The worst of the worst is Sen Evan Bayh of Indiana. His stinginess deserves a special award.

I think it is easy to overstate the amount of money sitting around in Leadership PACs. Here are the Q2 2006 totals. There's really not a huge amount of money sitting around. Warner will probably spend a lot of his money electing web and challenging Frank Wolf and Thelma Drake.

Now, Bayh, Biden, Dodd, and HRC are sitting on their Senate warchests, but they can't realistically spend to zero. I do think Bayh has been particulary stingy—he's sitting on $10M with no real threat of losing ... ever. And Hillary could perhaps be a bit more generous since she can raise money hand over fist. But there's not a ton to complain about, as long as members are meeting their fundraising dues.

I'd like to know what Joe Lieberman is doing for Democratic House candidates.

If Democrats win this cycle the chances of the various 2008 candidates are enhanced. Working for candidates now means more money in the system later. It also means you have earned friendships that will be invaluable in a run for President. Folks might be surprised when Kerry emerges as the candidate of the elected Democrats because of all the chits he is earning now.

Ron Byers

I see Kerry, Edwards, Clark and Murtha everywhere. And despite favoring Edwards, and dismayed by Kerry's one significant gaffe (slow response to Swiftboaters), I would not be at all upset with him as the nominee in 2008.

He won every debate and outpolled - in total voters - Clinton's two races, Gore's and Dukakis' and was the first Dem to outpoll Reagan's record showing.

I'll take Edwards, Kerry or Dean over Hilary, whose candidacy would have me considering a Third Party choice.

Kevin Hayden

Who would expect the Democrats (who fiddled while Bush conned the country into a war in Iraq and while our right to habeas corpus is being ceded to the moron-in-chief) to do anything right now?

Tom

That's true of at least Clark and Kerry as well, I believe.

Get real. Hillary is far better than Bush, and a third party vote is just a vote for the GOP, just like a vote for Nader was the same as not voting and then complaining about Bush for the last 6 years.

Sorry that table didn't post more clearly.

Other than all of these FEC reports, we can also 1) ask Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC to publicize how much these guys have raised and given to House candidates, 2) ask them directly how much they've raised and given.

If enough bloggers/netroots denizens make it clear that the amount of Congressional fundraising done by 2008 presidential candidates will be an issue for the Dem primaries, I think some additional disbursements will quickly be forthcoming.

With Mark Warner out of the race, I, for one, am looking for a new candidate to support. Give me a reason, folks.

If it's true that 10 or 20 grand would help win a seat, than it's really inexusable for Hillary or Bayh or anyone else to sit on an 08 war chest while seats slip by in 06.

Hopefully, primary voters will remember this a couple years from now. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I took it back, but I just don't think it's productive to sit around and complain. I'm certainly outraged!

I recall reading in the last 3-4 days that HRC has cut her stash from $22 million to about $15 million, but can't find a reference to this. This news article says she has given $2 million to the DSCC. This one gives a bit more detail, and also refers to the DCCC.

I put together the following list of candidates that I think the online netroots community should support in these final three weeks before the election, based on two criteria:

1) the closeness of the race in public polls, and

2) the relatively low financial stakes of the contest (thereby making it a lot easier to influence the race with a pool of relatively small individual donations).

The following races feature candidates with less than $500,000 combined in cash on hand, listed from least combined cash on hand to most. For each candidate, I list cash raised this quarter and then cash on hand, and at the end I put in parentheses the total cash on hand for both candidates and the latest poll result from TPM Election Central:

1) CO-05:
Dem Jay Fawcett: $146,657; $106,317
GOPer Doug Lamborn: $286,214; $92,706 ($199,023, poll 37%-37%)

2) FL-13:
GOPer Vern Buchanan: $1,124,647; $134,533
Dem Christine Jennings: $429,921; $65,431 ($199,464, poll 44%-47%)

3) OH-18:
GOPer Joy Padgett: $504,978; $256,487
Dem Zack Space: $419,283; $146,678 ($403,165, poll 41%-48%)

4) NV-02:
GOPer Dean Heller: $383,766; $279,655
Dem Jill Derby: $340,849; $183,635 ($436,290, poll 45%-42%)

5) WI-08:
GOPer John Gard: $186,282; $284,884
Dem Steve Kagen: $381,665; $160,432 ($445,316, poll 46%-48%)

6) OH-02:
Dem Victorai Wulsin: $376,337; $263,471
GOP Rep. Jean Schmidt: $332,863; $224,358 ($487,829, poll 48%-45%)

Note that most of the races are within a few points according to the most recent poll.

Any interest in spreading the word and making this group the six candidates that the Netroots will support in the final 21 days leading up to November 7???

(Not to mention that if one Dem 2008 presidential candidate spread $1M around these 6 candidates, it would likely have a huge effect!)

Try this information on for size which was posted at dailykos by Casey Morris:

Let's correct the record once and for all...

Here's what Kerry has done in this election cycle. It's all in the Q2 FEC reports.

John Kerry has given or raised over 10 million dollars for Democratic candidates and committees since November 2004. John Kerry is aggressively fundraising for Democratic candidates on 2006 – making direct contributions to campaigns, attending and hosting events in the states, emailing his 3 million person list of supporters on behalf of candidates and raising money for state parties, the DNC, DSCC and DCCC.

Through over 215K individual direct and online contributions, John Kerry has raised over $13.5 million through his leadership committees since November 2004. Of that, Kerry has given away over $10 million to Democratic candidates and committees across the country.

Kerry has financially supported 179 candidates for House, Senate and state and local offices and committees in 42 states. Kerry has personally traveled to 24 states to appear with candidates and rally support at the grassroots. Kerry has made over 80 trips across the country to support Democratic candidates this cycle.

Kerry gave $1 million to the Democratic National Committee and raised an additional $250,000 for the DNC online. Kerry also gave $1 million to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and $500,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Kerry contributed $50,000 to the Louisiana State Party and gave $250,000 to the Washington State Democratic Party which helped finance a recount when the Republican party challenged the win of Gov. Christine Gregoire in 2005.

Kerry through the johnkerry.com community has raised over 100K each for 8 candidates, including Cantwell, Bill Nelson, Byrd, Duckworth, Sherrod Brown, Ford, McCaskill, and Klobuchar.

Kerry ended Q2 with over 14.3 million dollars total cash on hand.

Below is a rundown of Kerry’s support of Democratic candidates (as of 8.30.06):

$2,389,449 for 18 candidates for US Senate – 11 incumbents, 7 challengers.

$1,048,333 for 78 candidates for US House – 40 incumbents, 38 challengers.

$311,691 for 11 candidates for Governor – 6 incumbents, 5 challengers.

$124,250 for 31 candidates for state and local races.

$6,041,161 for 41 committees – includes state parties and state legislatures the DNC, DCCC and DSCC and the MA AFL-CIO.

Breakdown Keeping America’s Promise/ Friends of John Kerry:

Keeping America's Promise helped to raise $4,965,217 for candidates, committees and causes:

$3,302,400 through 67 events for 10 federal candidates, 6 non-federal, 9 committees and causes
$1,662,817 direct marketing fundraising for ­­29 fed candidates & 1non-fed

Keeping America's Promise contributed $275,803 to candidates, committees and causes

154,550 to 118 candidates
$101,400 to 82 federal candidates
$53,150 to 36 non-federal candidates
121,253 to 22 committees and causes

Friends of John Kerry helped to raise $1,853,565 for candidates, committees and causes

$440,357 in direct marketing fundraising to 19 federal candidates, 6 non
$313,208 in direct marketing fundraising to 8 committees
$1,100,000 in direct marketing fundraising to causes (Red Cross & USO)
----------

That's just through August 30, 2006.

Now that we have the facts, can we move this along now? Enough with the circular firing squad. Other Democrats are not the enemy.

I'll take Edwards, Kerry or Dean over Hilary, whose candidacy would have me considering a Third Party choice.

Agree on preferring the first 3. based on their electability . It's academic whether she's qualified for the job to which she  can't get elected . Joe Lunchpail will vote against her. Maybe Mrs. L as well.

Disagree that her candidacy is a reason to repeat the Nader caper.Nothing is.

Isn't there something wrong with the process when all people look at is how much money is available to spend on elections? Have we given up even a pretext of choosing people because of their positions on the issues?

Does $$$ = votes now?

PS. Take a look at how much money Schumer has in his war chest and he isn't even running for anything. The whole system stinks...

--- Policies not Politics
          Daily Landscape

Hasn't there always been some sort of arraingement that if you wanted to win the party's nomination, you had to fundraise for other canidates to get their endorsement and ground troops?

This seems as obvious as anything, the GOP has been winning not because of TV but GOTV.

I see Kerry, Edwards, Clark and Murtha everywhere. And despite favoring Edwards, and dismayed by Kerry's one significant gaffe (slow response to Swiftboaters), I would not be at all upset with him as the nominee in 2008.

He won every debate and outpolled - in total voters - Clinton's two races, Gore's and Dukakis' and was the first Dem to outpoll Reagan's record showing.

Folks in Iowa like Obama, they are turning out in the thousands for him. Edwards is not having the same crowd appeal, but make no mistake he is working hard and establishing himself with different groups. Iowans are encouraging Obama to run.

Given the early date set for the NJ primary, and HRC's position at one end of NJ, I'd think it would be both good politics as well as a great help to the party for her to help directly in the eastern PA House races where there are real chances to pick up seats that can stay Democratic for quite a long time.

Maybe someone mentioned this already, but Hillary emptied her war chest of $9 MILLION to Senate and House candidates this quarter:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/10/hillary_clinton_2.html

-- Bruno and The Professor: Dynamic Talk Radio

Hillary didn't quite empty her war chest... per Hotline "As she stepped up her campaign activity and lent several of her fundraisers to other Democrats, she took in $3.8 million. Her cash on hand dropped from $22M to $15M, the result of the transfers, heavy spending on television ads and the cost of her campaign apparatus."

J. McCutchen

I'd like to plug CA-11

Richard Pombo is a toxic waste dump, a Love Canal, an Alaxkan Oil Spill class disaster for the environment.

McNerney his D opponent has recently moved into a slight MOE lead 48-46 after trailing by double digit margins for most of the year. He's begun to attract funds and has a strong GOTV contingent from NoCali Envrionmental Groups. Money could make a real difference here..

3d Q Report

- Jerry McNerney raised $714,552, spent $542,326 and had $323,798 on hand with $154,296 of debt.

- Richard Pombo raised $938,573, spent $738,133, and had $1,139,535 on hand with $90,904 in debt.

J. McCutchen

Charles Cook related a confernce call in which James Carville suggested that the DNC take out a 5,000,000 loan and put money in the next 20-30 most competitive races.

Cook would go for 10 Million and give 500K to 20 second tier most deserving.

The GOP $$ edge shuuldn't be as signficant this year, ditto their 72 Hour GOTV, but they're dropping hundreds of thousands into House and Senate races for major negative ad buys and candidates who cannot afford to respond, are likely to suffer

Then there's always a heavy hitter fold on strength poker game. The Wire's Mayor Royce recommends for last weeks "walkarond money"

My wife took me to see Al Franken in Santa Rosa for our anniversary. He suggested that since we have "safe" seats here in California, we should send money to tight races in other states. In general, I don't like mucking in other states' affairs. And I got really angry with McCain when he appeared in TV ads supporting our sad Governor's special election measures.

But maybe it's the right thing to do this time. It seems like there's a lot more at stake.

"Now that we have the facts, can we move this along now?"

Sure, if you can explain why Kerry is maintaining such a large kitty of Cash on Hand for his own '08 race rather than using it for the Party in '06.

And sure, if you can explain why Kerry heisted $15m from the '04 Presidential campaign rather than using it to beat George Bush.

"If it's true that 10 or 20 grand would help win a seat, than it's really inexusable for Hillary or Bayh or anyone else to sit on an 08 war chest while seats slip by in 06."

Hillary, Bayh, and Kerry will all exit the '06 elections with more than $10m lying unspent in their bank accounts.

Inexcusable? You bet.

"Hopefully, primary voters will remember this a couple years from now."

Maybe, maybe not. Note all the unchallenged Kerry spam on this thread trying to make excuses for his hoarding.

Yeah why was it Kerry didn't spend that cash on Florida again? I missed that explanation.

Wasn't Kerry's campaign slogan "Born To Lose"?

Hillary hasn't given a fraction of what Kerry has, and she has MUCH more money than he does. When Hillary has matched Kerry's donations of $13 million to candidates, THEN you can start questioning him. But the pressure needs to be on Hillary who has even greedily fundraised FOR HERSELF in other states like Washington -- why didn't she raise money for Maria Cantwell instead? I am just very disappointed with the Clintons -- why is it always about them instead of our team -- the Democratic Party?

Wes Clark has chosen to have donations go directly to candidates through his Act Blue page rather than take the money in and dole it out.

He also takes a dim view of 2008 candidates who fund raise for themselves before November 7th. A friend of mine overhead him say, they are "doing a disservice" to the people running in 2006.

As for boots on the ground, I doubt any 2008 aspirant can beat Clark in that area. And, may I say, all this while earning a living. No traveling around the country on the taxpayers' dime, for him.

He truly is the most selfless Dem out there....probably, in part, because he is not a career politician.

;)

"Nothing is more American; nothing is more patriotic; than speaking out, questioning authority and holding your leaders accountable."....Wes Clark

Kerry has GIVEN $13 million to candidates, far more than Edwards or even Hillary. From the above list, he has an additional $13 million on hand. There's no way you're going to get away with that comment, and act like Edwards has given more. The facts aren't there to support your notion.

Yeah, Clark and others were sticking their necks out for longshot candidates long before there were 60 competitive races in this cycle.

It seems like everyone is encouraging Obama to run.

I know he's dismissed talk of running in 08 . . .

In Davenport a local reporter asks the question directly: "Are you running for President in 2008?" Obama surprises me by saying he's just thinking about the 2006 election right now, which, in the semiotic dance of presidential politics, is definitely not a no. A few days later, I ask Obama the obvious follow-up question: Will he think about running for President in 2008 when the congressional election is over? "When the election is over and my book tour is done, I will think about how I can be most useful to the country and how I can reconcile that with being a good dad and a good husband," he says carefully, and then adds, "I haven't completely decided or unraveled that puzzle yet."

Pelosi has said there will be no impeachment hearings. That would just let Republican Senators and Congressmen off the hook for their lack of oversight over the last 6 years.

Kerry's been phenomenal and has been consistently so during the previous cycle as well. He'll be in Michigan today raising money for democratic candidates here (I'm not back in RI until after the winter holidays as my daughter wanted me with her after her dad passed away).

I don't think using a mailing list from a previous cammpaign is something that should be looked down upon.. the DNC maintains such a list.. the whinging on about that smacks of sour grapes.

At any rate, Kerry has maintained my support and quite honestly, as he hasn't lowered himself by kowtowing to Markos of DK trolling, that adds further to his cred in my not so humble estimation.

Some Republicans really seem worried about hearings and investigations, all of which might lead some to think that they are necessary.

Regardless, you probably know the old theory about incumbents and their advantages. The advantages to winning the 06 mid terms, while looking towards 08, are no doubt higher than losing for the Democrats.

And that has probably crossed Mr. Rove's overworked mind...

"...it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship." GWB, 6/29/06

I'm saying that the Oct. 2 AP article is misleading. He may have looked like a longshot earlier in the cycle, but he didn't by then!

I write to dispel the "conventional wisdom" Josh Marshall posted on his site:

The more important point is that astute strategists will feel at best ambivalent about a dem takeover of congress knowing that chances for a dem to reach the whitehouse with the same party ensconsed in congress is reduced to say the least. Smart hopefuls will write moderate chaecks, show up for campaign events and pray that the reps still manage, with late inning disingenuousness, to squeak by and retain their majorities. In that scenario, the dem primary would probably will almost assuredly produce our next commander and chief.

This just is typical "circular firing-squad" logic. The conventional wisdom for some Dems has to be "let the Republicansrun America into the ground for another 2 years and I'll ride into the WH in 20008." But is that really true?

Remember that the Republican candidate in 2008 will very probably be McCain and he will run as a total OUTSIDER, against both Bush and the Republican Congress (once he gets the nomination that is).

His message will be that "it's a new day and a clean broom." He'll be supported by most of the media which will suddenly discover that they love "bi-partisanship" now that Democrats are in a position to fight back, i.e. it's o.k. for Republicans to fight dirty and do outrageous things to hold onto power, but not Dems.

The election that Democrats want to be a referrendm on the Bush years won't be, any more than there was any payback for the Repubicans' impeachment efforts. It will all be "There's no point in arguing about how we got to this point, it's all Bush's fault, but he's gone, we need to focus on what are we going to do now."

Meanwhile McCain is going to run against the Democrats in Congress, whether they are in control or not.

So, if the Dems take control of Congress it will be no disadvantage they wouldn't have anyway, and if they lose it will simply mean 2 more years of Bush running the country further into the ground.

Probably the Democrats would be best advised to run a Western or Mid-western Governor rather than any Senator.

Just because it's easy to see that the Republicans will attack the Democratic controlled congress, no matter what it does, it's tougher to see that they will ANYWAY even if the Dem's AREN'T in control.

If the Dems manage to lose the mantra will be "Dems can't run anything. They're pusillanimous and weak, why would you trust them with running the country."

Right, Edwards even pays for the plane ticket, rental car and hotel all himself. He's just there to lend his star power. During one visit with Webb, he raised $65,000. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116035088278886311-PG2T_G1GMvCy_DsPeJyR0tU1CwU_20071008.html?mod=blogs

The uniqueness of what Edwards is doing was profiled in The National Journal in July.

"Edwards has rejected the age-old practice of pouring political action committee cash into early battleground states of the presidential caucus and primary season. Instead, the former Senator is mostly spending his money on trying to help other candidates and party committees raise cash, jetting around the nation to try to draw attention to those campaigns -- and, in the process, draw attention to himself."

"Aides to Edwards said this approach is far more beneficial to candidates and state and local committees than simply cutting a $5,000 or $10,000 check from One America’s downtown Washington, D.C., headquarters.">

 Unfortunately it's subscriber only, but the highlights are at: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/7/25/75229/4154 and http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/03/30/edwards_tries_different_approach.html

Obama is indeed a rock star, and I'm thrilled with him being one of our party's best surrogates. However, he is not ready for the presidency

I think he is ready. If George W. Bush can serve 2 terms as governor and have the most incompetent, corrupt and totally dysfunctional administration in the history of America....then Obama is more than ready.

I strongly believe we need someone with impeccable foreign policy credentials to be our commander in chief

I do not beleive this is essential. and may in fact be a hindrance. A America's reputation abroad is not going to be restored by electing a politician in who is beholden to corporate interests. What America needs is an intelligent leader with the capacity to not only reason but who has the leadership skills to build consensus, that is the issue here.  Who do you think, would fit your 'impeccable foreign policy credentials'?

I hope that Obama will continue to gain experience, and some day run for president, but '08 is too early.

America needs bright new and bold leadership. Obama's time is now. There is a reason he is drawing massive crowds. Americans are hungering for a leader to take us out of this polarized morass and Obama speaks to that need..  He  represents the precise democratic priniciples and ideals this country stands for.  His face abroad, his consumate diplomacy and track record of success is a liiving embodiment of what America is and the world will recognize that. 

Obama is the face of America in the new millieneum...he is the Anerican child that the Civil War and Civil Rights era has melded to move this country forward on a different path.  He represents what America wants to achieve globally and he knows how to articulate the angst of those differences and bring disparate thoughts, experiences and aspirations together as a viable force for progress.

Those who look for the same ol things in leadership are missing the boat. The era for those criteria is gone.  The generations who lead us to this point have no idea how to get this country back on track, it is their ideas which brought us to this point in history.  America has to move forward and change in leadership style,thinking and willingness to blaze a new path is needed. The baby boomer generation had their chance.  We had Clinton and Bush. 

 It is time to think progressively when it comes to leadership. No more Vietnam era leaders. We need leaders who understand the world we live in today, who understand that the military is voluntary, who understand that the thinking which brought us to this point will not carry us out of it. 

Obama is ready. He's only going to get less ready by taking more votes that can be misconstrued in the future and making more speeches in the Senate.

I agree. He understands how this country is not working politically. He does not need to get bogged down in the quagmire of paritsianship that has created the state of polarization and moral morass that threatens to destroy our democracy.

Here is how he phrases it in his book Audacity of Hope:Thoughts on Reclaiming America:

In the world’s greatest deliberative body, no body is listening.”

There are many problems facing this nation including health care, social security, and national security among others. Obama speaks of these problems, as they need to be addressed not by partisan politics but by engaging in positive debate and through compromise.

He takes to task the so-called “compassionate conservativism” of George W. Bush and calls it what it is: absolutism. The current administration has the mind-set of you are with us or against us repeated in countless speeches. This absolutism extends to other Republican leaders such as Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay as well as the Christian right who he says is trying to “march toward the New Jerusalem.”

But he does not just stop at criticizing the Republican leadership as he says, Democrats are “confused” and “become the party of reaction” in light of the conservatives stronghold on all three branches of government and Democrats inability to combat it.

“In reaction to a war that is ill conceived, we appear suspicious of all military action. In reaction to those who proclaim the market can cure all ills, we resist efforts to use market principles to tackle pressing problems. In reaction to religious overreach, we equate tolerance with secularism, and forfeit the moral language that would help infuse our policies with a larger meaning. We lose elections and hope for the courts to foil Republican plans. We lose the courts and wait for a White House scandal.”

For those who clamor for 'more experience and foreign policy expertise...I say;  how has it come to waiting for the scandal to break in our favor; instead of being proactive from the beginning we have been a party that has reacted to Republican advances and rhetoric.  McCain exemplifies this as well. He embraces Bush despite having been a POW. 

Barack also  states, “I am convinced that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose.”

The paradigm has shifted in terms of world  and American politics... Obama is the only one talking about taking America on a new course and who has the intelligence to explain to the American public what they are experiencing, why it is not working and most importantly how we can move forward. 

Obama has such charisma that he will meet with all those Talking Radio heads and go on all their shows and talk to their audience...he will find common ground with that sector of the electorate. Obama will also go to those evangelical churches and stand next to Dobson, Falwell and those other 'white religious leaders' and address their congregations on faith ...they TOO will find they can meet Obama where he is at on faith.  Obama is awesome, he has no preconceived boundaries about religion, race, ethnicity or immigration. His bkgrd is melding of all those things and that is why he is drawing thousands. He speaks to the hearts of Americans across the spectrum of Americana.

Obama gains nothing by spending more time in the Senate, as he said...no body there is listening, anyway. 

I think Colleen Rawley needs to be on your list Ohiomeister.

She is the FBI agent who was the whistleblower for 911 Zacarria pilot training in MN that was not listened to.

She has refused to pander to get campaign donations, is so straight forward it makes you think you are sitting in the backyard listening to a family member, she doesn't dress up and is not PC in her language. She is just an everyday person trying hard to change the system. She will be a good person to elect in terms of principled representation, she is not necessarily a consensus builder but we need people who stand on principle. More people like that would have kept us out of Iraq. 

Pelosi has said there will be no impeachment hearings.

Ha! That is one of the great things about being female...they have no problems changing their mind based on the facts at hand. Unlike the male psyche, change does not represent defeat or indecision. Females understand that it represents cogent analysis and discernment. Rangel and Conyers will both see to their being impeachement hearings in the House for sure.

His only prayer to win the Dem nomination is to raise a ton of money and be the centrist/common sense candidate. He's going to need every penny to compete.

Still, he could give some money to moderate candidates, esp. around IA/NH/NV/SC, whose endorsements could come in mighty handy in the future.

Other parties litigated the Ohio results and lost. I don't think it would have made any difference if Kerry didn't concede, other than wasting a lot of money. The end result would have been the same. Gore fought to the end in Florida, as he should have, but in the end, that didn't do any good either.

Hillary would be tons better than any GOP candidate in 2008, certainly far better than torturee to torture apologizer John McCain or Mitt (I was pro-choice before I was pro-life) Romney, their top two candidates.

Plus, she has one essential trait -- a willingness to hit back and hit back hard. Did you see what her people did to McCain over his N. Korea comments? It's in Maureen Dowd's column.

Privately, Hillary’s camp was not overly upset by the McCain swipe because it suspected he was doing the bidding of the White House and that he ended up, as one adviser put it, “looking similar to the way he did on those captive tapes from Hanoi, where he recited the names of his crew mates.”

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/14/opinion/14dowd.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists

Ouch!!! That's a Rove-level put-down. Take his strengths (honorable, served, POW) and turn them against him. And we're a full two years from the election! They aren't going to back down, they aren't going to be afraid, they are going to be vicious and they are going to go for the jugular, and that's definitely a highly necessary trait in presidential politics that has been lacking in the last two Dem nominees.

Clinton's people later apologized and disavowed the comment, but they got it out there. I doubt McCain will be challenging Clinton's foreign policy directly without thinking long and hard the next time.

How much Cash on Hand and what are the latest public polls?

I'm not choosing on substance, purely on affordability and close polls. Lots of great candidates out there that deserve support!

Good man. If he demurs during the election campaign he undermines his drawcard appeal at fundraisers and campaign stops. So whether he runs or not, I want him to not rule it out for the next three weeks.

I can appreciate your sentiment about letting others decide their own elections, but a) the other side won't be doing that. Republican donors will happily cross state lines, and big corporations will give to anyone they think will help them out regardless of location. and b) Perhaps your own district is decided but there are close races in CA, look into Charlie Brown in the CA 4th and Jerry McNerney in the CA 11th as ways to help effect national change at a relatively local level.

Typical Democratic weasel actions, then. Too timid to either have an impeachment or not have one, so they'll have a gutless half-impeachment. "I voted for impeachment before I voted against it."

If you shoot at the king, you better kill him.

I gave your comment low ratings not out of political disagreement but b/c you are simply wrong on the facts. There isn't going to be any impeachment, barring the discovery of another Watergate-level crime.

How many times does Nancy Pelosi have to tell you? It would be pointless anyway b/c not enough people would vote to impeach when it came down to it.

Typical Democratic weasel actions, then. Too timid to either have an impeachment or not have one, so they'll have a gutless half-impeachment. "I voted for impeachment before I voted against it."

I understand that GOP supporters do not beleive in due process under the law...which is why Bush just signed away the right to habeas corpus.  Maybe, when some of them are arrested and detained they will understand the importance of due process. Which demands evidence before you detain a person inperpetuity by classifying them as an 'enemy combatant'.  I guess you know that law pertains to USA citizens not just foreigners, right?

The biggest liberal 'weasel' in the world is a GOP law and order/social conservative who has just been arrested.

The counter attack on McCain was perfectly positioned, his mental stability is his weak spot.

I suppose Hillary has sharpened her talents for hitting below the belt by years of practicing on Bill. But the way she cut McCain off was a masterpiece.

Kerry knew for 30 years that the Swiftboaters would come after him, that's an old running feud. But he wasn't prepared for it. If he'd responded the way Hillary did to McCain, he'd be in the WH today, in fact he'd deserve to be there if he'd been half the "man" Hillary is.

It isn't possible to be "wrong on the facts" when discussing a possible future event. Your rationalization is incorrect, and while I am not in agreement with the OP's posts your downrating is not justified.

sPh

I suppose Hillary has sharpened her talents for hitting below the belt by years of practicing on Bill. But the way she cut McCain off was a masterpiece.

Nah. It is one of her strategic strengths. She was the one who told Bill in his first presidential campaign that he had to rebut those rumors about his womanizing or folks would think they were true. She is the one who told Bill, 'strong and wrong beats weak and right'.  Folks underestimate Hiliary.  Bill has always said she is more methodoical and organized than he is.  I was happy to hear Hilliary cut McCain off.

McCain, deserved that type of response as well, after voting for the torture bill...the rebuttal served a dual purpose...to remind folks not only was he tortured and voted for it, but that much of what he says nowadays has just as much credibility as those Hanoi tapes.

awesome move!

Nevertheless, I think the impending impeachment hearings under the nutty John Conyers are a disaster on nearly evety level

There is nothing nutty about Conyers, he is executing the rights of the citizernry under the Consitution by exercising the accountability  the Congress is required to exert under the Constitutional 3 branch  system of this democracy. Guilty people always find it disasterous to be investigated.

They cannot succeed (they will never get 67 Senate votes) and if they did, of course, they would simply elevate Dick Cheney to the presidency

Yes. They can succeed in restoring faith in our democracy and letting all presidential aspirants know that decieving Congress and sending American citizens to fight in unjustified wars will not be tolerated. History will record how Congress finally did what the GOP congress failed to do. Hold the Executive Branch accountable for their treasonous acts against this country. Dick Cheney can be impeached as well.

They will almost certainly backfire on the Dems, giving the GOP a national security platform (which will hugely benefit GOP candidates who aren't in the administration).

It will only backfire with unpatriotic  and uninformed citizens as it will clearly demonstrate that not only did the GOP  corruptive power extend to treaonous acts against this country  at the highest levels but to covering up child predators as well to maintain their majority.

But the worst thing about them is that they will represent the fourth time in a row that a two-term president has faced impeachment due to the pent-up frustrations of the opposition party

Who cares how many times it represents? There is no sin in  righting wrongs repeatedly. The issue is no one has the right to destroy our country by suspending the civil rights of the citizens and committing acts of treason against this country by lieing to Congress and the citizens. They certainly do not have the right to not act to protect this country when warned by the FBI and CIA of an impending attack.

That's disastrous for our political system and will certainly weigh on the mind of any future president responding to a terror attack--how far do I dare go before it causes trouble for me?

This is flawed reasoning. It will not be disastrous for the political system it will renew faith in our democracy and restore equilibrium to the 3 branches of government. No president has the right to be a tyrant and responding to national threats does not necessitate resorting to that. Bush has never once done anything to protect this country, he has simply stripped the treasure of 300B dollars to secure oil fields for private corporations and multinational resource pirates with the lives of US citizens under the auspices of a war on terror. So, yes any President who thinks he has some executive power to engage in such acts, should think twice.

The founders expressly set "high crimes and misdemeanors," not maladminstration or the change in political winds, as the standard to discourage impeachment taken up lightly or routinely. For 200 years, their views held.

Well Bush has engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors. Clinton did not...he simply had a blowjob. That is a huge differnce. The high bar our founder set does not mean it can not be implemented when warranted. The Bush administration definitely needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of our consitutional powers and hopefully they cannot buy the Supreme Court off, this time..like they did to be put in power against the voting will of the electrorate.

Don't forget you have company in that other colony, Washington, D.C.

But what about Bush? Do you think his 'actions' are legal and based on the "common good" for all Americans?

Yes.

Without going down a checklist of every single decision, Bush, as the president of the United States, has acted within a reasonable interpretation of his powers under the Constitution, the War Powers act, the specific acts of Congress and the history and traditions of the American presidency since Harry Truman. (One can question the legality of some of the ways he has, as president, used his power to wage war, but only if one also questions similar acts by nearly every president from Truman to Johnson to Nixon to Clinton. If Congress wants to take back some of its historical power over the president's ability to wage war, it needs to do so in a more forceful and definitive manner than suddenly being shocked, shocked to notice what's been going on since the late 40s.)

You may disagree that invading Iraq was a good idea; but Congress voted for it and the claim that they did so based on false intelligence is simply refuted by the language of the resolution itself, which is by no means limited to the desire to find WMD.

You may disagree that Bush has the power to listen to conversations originating between al-Qaeda operatives in this country and those elsewhere, or with his contention that habeas corpus does not apply to terrorists captured in battle, or with the use of rough interrogation techniques which some might consider torture; but the mere fact of your disagreement does not make them illegal, and impeaching someone for something still being litigated, and which they stand a reasonable chance of winning, is rather like hanging someone for the murder of someone who seems to be well on the way to recovery.

And finally, the dog that didn't bark, the fact that we've gone five years now without any significant terror attack in our own country, affords Bush a presumption of effectiveness which should make one think carefully about his policies and what alternatives might have been more effective.

If Congress chooses to criminalize Bush's exercise of power, rather than deal with the difficult underlying questions of how you fight the sort of war he's fighting, it will only expose its own lack of seriousness as well as significantly weakening the presidency in ways that will almost certainly backfire on both parties in the future.

"There is a term error in your post. Impeachment is not criminalization. It is simply removal from office."

It is removal from office for "high crimes and misdeameanors." Impeaching Bush would, by definition, be declaring some example of his exercise of powers a criminal act, subject-- as Nixon and Clinton were, and as Reagan aides in Iran-Contra were-- to subsequent criminal prosecution.

And anyway, to get especially picky, it's conviction in the Senate, rather than impeachment by the House, that results in removal from office, as both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton could attest.

"That dog didn't bark for the history of the country, and five years is a definitive sample?"

That dog barked every couple of years starting in the 1980s, we just didn't hear it until 2001. Major attacks against the US included the first bombing of the WTC in 1993, the Khobar Towers in 1996, the embassy bombing in 1998, the Cole attack in 2000, and 9/11 in 2001, making this the longest period without an al-Qaeda attack on US facilities outside a war zone in al-Qaeda's history. (One could also add the foiled Bojinka and Y2K plots.) I know lots of people dismiss this history. That's part of why I prefer not to trust those people with national security.

IMNSHO John Conyers is one of the best people in the House of Representatives. Hopefully, he will lead the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney for lieing us into a war.

Tom

It's not going to happen. Nancy Pelosi said so! See post above!

Fair enough, Pamela. In fairness, I didn't say she emptied it completely, I said she emptied it of $9M.

But that's splitting hairs. My overall point was that she's giving a lot of cash, and based on the comments here, doesn't seem to be getting much credit for it.

-- Bruno and The Professor: Dynamic Talk Radio

Which is why I like Conyers more than Pelosi.

Tom

"I think Kerry kept cash on hand in case there was a recount, like Florida 2000, in which Gore had no cash and had to fundraise."

Both Gore and Bush had zero problems fundraising for the '00 recount. And there is significant legal thought that the money wouldn't have been transferable to any '04 recount anyway.

In reality, Kerry heisted those Democratic donations to fund future personal endeavors of his own.

Kerry's decision was sleazy to the max. Totally unacceptable. It should not be forgotten.

A compromise--2008-ers should loan money for current races to maximize a win. Money could be paid back over the next 2 years.

Big deal. Not like Hillary could have gotten drafted. What Bill was doing has nothing to do with her. McCain is on notice. No one else has come close to doing that. Certainly not Obama when McCain ginned up his fake disagreement with Barack on lobbying reform.