McCain Behind the 8 Ball?

The Politico reports that having secured his party's nomination while the Democrats continue to fight over theirs, John McCain is in big trouble:

Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats do know who they are running against. The Democratic National Committee is already firing out faxes attacking McCain and the party’s outside allies are already putting the finishing touches on their attack ads.

When not picking on each other, Obama and Clinton are also sending rockets McCain’s way.

That incoming fire could be particularly threatening to McCain for several reasons.

First, Clinton and Obama have very strong incentives to go after him. If either can convince their own primary voters that they have the best shot at beating him in the general election, the odds of winning the primary go up.

Their barbs and criticisms carry extra power, as well, these days because they are picked up by the national press corps still tracking the Democratic contest — rather than McCain’s quiet, internal reorganization at his Virginia headquarters.

Add to that, McCain can’t do much to defend himself in the short term because he ended the primary pretty much the way Kerry did four years ago: flat broke...

The explosive fundraising strength shown by both Democratic candidates shows no sign of abating, which means the victor will turn to the general election phase of the race with a presumably unified and enormous list of potential givers, notes Anthony Corrado, an expert on campaign finance.

OK, this is all true. But would it somehow be better if one of the two Democrats had already clinched the nomination? Then he or she would be unifying the party, expanding an already sizable cash advantage, and focusing fire on a bankrupt and under-staffed McCain. I suppose then McCain would have the advantage of additional media attention to both his reorganizing and his attacks, but is it remotely conceivable that would be a better situation for him?

Cummings points to this piece which lays out the challenges for Democrats.

Obama’s failure to win Ohio and Texas and lock down the nomination — combined with Clinton’s newly defensible decision to press on despite a deficit in delegates — virtually guarantees Democrats a draining contest that will give Republicans a months-long head-start on the general election.

It will heighten racial, ethnic, gender, and class divisions already on stark display, raise awkward questions about the legitimacy of the nominating process, and inflict potentially lasting wounds on the eventual winner...

Clinton advisers say Obama was also hurt by media attention to his murky connections to Tony Rezko, a former Obama fundraiser now on trial in Chicago on corruption charges. The Clinton campaign endlessly prodded reporters to insist that the Obama campaign provide answers to the many mysteries about the relationship.

This success will embolden Clinton for more of the same in Pennsylvania.

Obama, in turn, will step up his attacks on her appeal with independents and swing voters, her judgment in backing the Iraq War, and her attachment to "old politics” of the 1990s.

Add to that the fact that both Democrats will be spending boatloads of money to desrtoy each other, rather than stockpiling it. Is there any doubt that McCain would be far worse off if the Democratic nomination was settled?

McCain-Lieberman? Unlikely

Today Bob Novak writes on the abuse that Oprah Winfrey took for her endorsement of Barack Obama. That abuse might ultimately wind up costing Obama the presidency, since her absence from the New Hampshire campaign trail was followed by a stunning Hillary victory -- on the strength of the women's vote.

Novak also reports that Joe Lieberman won't be John McCain's running mate (assuming he gets the nomination):

Close advisers of Sen. John McCain say there is no possibility that Independent Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman would be McCain's vice presidential running mate on the Republican ticket.

McCain credits Lieberman's endorsement for president last month as triggering his turnaround in New Hampshire, leading to victory in that state's primary last Tuesday. In addition, McCain and Lieberman are friends who admire each other personally. Nevertheless, Lieberman still votes the straight Democratic line in the Senate on nearly all issues except Iraq, and McCain's advisers feel Lieberman never would be accepted by the Republican Party.

A footnote: When Lieberman endorsed McCain, Democratic friends called his office seeking reassurance that he was endorsing McCain only for the Republican nomination and not actually the office of president. No, they were told, this was a real presidential endorsement.

If McCain is the Republican nominee, where should he go for a vice presidential pick? He'll need to stay away from the Senate -- which means a governor. He'll have to go with a traditional conservative rather than a maverick, to ally fears that he will continue to flaunt his 'independence.'

Some possible names: Haley Barbour, Mark Sanford, Tim Pawlenty...

Here's another candidate worth thinking about... Sarah Palin.

Iron My Shirts!

Hillary Clinton had an emotionally-charged day yesterday, coming to the verge of tears at one campaign stop, and later being subjected to sexist verbal abuse at another. The latter scene was so surreal, it seemed almost... staged. A number of bloggers expressed surprise that Ms. Clinton responded so quickly to maximize the political advantage of the moment. I shamefully admit that I was among those who suspected it might even have been staged by the Clinton campaign. I envisioned a scene a little like this:



Now it appears that the event was staged -- but not by the Clinton campaign. Of course, if the perpetrators were dressed as priests, they might have gotten away in the pandemonium afterwards.

Update: Confirmed -- a radio stunt.

Will George Bush Sink the GOP in 2008

Stu Rothenberg has a column on one of the key questions of the 2008 election. Projections of Democratic victories in 2008 rest on the assumption -- implicit or explicit -- that the GOP nominee will be badly damaged by the Bush legacy. Much of the Republican party's unpopularity and its weakness on key issues -- such as controlling spending -- lay with the perception that George Bush has not been effective on those issues.

When the GOP decides its nominee, that person will have no close association with the current president. He won't be the Vice President, or even a former cabinet official. Whoever the nominee is, he will differ from Bush on key policy matters. Thompson and Giuliani disagree with Bush on abortion and other social issues. Romney will contrast dramatically on management. McCain has differed with Bush on the war, taxes, campaign finance, and pork-barrel spending.

How much of Bush's unpopularity will transfer to the party's nominee? Rothenberg says:

Unfortunately, history isn’t much of a guide, since there is just a single case in the post-war era when the party of a retiring president did not nominate his vice president to succeed him. That happened in 1952, when Democrats chose Adlai Stevenson for president over Vice President Alben Barkley (Stevenson actually was outgoing President Harry Truman’s choice)...

But is it reasonable to believe that voters completely disregard past performance — a party’s past performance — when an unpopular president leaves office? Probably not.

After all, Democrats have plenty of tape of Bush making promises that were not kept and asserting truths that turned out not to be true. And they’ll be running against a party that has been defined for the past few years by its leader, the president of the United States. That means the Republican nominee for president will inevitably be the candidate of continuity rather than dramatic change, no matter how passionately he delivers a message of change.

It’s also true, however, that once the GOP has a presidential nominee, he will start to redefine the public’s image of the Republican Party. George W. Bush will seem less relevant, less important. But he will never disappear. That doesn’t doom the Republican nominee, but it puts him in a hole even before the race has begun.

Rothenberg is a very accomplished analyst, but I think he's flat out wrong here. While the Republican candidate for president will need to defend the party -- and thereby try to burnish parts of Bush's legacy -- he is going to have strong distinctions as well.

Plus, voters will consider the Republican nominee in comparison with the Democrat. And if that person is Hillary Clinton (as I have repeated at length), the Republican will be the candidate of change. Hillary has been in Washington for 14 years. She is taking credit for the achievements of her husband's presidency -- which makes her a de facto 8-year incumbent. Furthermore, the Republican will depict Hillary as the last link of a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton legacy of polarization. This will link Hillary not just to the failings of her husband's administration, but also those of his predecessor and follower. Republicans will ask whether the American people want more of the same, or a clean break.

There's also the fact that Hillary is increasingly becoming the not-so-proud owner of a terrible Senate legacy. She is arguably the most influential Democrat in the 110th Congress -- one that is establishing a record for lack of meaningful achievement. If she is the nominee, she will have to answer for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, as well.

Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain

A wholly non-partisan, unaffiliated, disinterested organization called Women's Voices, Women Vote wants to register and bring to the polls millions of single females who've not voted before. They don't care who you back, really. Come out and show your support for Ron Paul, or Chris Dodd, or Bill Richardson, or Mike Huckabee, or whoever! The important thing is that you vote!



Oh -- I just remembered -- if you want, sure -- you can vote for Hillary. I mean, it's sexist and all -- to suggest that just because you're a woman, you automatically must back the woman in the race -- but if you want to be old and cliched, you can definitely vote for Hillary.

I mean, it's whoever you want, really. Single women can vote for anyone they want -- even Hillary.

This message is brought to you by Women's Voices, Women Vote. And yes, our Board of Directors does include former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta, and our 'leadership team' does include former Hillary Clinton chief of staff Maggie Williams and former Clinton chief of legislative affairs Pat Griffin. But that doesn't mean we're backing Hillary -- not at all.

You know what? Vote Kucinich.

Hat Tip: NYT

Hillary Clinton: Wimp, Victim

Mickey Kaus has more on Senator Clinton's attempt to play the victim card:

It's never attractive for a frontrunner, male or female, to complain about "rough treatment," especially if it comes in the form of mere questioning--and Russert's illegal-license question was standard fare. Adding an implicit gender charge to the Hillary response didn't make it any better. (By attempting to get away with something--complaining--that male pols can't get away with, she arguably made it worse: a claim of special privilege.) ... In other words, Hillary's damned if she does complain. But she's not damned if she doesn't complain. Indeed, not complaining seems like an easy way to project toughness without being seen as "harsh and shrill."

Barack Obama has criticized Hillary effectively on this point:

In an interview with NBC, Obama scoffed at the New York Democrat's complaint that she was being forced to "compete in the all-boys club" of presidential politics, saying he would never use his race -- Obama is black -- to shield him from political attacks.

Obama's comments marked the first time that the undercurrent of identity politics has become an issue of open contention between the two trailblazing candidates.

"I am assuming and I hope that Sen. Clinton wants to be treated like everybody else," Obama said on the "Today" show.

Referring to debates where he has come under attack, Obama said, "I didn't come out and say, 'Look, I'm being hit on because I look different from the rest of the folks on the stage.' "

He could have been more pointed, but it's something.

Edwards' campaign has prepared a very effective ad:



As has the RNC:



And what is the immediate result of all this? Hillary has gained 5 points. I think that's likely to change, but we'll have to watch and see.

Krauthammer Gets it Right

Charles Krauthammer writes on the danger of Bill to Hillary's candidacy:

Any ex-president is a presence in his own right. His stature, unlike, say, Hillary's during Bill's presidency, is independent of his spouse. From day one of Hillary's inauguration, Bill will have had more experience than her at everything she touches. His influence on her presidency would necessarily be immeasurably greater than that of any father on any son.

Americans did not like the idea of a co-presidency when, at the 1980 Republican convention, Ronald Reagan briefly considered sharing the office with former President Gerald Ford. (Ford would have been vice president with independent powers.) And they won't like this co-presidency, particularly because the Clinton partnership involves two characters caught in the dynamic of a strained, strange marriage.

The cloud hovering over a Hillary presidency is not Bill padding around the White House in robe and slippers flipping thongs. It's President Clinton, in suit and tie, simply present in the White House when any decision is made. The degree of his involvement in that decision will inevitably become an issue. Do Americans really want a historically unique two-headed presidency constantly buffeted by the dynamics of a highly dysfunctional marriage?

As Hillary's candidacy unfolds, her rivals are certain to turn to this question. How would a Hillary presidency differ from that of Bill on policy? How much influence will he have? We've already seen a return of many of the same advisers who shaped the first Clinton presidency. Is Hillary going to get the band back together? If so, it will allow Republicans to delve into all the failings of Bill's presidency -- most notably on the war on terror. Hillary is not well-served by a close examination of how Bill failed to recognize the threat posed by Al Qaeda, and to take action against Osama bin Laden.

The media are also likely to examine the personal relationship and the personal behavior of Bill again. But Hillary will have to revisit some issues as well -- the health care task force, the firing of the White House travel office staff. And then there's fundraising -- which is a whole different topic.

I have a hard time imagining that Hillary's candidacy can survive if it is a referendum on a third Bill Clinton term. That's why Democrats will try to frame the election as a choice between a third Clinton term or a third Bush term. That's a choice Republicans seem likely to lose. But given their druthers, the American people would prefer a break from both former presidents. The challenge for the Republican candidate will be to present an attractive alternative.

By the way, it's a big problem for the Democrats that their candidates are apparently forbidden from airing this criticism during the primaries. Seeing how the American people respond to such attacks is clearly in the party's interest.

Also writing on this topic: Bits Blog, Dr. Sanity, Ann Althouse.

Hillary Clinton is a Wimp

Chris Cillizza today:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y) was under attack throughout Tuesday night's Democratic debate in Philadelphia, valiantly fighting off some of the hits landed by her opponents, but also getting knocked off her balance by a few. It's easy to get lost in the weeds of the various attacks and counterattacks, but the broader picture is almost always the more important one.

That broad picture: Six men regularly ganging up on the lone woman on the stage. As stated here before, Clinton's male competitors must be careful not to look as though they are bullying her during these forums. For what it's worth, the Clinton campaign did everything they could today to make that case, even posting a video on YouTube called "The Politics of Pile On."

Associated Press:

Hillary Rodham Clinton, the pinata of Tuesday's Democratic debate, is turning the tables on her rivals, accusing them of ganging up against her.

Taylor Marsh:

Clinton's opponents did everything to break Clinton down, including call her "unelectable." They insinuated she couldn't be trusted and was not fit for the presidency. Her opponents got personal, but the worst offender was someone who forget his job. Tim Russert's play last night was not only nakedly sexist, but showed his immaturity and lack of respect for any woman standing up to be commander in chief.

Jane Hamsher:

The hammering she took from her competitors last night in the debate is not available to her as a means of fighting back. The Mighty Wurlitzer would instantly seize the opportunity to cast her as “cold” and “hostile,” it would leap into the main stream media and that would be that. Her opponents took advantage of that fact. As scarecrow noted this morning, it wasn’t a particularly high water mark in the race.

Boo-frickin-hoo!

Senator Clinton, get ready for the backlash. You want to be leader of the free world, but can't handle criticism from Dennis Kucinich and Chris Dodd? It goes with the territory.

Does George Bush complain that everyone's all negative about him? Or do Hillary's backers imagine that people won't disagree with her when she's President?

And Hillary's campaign has already produced a video to feed the fire? Guess what: Americans don't want to elect a victim. We want to elect a leader. And if you can't stand the heat, just stay in the Senate.

John Edwards' next line about Hillary might go something like this:

I see that Senator Clinton is upset because now that she's leading in the polls, her rivals are starting to point out how often she's out of the mainstream with her party. Well, I'm sorry Senator, but this is a primary and not a coronation. And there's still free speech in this country.

Update: Fred Barnes captures this better than I can.

Charlie Cook: Hillary Is Grinding the Electorate Down

Political analyst Charlie Cook has an interesting take on Hillary:

The pattern from the polls is clear: Clinton never wins big, generally holding a lead of 2 to 8 points over Giuliani and 10 to 13 points over Romney. But her leads are consistent. She has a high floor and a low ceiling, like a stock with a fairly narrow trading range. She doesn't trail, but she doesn't ever blow the Republican opposition away, either.

What seems to be happening is that Hillary Clinton is not really becoming more likable, she is becoming less unacceptable. She doesn't seem to convert people so much as wear down their opposition to her...

Rather than wearing thin, Clinton seems to be wearing better. She has moved up impressively in the polls for both the nomination and the general election. Some suggested early on that voters would tire of her, but instead they almost seem resigned to her winning the Democratic nomination, and the early pattern in her general election polling seems to be following the same trajectory, at least for now.

The key thing, though, is that narrow trading range. Unless Clinton becomes dramatically less polarizing, which seems improbable, she is likely to maintain her slim but consistent advantage. But will it ever widen to the point where a misstep or a bit of misfortune wouldn't give her Republican opponent the lead? That's the key question. She seems to be putting the Democratic nomination away, but can she ever put the general election away? Or will she always have no better than a narrow lead in the polls, never quite beyond striking distance from her GOP rival?

I've written before about a session I was at where Mr. Cook argued that the importance of Hillary's high negatives were overblown. He argued that while 48 percent of Americans (or whatever) would never vote for Hillary, 45 percent would never vote for any Democrat -- it's just that they wouldn't say so. For that reason Cook said, her ceiling was only a little lower than that of other Democrats.

It seems safe to infer that Cook doesn't currently believe that Hillary's ceiling is below 50 percent -- the question which I think is suggested by the Rasmussen poll that many wrote on the other day. Rather, Cook seems to think that 3-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust Hillary can grind out a 51 percent win, or so.

We shall see.

Is Hillary Helped by the Attacks?

I don't expect to post on the Democratic debate last night. It seemed to me that Hillary was
a man among boys -- so to speak -- and that no one on the stage was able to hit the robo-candidate in a meaningful way. I was not able to hang around until the end, so I missed the exchange over driver's licenses for illegal aliens.

Democratic strategist Peter Fenn makes a valid point however, in a piece he wrote before the debate about the likely barrage of attacks against Hillary -- they might help:

As for the Democrats’ strategy of all going after Hillary, one has to wonder how smart this really is for them. It seems to me that if Obama or Edwards is going to win Iowa, they are going to have to take votes away from the other Democrats. Their likelihood of pulling votes away from Hillary with an all-out attack is pretty slim. And by being strictly attack dogs, they risk losing some of their own support — witness John Edwards’s latest standing in the Iowa polls. Plus, there is nothing unique or different about joining in on the gang-up against Clinton. One might argue that if she handles these attacks deftly, she may, in fact, be helped by the perception of unfair piling-on...

My guess is that Hillary as the piñata these next two months will actually strengthen her candidacy, not weaken it, and that “desperation Democrats” will be left by the wayside.

Fenn makes some important points -- notably that it helps no one to appear to be 'ganging up' on Hillary.

That said, I think that much of Hillary's support -- the part that clearly CAN be peeled away -- is due to a twin perception:

1. That her candidacy is inevitable; and,
2. That she is the most electable Democrat.
   

With that in mind, were I a rival of Hillary, I would attack her on not on policy, but on electability. I would argue that someone whose ceiling of support is so low, and whose association with the past so great, that she cannot win against a fresh-faced Republican in a change election. Further, I would try not to take on the attacks myself, I would try to get another candidate to act as proxy.

I'm sure that Joe Biden would like to be Secretary of State, Chris Dodd Secretary of the Treasury, and Bill Richardson Vice President. If you're Barack Obama or John Edwards, why not tell those candidates that the positions will be open in your administration -- to allies who've helped you get to the White House.

Such scenarios always work a lot better on paper than in real life, but if I wanted to beat Hillary for the Democratic nomination, that's the way I would go.

Update: Strong evidence from a leading liberal blog that the attacks on Hillary make her stronger:

If one of the cardinal rules of progressive politics is that you never repeat the talking points by which your opponents beat up on your own party, then what are we to think of last night’s Democratic debate, in which a principal tactic used by some of the non-Clintons was to repeat Republican talking points about Hillary Clinton?...

But the argument that Clinton in unelectable because her “negatives” are too high — that she’s so disliked Americans won’t vote for her — has always seemed one of those unproven Republican talking points that I suspect they only wish were true...

It seems silly to me that the Left would have a 'cardinal rule' which forbids candidates in a primary from dry-running the attacks that the nominee will likely face in the general. After all, if it's possible that Hillary is vulnerable to a criticism, wouldn't you like to know ahead of time? Still, if the Left wants to make sure that the nominee's first serious test comes in the general, when it's too late to change -- fine by me.

Regrettably for me, this post also suggests that attacking Hillary on electability -- the route I recommend for her Democratic challengers -- is the one most likely to increase her support.

Shows you what I know about liberal politics.

Is Hillary a Sure Loser?

Jim Geraghty has a significant post on Hillary's floor and ceiling:

Pollster Scott Rasmussen just shared this fascinating observation in an interview: When you average the head-to-head matchups with Hillary Clinton vs. any of the Republicans, she's always getting 46 to 49 percent against any of them.

"When we polled her against Ron Paul, she got 48 percent of the vote. When we polled on Ron Paul among people who knew who Ron Paul is, she got 48 percent of the vote. When we polled among people who didn’t know who Ron Paul is, she got 48 percent percent of the vote."

Paul got 38 percent against Hillary.

"In individual head-to-heads with Giuliani it's essentially a toss up, Thompson trails a little, but they’re all close," Rasmussen continued. "Clinton and Giuliani, in 11 polls, were within two points of 45 percent - basically ranging from 43 to 47 percent. It reminded me of Election 2004, where after Kerry won the nomination, for more than 60 days," Kerry and Bush remained quite close to each other.

"She’s becoming like the incumbent... Republicans are talking about Clinton a lot, partially because they would rather talk about her than the incumbent president, but also because now part of being a conservative is challenging Hillary Clinton."

The actual Rasmussen release on this point is here:

A look at the crosstabs demonstrates that it is attitudes towards Clinton that are driving the numbers in this polling match-up. Among all voters, Clinton attracts 48% support. Among the voters who have never heard of Ron Paul or don’t know enough to have an opinion, guess what. Clinton attracts the exact same total--48% of the vote. So whether or not people have heard of Ron Paul as the challenger, support for Clinton doesn’t change.

Among the 51% who have heard of Ron Paul but don’t have a Very Favorable opinion of him, Clinton attracts 49% of the vote...

So, outside of a small group of avid Ron Paul fans, support for Senator Clinton is unchanged whether or not the survey respondent has ever heard of Ron Paul.

Hillary has nearly universal name identification. Nearly every American has an opinion of her. And regardless of what Americans know or don't know about her potential opponents, a majority refuses to vote for her -- even against the weakest and most obscure candidate in the GOP field.

These are [ie, look like -- the Editor] the polls of an unpopular incumbent, destined to be defeated for re-election: name ID is huge, voters' opinions are set. When these are the last few polls that you see before election day, you recall that undecideds break against the incumbent by a huge margin. You conclude that it will take a miracle to pull through on election day.

You don't quite draw such a conclusion this far out of course; election day is simply too far off and too much can change. The Republican opponent could be savaged in advertising, so much that he is unelectable. There might be a 3rd party candidate who reduces the threshold for victory. It's even conceivable that you might be able to 'reintroduce' the candidate, and move some of the voters who seem so firmly against you. But a candidate forced to resort to one of these strategies is someone already in trouble.

I've said before that Hillary is the closest thing to a 'status quo' candidate there is among either Republicans or Democrats. In a change election, any Republican trumps her as the candidate of change. Now it's gotten so bad for her that she's starting to be viewed as almost the incumbent -- a terrible place to be when the electorate is looking for something different.

Hillary is starting to seem like the least electable Democrat.

Update: Donna Brazile thinks that the electability argument is the way to go after Hillary as well:

"I want to see if John Edwards will say to Hillary Clinton in front of everyone: 'You're not electable, and you know it, and you're going to hurt people down the ballot,' " said Brazile, who hasn't endorsed anyone. "It's time to stop whispering. It's getting to be midnight."

How Can Obama Take Down Hillary

Jim Geraghty and Quin Hillyer debate what Obama can do to cut into Hillary's poll lead. This is my proposal:

I've thought for a while that Hillary is VERY vulnerable in a general election. The mood is for change and she's been in DC for 35 years (her claim). Plus, I would hammer the 28 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton in the White House. Add to that her failure to excite the base, her tone-deafness on health care reform, fundraising scandals, and other issues. Then toss in the attacks that Republicans will bring on (Bill) Clinton's inattention to AQ, and the personal peccadilloes -- including Hillary's involvement in Whitewater, the White House travel office, all of that. I think she can be beaten badly.

Of course, Obama can't run that campaign. No Democrat could run it in the primary and win. But I think Edwards could say that while he knows there's nothing to this, the party faithful need to think about how she will get opened up like a soft-shelled peanut (Kerrey), by the GOP attack machine. If I were Obama, I would make a deal with Edwards that would turn him into an attack dog on electability. Obama would be the above-the-fray, electable alternative.

I don't know if it would work, but I think it's the only shot they have at taking Hillary down.

Thoughts?

Democrat Hypocrisy: Why Doesn't Hillary Fire Berger and Albright

Democrats have complained at length that President Bush hasn't fired people when things went wrong on their watch. Rumsfeld, Tenet, Michael Brown, and others were all allowed to remain at their posts when Harry Reid and Howard Dean felt they had failed the people and deserved to be fired.

Well, if that's the case, why is there so little attention to Hillary Clinton's having brought Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger back to choreograph her national security and anti-terror strategy? This is the team that turned a blind eye to the gathering storm of international terror, and left Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden more powerful than when Clinton took office.

And not only that, but Berger still has not answered questions about the destruction of classified material -- which cost him his security clearance:



Fund is absolutely right -- reporters should be asking Clinton why she relies for national security advice on a man who has no security clearance because he stole and destroyed classified documents.

And Democrats should be concerned that Obama and Edwards are refusing to hit Hillary with attacks she will get from Giuliani (or Romney, or Thompson) in the general election. Are Democrats getting ready to nominate a candidate with a glassjaw?

Thanks Walter, But no Thanks...

Earlier today Jim Geraghty looked at the endorsements some current candidates are getting that they would be better off without:

Door Number One: NARAL’s statement that electing Rudy Giuliani ‘would help’ their movement?

Door Number Two: The Log Cabin Republicans’ ad praising Mitt Romney’s ‘Massachusetts Values’?

Door Number Three: Mike Huckabee’s kudos from Andy Stern's Change to Win union group?

What, no formation of a 527 group called “Hollywood Elites for Fred Thompson”?

Who would have thought the next item on that list would come from the Democratic side?

Mondale to Endorse Clinton

Former Vice President Walter Mondale, the 1984 Democratic presidential nominee, is planning to endorse Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), The Hill has learned.

Mondale’s endorsement could prove especially valuable in Iowa, which borders his home state of Minnesota. Mondale won Iowa overwhelmingly in the ’84 primary.

Remember though, Walter Mondale's last foray into politics was his embarrassing loss to Norm Coleman in the 2002 Senate race in Minnesota -- a race he entered only after the death of Paul Wellstone. Running as a legacy candidate -- and as someone who agreed with just about everything Wellstone stood for -- few thought Mondale could lose -- but he did.

Further, doesn't this serve to reinforce the idea that Hillary is little more than a throwback, tax-raising, big-government-loving liberal in the mold of well, Walter Mondale? And is that a good thing, when it's starting to become clear -- more than a year before the election -- that today's Democratic party is beginning to look a lot like the Mondale/Dukakis party?

It’s obvious from watching congressional Democrats and the party’s presidential candidates that they have decided the political environment has changed dramatically since Bill Clinton told the country that the era of big government was over.

They are again offering spending programs and calling for measures that would lead to tax increases of the type that they began shying away from after the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress.

They changed their ways after 1994 for some time, of course, because voters had made clear that they thought government was doing too many things with too much tax money. It was that realization that led a contrite Clinton to make clear in his annual State of the Union address that he, and his party, understood.

But, clearly, times have changed. Democrats are not only offering up programs that would enlarge the reach of the federal government and collect more money from taxpayers, but they’re doing so enthusiastically, confident the American people are on their side.

It's nice of Hillary to bravely embrace the 1970s style liberalism.

Fred Thompson: Master of Detail

The dominant image that critics of Fred Thompson have noted and/or created is one of a half-hearted candidate, not particularly interested in the rigors of a presidential campaign. It's therefore worthy of note that the Annenberg Center's Factcheck.org gives him high grades for accuracy on the specific claims he made during the recent presidential debate.

Thompson: Just the Facts

Thompson stuck to the facts in his rookie outing. A number of his statements attracted our interest, but they all checked out.

Corporate Taxes 2nd Highest in the World: Thompson was correct when he said of the U.S., "We have the second highest corporate tax penalty in the world." According to a study produced by the global consulting firm KPMG, the U.S. top corporate tax rate of 40 percent is just slightly below Japan’s 40.6 percent. The United States is resisting a worldwide trend that has seen most nations reduce corporate taxes during the last decade. As of Jan. 1, 2007, the German rate was 38.36 percent; the Italian rate was 37.25 percent; and the Canadian rate was 36.1 percent. The average for the 30 major industrial democracies was 27.8 percent.

WMDs in Iraq: Thompson corrected moderator Chris Matthews, who wrongly implied that the former senator had said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction "right before" the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq:

Matthews: You made a statement a couple of days ago, I believe, that alluded to the fact you believed that there were such weapons [WMDs] in Iraq. Do you believe they were there right before we got in – they were moved out somewhere? ...

Thompson: No, I didn't say that. I was just stating what was obvious and that is that Saddam had had them prior. They used them against his own people – against the Kurds.

Thompson was correct. Matthews referred to remarks the senator made to about 60 persons in Newton, Iowa, last week. Both MSNBC and the Des Moines Register quoted him as saying, "We can’t forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had had WMD. He clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program..."

Economic Growth: Thompson erred – but on the safe side – when he said, "We're enjoying 22 quarters of successive economic growth." Actually, the U.S. economy has grown for 23 successive quarters, according to the most recent figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. And when preliminary figures on gross domestic product for July, August and September are released later this month, the official total is expected to reach 24.

Restraining Future Social Security Benefits: Thompson also was correct about the effect of restraining growth of Social Security benefits for future retirees:

Thompson: And then, lastly, one of the other things that could be done would be to index benefits to inflation. Index benefit to inflation for future retirees. It would not affect current or near retirement people. [It] would be indexed to inflation instead of wages, as it is today. And it would solve the problem for several years; it wouldn't solve it indefinitely, but it would give us a window of opportunity to get our arms around the problem. It would be a major step in the right direction.

The Social Security actuaries calculate that it would require a tax increase of 1.95 percent of taxable payroll to pay benefits promised under current benefit formulas for the next 75 years. But most of that "actuarial imbalance" would disappear under various proposals to peg benefits of future retirees to inflation rather than to wage growth. One form of so-called "progressive" indexing would allow future retirement benefits for the lowest 40 percent of wage earners to keep growing under the current formula, which is pegged to wage growth, but slow down the growth of benefits for higher-income workers retiring after 2012 according to a sliding scale. Benefits for those at the very top would rise only enough to keep pace with inflation. Actuaries calculated that this would remove 1.21 percentage points from the 1.95 percent actuarial imbalance...

Playing devil's advocate, I could point out that it doesn't actually require a lot of intellectual heft to memorize three or four talking points. A critic might suggest that's what Thompson has done here.

But his point about Social Security -- as well as comments he's made on the program in other venues as well -- demonstrates an interest in it, and a depth of understanding that speak well of him.

They also contrast with the other candidate I like in this race -- Mayor Giuliani. In particular, I am disappointed that he has apparently been misattributing a quote to Senator Clinton that she hasn't said:

Misquoting Hillary: Giuliani wrongly attributed a quote to Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton, and he got the quote wrong as well:

Giuliani: And the leading Democratic candidate once said that the unfettered free market is the most destructive force in modern America.

Sen. Clinton, the "leading" candidate in public opinion polls, never said that. The quote is by Alan Ehrenhalt, author and executive editor of Governing magazine. Furthermore, Ehrenhalt didn't call the free market "destructive" but used the somewhat softer term "radically disruptive."

I'd prefer if she said the free market was destructive; to say it's extremely disruptive is merely accurate. Joseph Schumpeter coined the term 'creative destruction' to describe the dynamic process of eliminating outdated and inefficient economic arrangements in favor of ones that serve consumers better. I'm disappointed at the suggestion that Hillary understands this.

Oh well.

Hillary's Arrogant Foreign Policy

Read it at the Standard.

The Real Hillary Clinton

McQ takes a look at her -- and the view is not pretty.

More importantly, it indicates that Ms. Clinton's paranoia is still alive and well. Now obviously everyone is somewhat paranoid and to some degree I'm sure that's healthy. And politicians should probably be granted a little slack on that anyway because there are certainly people out to get them. But Ms. Clinton, of VRWC fame, is more than just a little paranoid.

And, if the rumors are true, she's really more like what we saw in this little incident than the public persona she's trying to project during the campaign. Don't you love it when a politician is out asking for your vote, and then when you ask an honest question, your integrity is questioned and your premise is declared "wrong".

Netroots Nightmare: O'Hanlon Teams Up with HRC

Read it at the Standard.

Draft Gore

A bunch of Californians have apparently gotten together to try to put Al Gore on the California presidential primary ballot.

While liberals often seem to be down on the United States, it's clear at least that these are 'American exceptionalists.' The slogan is 'Save America; Save the World' -- which almost reminds you of Lincoln's 'last, best hope' line.

Here's the site frontpage:
















I said a while ago that if Hillary developed a strong lead and appeared inevitable, there would be more clamoring for a 'real liberal' like Al Gore to run. Looks like we are seeing that here.

The liberal site Raw Story says:

Capitalizing on a provision of the state election law which allows for any name to be placed on a ballot provided enough signatures in favor of that candidate are secured, volunteers will begin scrambling next week to get 26,500 registered Democrats -- 500 from each of California's 53 congressional districts -- to sign off on the former vice president before a Dec. 4 deadline.

If all goes well, Gore's name will appear on ballots throughout the state when California's presidential primary is held in February of next year.

It would certainly make the race more entertaining. Get to work, Californians!

By the way, like the theft from 'Heroes?'

Hillary's Plan: We Claim We Want to Cover Kids...

Then Institute Full-Blown Government-Run Health Care:

Capitol Hill is abuzz today as a result of revelation of a 1993 Hillarycare task force memo that describes the Kids First proposal that is clearly the model for the current State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) as a "precursor" to a universal coverage, single-payer system - i.e. socialized healthcare.

Politico has an excellent report this morning on the development, noting that:

"And one of the key options was creating a state-run health plan for children who didn’t qualify for Medicaid but were uninsured.
"That idea sounds a lot like the current State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which was eventually created by the Republican Congress in 1997.

“'Under this approach, health care reform is phased in by population, beginning with children,' the memo says. 'Kids First is really a precursor to the new system. It is intended to be freestanding and administratively simple, with states given broad flexibility in its design so that it can be easily folded into existing/future program structures.'”

I'm shocked... SHOCKED! that HillaryCare represented nothing more than the camel's nose under the tent!