|
|
|
February 22, 2007, 7:25 am
By
Ron Christie
We’ve all heard David Geffen’s remarks aimed toward former President Clinton and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). What I find surprising about the exchange is the manner in which Sen. Clinton and her supporters have responded — actions speak louder than words.
If Sen. Clinton, long hailed as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008, is secure in her standing, why would her spin room get spun up and launch rather personal attacks against Sen. Obama? The answer, of course, is that she’s worried that he’s gaining traction, money and supporters, to her detriment.
Read more...
|
|
|
February 21, 2007, 8:19 am
By
A.B. Stoddard
I guess I hadn't realized just how powerful the Clintons are, or better yet how powerful I must think they are, until I read Maureen Dowd's column this morning and reread it twice in search of a phrase claiming it was fiction. I never found one; this bombshell is true.
In her cozy chat with David Geffen at his home in Beverly Hills, Dowd scored a major exclusive and a first for the 2008 presidential campaign that is sure to be remembered for many years to come — a high-profile Hillary Clinton bashing. Geffen, before falling out with the Clintons in 2001 over Bill's pardons, had slept in the Lincoln bedroom twice at the invitation of Hillary and Bill. But now he dares to say — on the record ! — that Hillary is the easiest to defeat, that Bill's dirty laundry will be used by the GOP the minute she becomes the nominee, and that no one as incredibly polarizing as Hillary, "no matter how smart she is and no matter how ambitious she is — and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton? — can bring the country together."
Read more...
|
February 21, 2007, 7:48 am
By
Armstrong Williams
Has anyone heard of John Cox? Apparently he is the author of the book “Politics, Inc.” and a candidate for president of the United States for 2008. He is a CPA, real estate broker, attorney and investment adviser, residing in Chicago, Ill., and financing his own campaign. John Cox says “we need more statesmen to enter politics — not more career politicians.”
Maybe Cox knows something we don’t know. We have been so conditioned to vote for the Clintons, Bushes, Reagans, and Kennedys of the world that we haven’t taken the time to think beyond the two-party system where two major political parties dominate the voting in nearly all elections. You have to ask yourself: Why are we so locked into a two-party system that we do not think about a third-party candidate? Are we getting the best and brightest candidates to run this country?
Read more...
|
February 21, 2007, 6:00 am
By
Bill Press
Okay, what’s next? For the second time, Republicans blocked debate over Iraq on the Senate floor. So, what’s next?
There’s only one answer: President Bush didn’t want a non-binding resolution. So, Democrats should give him something binding, instead. The next priority for Democrats in Congress should be to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq.
Read more...
|
February 20, 2007, 1:05 pm
By
Peter Fenn
Everyone says it, so it must be true: This campaign for president sure is starting early. But is that necessarily a bad thing?
Not in my book — more to write about! And the power on the microscope is sure getting turned up on these candidates. More and more scrutiny early. Maybe not a bad thing. Given the crunch of early primaries and caucuses, 2007 may be the judgment year.
That's why I am curious about Barack Obama, who I do like, but who seems to have voted "present" on a number of tough bills in the Illinois legislature.
Read more...
|
February 20, 2007, 12:05 pm
By
Ron Christie
Earlier today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the hundreds of enemy combatants currently being held at a military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, do not have the ability to challenge their indefinite imprisonment via the American court system. Makes perfect sense, right? It amazes me that we’ve arrived at this juncture in the first place.
Read more...
|
February 20, 2007, 7:48 am
By
Lanny Davis
On the issue of whether a vote for the 2002 Iraq war resolution was or was not a "mistake" at the time, I have three questions for former Democratic North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and Democratic Illinois Sen. Barack Obama that, for some reason, at least as far as I know, no one in the press has yet asked:
First, did you believe in October 2002 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction — at least chemical and biological weapons, and possibly the beginnings of a nuclear program?
If the answer is yes (which I am assuming, since virtually everyone else did, including the majority of Senate Democrats who voted for the war resolution), then the second question is:
Read more...
|
February 20, 2007, 6:37 am
By
A.B. Stoddard
Over the weekend I bumped into a Republican activist I know and of course we started to chat about the GOP '08 field. "McCain's done," he said before I could even ask how Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was faring these days among his type. "He's Bob Dole," he said, shaking his head.
For months now McCain, once the presumptive frontrunner, has been faltering and the worst part is that he knows it. How else to explain the visual shift? Just read the coverage of him of late — "dour," "grim," "subdued" — it isn't subtle.
Read more...
|
February 19, 2007, 9:48 am
By
A.B. Stoddard
For all their talk about the mandate and the message voters sent them in November, Democrats still don't want to end the Iraq war on their own. They ultimately hope Republicans will do it for them. As Wisconsin Democrat Rep. David Obey, the Appropriations Committee Chairman, said Friday: "We won't have a real solution until Republicans walk down to the White House and say, Mr. President, the jig is up, this is a bad direction and you need to rethink what you're doing."
But after last week's partisan rejection of President Bush's new course in Iraq, that now looks unlikely. Increasingly Republicans, who just weeks ago appeared crushed into a painful box by both the president and the Democrats, are now able to have it both ways. Let's face it, 17 defections from the GOP during a tremendously unpopular war that now enjoys bipartisan opposition is nothing.
Read more...
|
February 19, 2007, 9:41 am
By
Armstrong Williams
An international situation that took place recently with Sen. Barack Obama and Prime Minister John Howard of Australia deserves further review and its possible implications for both men.
An exchange of words occurred, pitting one of America's closest allies against a man who wants the privilege of sitting in the Oval Office and calling them on the phone. Australian Prime Minister John Howard, one of President Bush's intimate allies in the war on terror, slammed the recent announcement by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Obama that America's first priority should be to end the war in Iraq and withdraw U.S. forces from the country by March 31, 2008. Prime Minister Howard declared such a policy only encourages terrorists and added, "If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats." In response, Robert Gibbs, a spokesman for Sen. Obama's campaign, declared, "If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home. It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."
Read more...
|
|
VISIT THE HILL'S HOMEPAGE FOR THE LATEST ON CONGRESS ››
|
|
Pundits Blog
Most Popular Stories
|
|
 Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.
|
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
