I grew up in NJ during the Whitman years. She's got her own handful of problems, particularly with the use of Eminent Domain to help out her friends in the Casino businesses in Atlantic City. Besides a liberal republican governor from a North Eastern state doesn't do much for Obama. Whitman reeks of elitism! She grew up as a "debutante" in wealthy suburbs in Jersey. There's no benefit here.

He's best with someone with some experience and gravitas and someone with more rural roots, as the independents may see him as a young and inexperienced and too hip and urban. I think that CHick Hagel would make the best choice of anyone out there.

Posted at May 13, 2008 1:40 PM in response to Obama-Whitman 2008?

It's funny. The larger sample in the head-to-head against BigMac show that Hillary is losing ground from previous polls. My guess is that the larger sample is more representative of the population compared to the smaller population of Dem-only or Dem-leaning voters.

Posted at May 5, 2008 11:26 PM in response to AP/Ipsos: Hillary Takes Seven-Point National Lead Over Obama, Both Beat McCain

The names Gore and McCain in terms of national politics did not start with Al and John. Both of their fathers were prominent politicians. Women aren't unique when it comes to familial nepotism, just admitted to the game later in history. Just as the Bush's are not the first father and son team (wasn't there a guy named John Adams? didn't he have a son?), they certainly won't be the end of familial politics. Thus, to say that woman have only had access to power because of there familial relations ignores the alternative hypothesis: that most men have as well. Its called a confirmation bias.

Posted at April 2, 2008 11:23 AM in response to Talking 'bout my Generation, not my Gender

One thing is for sure, Obama brings out the best of this country. Ordinary Americans who are extraordinary and inspirational in their own right. Your story, Candice, is truly one to be honored. Thank you for sharing it with us.

Posted at March 23, 2008 9:11 AM in response to A Personal Message to Obama

Someone missed the message that the Kessler/FOX Noise/Kristol story was riddled with falsehoods.
Nothing like a troll to really spew venom on what would be politically uplifting moments of unity.

Why don't millions of Americans who don't believe that homosexuality is wrong leave the Catholic or evangelical churches? Same reason why we don't stop calling our parents who harbor racist and homophobic sentiments that come out at dinner or on Sunday mornings. Because you can love and respect your parents and your pastor for the good that they bring!

Posted at March 18, 2008 11:44 AM in response to Full Text Of Obama's Big Race Speech: A Big Break With Political Precedent

Just substitute "diplomatic multilateralist" for Bush's "isolationist" to which the opposite would "millitaristic unilateralist" which describes this administration and its policies (at least in Iraq) quite well. 

As far as I can tell, isolationism (which Bush spoke of again this afternoon) is more closely related to Bush's unilateralism: "you're either with us, or with the terrorists!"  Rampant and growing anti-Americanism throughout the world suggests that alot of people must be with the terrorists.  America's role as a "Beacon on the hill" is being desecrated and denegrated by those acting in its name.  Where's our multinational force in Iraq?  Why are members of NATO reconsidering their troop presence in Afghanistan? An action that most nations and their people supported.   

Posted at February 1, 2006 11:58 AM in response to Defining Isolationism Down

What should the country do?  Because the only answer to this question -- make peace with the Islamists -- is unpalatable to lots of people for lots of reasons...

We must deal with the new government out of principle that we recognize a duly elected government, but we keep that government on a short leash.  We convince the European allies of the Palestinian government to withhold aid and support if the governing body acts against the continued statehood of Israel or against the Peace process as a whole.  However, the latter part is difficult considering that we (i.e. Bush & co) did not hold Sharon to the same standard.  As far as getting Hamas to recant its prior and even current "statements" regarding Israel, that may be unrealistic.  I think for now that we judge them on deeds not words.

Posted at January 30, 2006 11:48 AM in response to A New Intelligence Failure?

Which came first Islamist or Rovian politization? It seems that this administration cannot see that others follow the same playbook.  Appealing to the religious zeal and fervor that are generated by zenophobia and hopelessness and general fear for survival, the Islamists are the potical equivalent of the Theocons in office. As the Rovians well know, moderation does not drive people to the polls, particularly when moderation is the status quo and the status quo is no longer acceptable to the people.

Bush's hands-off approach enables Sharon's unilateralism in the "road to peace," meanwhile the Palestinians (i.e. Fatah) are left impotent and reactionary.  Why is it surprising that the Palestinian people would chose a party that is unafraid to act and has a propensity to take matters into their own hands--for the good (hospitals and shelters) and the bad (extremism and violence). 

While I'm not a fan, at least Hammas does healthcare and welfare succesfully!  I agree with LJ, the biggest surprise is that the administration is caught with its head in the sand again.  Extremism is rampant in the streets of the Arab states and Middle East, making the Neocons adventures in democratization all the more perilous. 

Posted at January 30, 2006 10:30 AM in response to A New Intelligence Failure?

Doesn't giving Iran propriety of the facility and the knowledge of the enrichment process enable the further "proliferation" of nuclear knowledge?  One possible outcome could be the emergence of an Iranian version of AQ Khan; one operating with the approval of the state--as opposed to Khan who is assumed to be a rogue character. 

I'm skeptical of allowing Iran to have such knowledge not only for applying it to clandestine programs in their own country but also for their ability to provide this knowledge to other rogue states.  

Posted at January 26, 2006 12:22 PM in response to From Russia, With HEU

I agree.  I was thinking of this exact analogy except that the lobbyists are more the pimps or Madames, if you will, setting up the action between the Johns (corporations) looking to get off (in one way or another) and the Prostitutes (the congresspersons or staffers) who are willing to get fu give a little to get a lot of money (and power that goes with it) in exchange. 

I also agree that not all lobbyists operate shamefully.  Lets not forget that not every non-profit organization is a shell or laundering agency.   

Posted at January 24, 2006 8:28 PM in response to Department of Semantics