it does, a resolute president will need to prevent defeatists in Congress from losing a winnable war in Iraq.

The Democratic Congress doesn't understand what is going on in Iraq.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/443halpk.asp

JD -- yes, i believe lying to Congress, whether under oath or not, is a crime. But in any case, do you really want an AG dishonest and sleazy enough to lie to Congress.

The guy who is supposed enforce the rule of law, who integrity above all, should be intact?

Don't you want Congress to do its job of oversight, to enable the checks and balances in the government to function?

They were put there so that none of the CO-EQUAL branches of government could ride roughshod over the others, after all.

Re: Election Issue

This is a critical election issue for everyone!

Please click on the link and then click on Write In for Mayor!

http://ozarksfirst.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=5

Please send this link to everyone you know, the media, and blog it!

Thanks to your group and keep up the good work!

I still can't believe that no one has stepped up to hold the president accountable for the lies about the war in Iraq. Nor can I believe that I was the only one to know there were no weapons in Iraq before we started the war and congress capitulated their responsibility and sold us down the river. come on folks! what is going on? with all the intelligence investigative reporters have they can't be this stupid to let a war mongering president ruin our lives, bankrupt the United States, and make us one of the axis of evil countries. The land of milk and honey has become sour grapes. Try this on Keith or SC shows. It is my opinion that impeachment for the Bush crimes is to good for the traitor.

Re the U.S. Attorney firings, we don't know whether any laws were violated yet. If the selective firings were done in order to impede follow up investigations arising from the Duke Cunningham scandal or to promote political motivated indictments of Democrats before the election (in New Mexico), then the firings would be a violation of law. That's why it is important that Congress pursue the investigation by interviewing the White House witnesses, at least with a transcript which could be used if it ultimately turns out that the deponents lie in their statements (sworn or informal). I don't think it's appropriate to say that nothing illegal has been done when there looks like probable cause for an investigation and those being investigated set conditions which make pursuing the investigation impossible. I don't think we need need a show trial, but we need a record.

Hey Blarg, I think we're in violent agreement here. The problem was the way it was handled, not the firings themselves. Read Krauthammer from Fri, he puts it much better than I could.

DD- lying to Congress...was it under oath? Is it a crime if it's not? (honest question, I swear - I don't know the answer to that)

obstruction - doubtful. The USAs don't usually do the actual prosecutions, and even if they did, wouldn't Clinton's enemies have made a stink in 92 when he torpedoed the Whitewater and Rostenkowski prosecutors?

JD:
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/nation_world/story.asp?ID=181063

A relevant excerpt:
"But historical data compiled by the Senate shows the same pattern going back to President Reagan. Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton also had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, while President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office.

In a similar vein, the Justice Department recently supplied Congress with a district-by-district listing of U.S. attorneys who served before the current Bush administration. The list shows that in 1981, during Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, during Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys."

Bush did exactly the same thing in 2001 as Clinton did in 1993. Firing attorneys upon taking office is standard. Firing your own attorneys partway through a term is not.

Peter and Cedar Rapids... Good analysis of the low impact of a Vilsack endorsement.

One more thing though, it was CHRISTY Vilsack who threw her weight (and popularity) behind Kerry in the 2004 race. It made a difference.

Perhaps the person who should be doing the endorsing is Christy, although I believe Iowans have moved on.

Gov. Culver now has the get-out-the-vote machinery. His endorsement may not matter, but his caucus network will.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Sales of new homes sank to new low as the government's latest reading of the strength of the battered real estate market showed more pricing weakness and a growing glut of homes on the market.

New homes sold at an annual pace of 848,000 in February, down about 4 percent from the 882,000 rate in January, which itself was revised lower.

Last month's pace was the slowest for new home sale since July 2000, when the nation was sldiing into a recession.

JD --obstruction of justice and lying to Congress.

Andy R, I completely agree with you. (This was the point of my OP, sorry if it wasn't clear).

Anyone who lied to Congress under oath broke the law, and should pay the penalty. That's a crime and a firing offense - but the original USA firings were not, even if they interrupted investigations.

Andy R: "Vilsack has put his money on a losing horse.". This is typical of those that oppose Hillary. Only a few days ago it was a fund raiser for Obama in Ca. where a former supporter of Bubba, who happens to be Gay, turned against him when his demands, outrageous as they were btw, were not met, and putting to rest the case that the Clintons could be bought. This past weekend Hillary was in Ca. for a fund raiser and raised about twice the amount as Obama. I still have Iowa in my "Just can't get a hold on" catagory, although it won't hurt much to lose, a win would be a great help in the first voting primary.

Endorsement's haven't meant a whole lot in Iowa in the past. In 1996, there was a Republican primary between US senate majority leader Bob Dole and Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, and Robertson won if memory serves correctly. How many prime time endorsements could Robertson have had? I'm thinking connection with voters has more to do with winning an election than does endorsements. Or, that could just be me.

For Republicans, if Fred Thompson is gonna join the race, Iowa may be the place for him to stake his bets. Guiliani will wane and won't win Iowa. For the dems., Iowa will be the place for Edwards and Richardson to really try and win.

JD,
It is against the law to lie to a member of congress. That is exactly what Gonzales did. President Bush didn't break any laws, but you have to admit the Attorney General should be fired for this, period.

While Vilsack's endoresement by itself wont swing the election it doesn't hurt. I think all the people nahsaying here would be glad to have Vilsack endorese their fav candidate.

I also disagree and think that if you are going to get an endoresment its better to get it early when people's opinions are soft and it could still make a difference. By the time Harkin jumped in for Dean most people had already made up their minds.

DD says that I want to live in a banana republic where politics trumps the rule of law.

OK DD: What law was broken, again? (pause while waiting for the answer...)

It's a political appointee position. So you're surprised that politics enters into it?

Hey Blarg, I'm sure you'll remember that when Clinton came in, he conveniently whacked all the attorneys, including the one investigating Dan Rostenkowski (leading congressional democrat and important FOB) and the one investigating his own Whitewater issues. No Conflict of Interest I'm sure.

If you read my post, you'll understand that the problem isn't what was done, it was how Gonzo and Co. decided to explain it to Congress, especially after McNulty submarined him.

If anything, W was more gracious in not instantly whacking all USAs upon arrival, like Clinton did. So much for the new tone.

VILSACK'S ENDORSEMENTS COUNT?

In the last primary season, he gave his first explicity endorsement of a candidate, for his former aide Dusky Terry in his bid for Secretary of Agriculture. Vilsack did an auto-call on Terry's behalf to Democratic primary voters (the same ones that caucus). He also tapped his vast fundraising list, enabling Terry to dwarf his opponent in fundraising. The result? Terry's primary opponent, Denise O'Brien won in an absolute landslide by over 18,000 votes. The percentage? 57% for O'Brien, 42% for Terry.

Vilsack's last implicit bid didn't go so well either. Vilsack put his "machine" to work behind another primary candidate this last cycle, albeit without formally endorsing. That candidate was Mike Blouin who ran against eventual governor, Chet Culver. Granted, Culver had his own vast reservoir of Iowa ties, but Vilsack's support still didn't produce a winner.

Vilsack was the first candidate to declare his candidacy and the first candidate to drop out. Are Iowa Democrats suffering from Vilsack fatigue? Does his endorsement help Hillary at all? We'll see.

Chris, you're an idiot.

Over two weeks ago, more than 100 former Vilsack supporters signed-on to Edwards' campaign. Including many of the county party chairs that were not already supporting John Edwards, a bunch of electeds, and key Democratic activists and fundraisers. Vilsack's remaining 'network' is not just going to get on-board with Hillary because Vilsack has caved. They clearly already had second options - enough so that less than a week after the former governor dropped out, they were already re-aligned.

And do you know how the Iowa caucuses work? It would seem like you should, judging by your role at the Washington Post on the political team. But apparently not, as judged by your writing. You make it seems like Iowans are these hardy independents, wholly indifferent to anything but the direction of their own strong moral character and the entreaties of candidates through good ol' fashioned retail politics. That's not how it works - and especially in the sense of caucuses being different from primaries.

Dean didn't win Iowa (while Kerry did) because Kerry's team knew how to work a caucus, and could mobilize in caucus rooms all around the state. Dean's team just had a bunch of really passionate volunteers both in-state and out, but less that knew how to put together a win at any caucus site. Caucuses and primaries are fundamentally different, so start writing like they are.

Clinton's national polling, regardless of how much the punditocracy of D.C. tries to make of it, is a non-factor to most voters - except to the extent that the mainstream media continues to flog the "frontrunner" status - especially the now tired story of Obama v. Clinton. She is not leading in Iowa. She is not leading in Nevada. And she'll take a dive in New Hampshire. In Iowa, her Vilsack endorsement means little because his core organization has already broken up. Vilsack was the best option at the time for Iowa Democrats, but the days of the DLC and their Republican-lite policies and politics are over - Iowans have always deserved better and they're not going to let Vilsack snow them into voting for a presidential nominee that will continue to sell them out.

Firing the attorneys was perfectly legal. As usual in DC, it was the incompetent cover-up that did the damage. Is there an early primary state where HRC is consistently polling ahead? Edwards is strong in Iowa, Nevada and S.C. and Obama is pushing hard in N.H. HRC has to pick up one of those states in order to be relevant.

The LAT fronts, and the rest of the papers go inside with, the way in which the Sunday talk shows illustrated how Attorney General Alberto Gonzales continues to lose support among lawmakers as three Republican senators expressed concerns over how he has handled the scandal surrounding the fired U.S. attorneys. "He has said some things that just don't add up," Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said. Sen. Gonzales is set to testify before the Senate judiciary committee on April 17 and that appearance will be a "make-or-break situation for him," Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania said.

Meanwhile, the WSJ goes inside with a look at how the U.S. attorneys controversy has created a division inside the Justice Department between those that support Gonzales and those that are loyal to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty. The paper says some of this "internal tension could come to a head" when Kyle Sampson, the attorney general's former chief of staff, testifies before the Senate judiciary committee Thursday.

I agree that endorsements do not mean very much, especially this early in the game. The significance of Vilsack's endorsment will depend on how much organizational support he can bring to the effort. The Iowa caucuses do not attract casual voters. A strong "ground game" is very important in bringing your supporters to the various caucus sites.

Looks like Vilsack is running for VP, and doing a decent job of it.

Blarg, anyone who compares the current DOJ situation to Clinton's standard appointments at the beginning of a new presidency is broadcasting their ignorance. Don't tell them to stop saying it, encourage them - that way those of us who read this blog will understand which posters lack a basic understanding of how our government operates.

tax cuts for the rich -- and a foot up the butt for children and the elderly.

'The Los Angeles Times leads with a look at how Congress might cut some payments to a Medicare program that is popular with senior citizens in order to afford its efforts to provide health insurance to uninsured children. The paper says these sort of "trade-offs" could become common in the future as the cost of caring for the nation's seniors continues to increase. According to one analyst, "It's getting to the point where you are going to have to ask the dreaded question: Is it children or the elderly?"

JD is determined to flog that dead horse, blarg. No amount of reason or facts will deter the 30 percenters from clinging to their Faux delusions. They want to live in a banana republic where politics trumps the rule of law.

Hey, 'OReilly says it's true. How much more credibility do you need than that? What's wrong with you?

A glaring problem for HIllary in Iowa will be her votes against ethanol while in the Senate. Energy policy in Iowa, especially the ethanol issue, is salient and one that could put her at odds with the rest of the Democratic field. Vilsack should help ease her recent conversion as a believer in ethanol, although it's different than what she's stated in the past.

Vilsack put his full endorsement behind only one candidate in the 2006 primary elections in Iowa. He supported Dusky Terry, a high level staffer for Vilsack, for the Secretary of Ag race. Even with Vilsack's support, Terry didn't win the Primary, although he was widely considered the frontrunner. While I'm doubtful that Hillary gains enourmous amounts of support from a Vilsack endorsement, she will likely pick up marginal support. In a year where the primary is so tightly contested, the addition of small pockets of supporters could be the key to winning the state.

"The Gonzo 'scandal' is so silly. Reno did something similar when Clinton came in."

Stop saying that. Clinton's firing of all the US attorneys appointed by his predecessor is absolutely nothing like Bush's firing of a few of his own appointees. What Clinton did was exactly the same as what Bush did in 2001 upon taking office. Nobody complained then, just as nobody complained when Clinton did it, because that's SOP for a new executive.

This is typical of the Clintons. Vilsack is bought and paid for. Miss Hillary needed an organization on the ground in this key primary to keep her "Iowa street creds" and she just bought it. I can imaging a plum cabinet promise being dangled. If she pulls it off, there will be too many other heavyweights for the Veepstakes. If she promised a Veep slot to Vilsack, in typical Clinton fashion, she will bait and switch after the primaries, and go with one of the other contenders. No surprise here....

Vilcack has put his money on a losing horse. First off, it is way too early to endorse anyone and expect it to make a difference. The only people paying attention right now are political junkies and we mostly know how the game is played so it doesn't effect our thinking.
Second, Hillary is going to fold in the one on one interaction it takes to be president. Her whole strategy is that her nomination is inevitable. If that were true then why is she still losing ground to Edwards in Iowa.
Lastly, even if HRC gets the nomination (which I doubt) then Vilsack will not be the VP. Senator Clinton will choose an experienced white male that plays well in Red States. My guess is Wesley Clark. Evan Bayh is a possibility too. That leaves Vilsack with the secretary of Agriculture post.

Also the Bloomberg candidancy will really really hurt Guiliani. Bloomberg will hammer him for mistakes he made that Bloomberg had to fix.

NoVa's right. This is all about DLC protection. But anti-war Vilsack probably feels a little queasy in backing pro-war Hillary. Will he just quietly fade into the background after today's big laucnh?
http://www.political-buzz.com/

Hillary must have promised Vilsack a plum. Regardless is means little. There is a long, long way to go. Once incident, one story, one slip up a few days prior to the caucus can change everything -- just ask Howard Dean.

"The Gonzo 'scandal' is so silly. Reno did something similar when Clinton came in."

Chris,

Why didn't you mention the fact that both Vilsack and the Clintons are part of the DLC? Is it any surprise that one DLCer is endorsing the only remaining DLCer in the race?

So much for principal. Vilsak was previously running as an anti-war candidate and now he endorses Clinton? Guess he wants that VP slot real bad.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

After the announcement by Bloomberg that he may run for President. I think America has got the best person available. Bloomberg or Lieberman are the only candidates who can work across party lines and lead America in these difficult times. They fully understand the threats which we are facing and have the requisite intellect to guide America against Islamic terrorists. They are also the only one who know about the strategic importance of Middle East and how to safeguard our interest in that region. Secretary Condis efforts to sell off Israel should be countered. It is about time we look for a more responsible person as Secretary of State

The Gonzo 'scandal' is so silly. Reno did something similar when Clinton came in. Gonzo deserves this, though, because when asked why they were whacked, he should have said for political reasons (which is the truth). The USAs weren't in line with the White House's criminal justice agenda, including not pursuing some drug and illegal immigration cases.

Instead he or that judas McNulty or their people decided to tell congress they were whacked for performance reasons. Stupid.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' "credibility'' is at stake in an investigation of the dismissals of several federal prosecutors revealing that Gonzales knew more about the firings last fall than he recently has acknowledged, a bipartisan pair of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said today.

Gonzales, who said in March that he was "not involved in any discussions about what was going on,'' approved plans for the firings at an hour-long meeting in late November, two weeks before seven of the dismissals, according to one of many documents the Justice Department has released.

"Now the attorney general's statement of just a few days ago has been contradicted by a fact,'' Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.,) said of Gonzales on NBC News' Meet the Press today. "He was involved in a meeting... It really raises a question of credibility.

"This shadow, this cloud, across the U.S. attorney offices all across the country has to be lifted,'' Durbin said, adding of Gonzales: "I don't believe he enjoys the confidence of the American people or the Congress.''

"There are so many contradictions in what the attorney general has already told us,'' said Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.), who said he had spoken with Gonzales on Saturday - the day after the story broke about the attorney general's Nov. 27 meeting on the prosecutor dismissals. Specter said he told him "he was going to have to have an explanation as to why he said he was not involved in discussions.'

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' "credibility'' is at stake in an investigation of the dismissals of several federal prosecutors revealing that Gonzales knew more about the firings last fall than he recently has acknowledged, a bipartisan pair of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said today.

Gonzales, who said in March that he was "not involved in any discussions about what was going on,'' approved plans for the firings at an hour-long meeting in late November, two weeks before seven of the dismissals, according to one of many documents the Justice Department has released.

"Now the attorney general's statement of just a few days ago has been contradicted by a fact,'' Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.,) said of Gonzales on NBC News' Meet the Press today. "He was involved in a meeting... It really raises a question of credibility.

"This shadow, this cloud, across the U.S. attorney offices all across the country has to be lifted,'' Durbin said, adding of Gonzales: "I don't believe he enjoys the confidence of the American people or the Congress.''

"There are so many contradictions in what the attorney general has already told us,'' said Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.), who said he had spoken with Gonzales on Saturday - the day after the story broke about the attorney general's Nov. 27 meeting on the prosecutor dismissals. Specter said he told him "he was going to have to have an explanation as to why he said he was not involved in discussions.'

WASHINGTON -- Three leading Republicans said yesterday that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales mishandled the firings of eight federal prosecutors in December and may not have been truthful about the full extent of his role in the dismissals.

Growing questions within Gonzales's own party about his credibility follow the release last week of Justice Department documents that show he took part in a high-level meeting Nov. 27 held to plan the firings, despite his repeated assertions that he had delegated the personnel decisions to his staff.
"He has said some things that just don't add up," Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican of South Carolina and member of the Judiciary Committee, said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
In separate television appearances yesterday, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the committee, and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska also raised questions about Gonzales's honesty.

"We have to have an attorney general who is candid and truthful," Specter said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "And if we find out he's not been candid and truthful, that's a very compelling reason for him not to stay on."