Jolie Rouge

Dems not counting on Kerry coattails
[i]Party hoping to regain control of Senate
Wednesday, September 29, 2004 Posted: 12:40 PM EDT (1640 GMT) [/b]




Sen. Tom Daschle, right, debates former Rep. Jim Thune September 19 on NBC's "Meet the Press."


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle hugged President Bush from one end of South Dakota to the other this summer. In his own campaign commercials.

The brief embrace might seem an odd claim on re-election for the man Republicans depict as obstructionist-in-chief for the president's congressional agenda. But Daschle is one of several candidates with a common political problem as Democrats nurse fragile hopes of gaining Senate control this fall.

From the South to South Dakota and Alaska, they are running in areas where Bush is popular -- and Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry not so much.

"The congressman is running his own race out here. ... He's not bringing any national people in," said Kristofer Eisenla, spokesman for Democratic Rep. Brad Carson in Oklahoma, where Bush won 60 percent of the vote in 2000.

"The presidential race is largely separate" from Inez Tenenbaum's campaign in South Carolina, said Adam Kovacevich, a spokesman for the Democratic candidate in another state Kerry has written off.

Of the eight states with the most competitive Senate races, Kerry is seriously contesting only Florida and Colorado, effectively conceding North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Alaska.

Democrats and Republicans differ on the significance of the location of the key races. With five weeks remaining in the campaign, GOP candidates are struggling in Oklahoma, Alaska and other states where Bush will triumph easily. "It's pretty irrelevant assuming that the Democratic candidate and the Democratic Party can get the turnout operations put together without presidential or national party funding," said Jim Jordan, former executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

So far, the DSCC has transferred millions of dollars to state parties for get-out-the-vote operations -- $1.7 million for Alaska, $1.4 million for Oklahoma and $825,000 for South Carolina. "I think it's just an added factor to the benefit of our top-quality candidates," countered Sen. George Allen, who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Already, Allen's committee is trying to turn Kerry into a liability for one Democratic candidate. "Flip flop, flop flop. Between John Kerry and Tony Knowles, there's more flip-flopping than a sockeye (salmon) in Bristol Bay," says an NRSC ad criticizing Alaska's former Democratic governor.

Democrats must gain two seats to be assured of a 51-vote majority in the Senate. The parties are virtually certain to swap two of the 34 seats on the ballot -- Democrats winning an open seat in Illinois while Republicans counter in Georgia, one of five Southern states where Democratic veterans are retiring.

Of the eight seats that remain most competitive, five are in Democratic hands and three belong to Republicans, and Democrats must win seven to gain an outright majority.

South Dakota holds the marquee Senate race of the campaign, and polls show a close race between Daschle and former GOP Rep. John Thune in a state that Bush carried by 22 percentage points in 2000.

The hug -- two or three seconds in length -- is a videotaped image of the embrace Daschle gave Bush when the president spoke to Congress shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11.

Daschle's spokesman, Dan Pfeiffer, said the ad's message is that he "will work with the president when the president is right but oppose him when he is wrong." Daschle's latest commercial criticizes the administration for failing to provide adequate drought relief, while faulting Thune for not standing up to Bush on the issue.

The Republican Party demanded unsuccessfully that Daschle stop airing the ad, arguing it left a false impression.

Thune's campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, says Daschle "is running from the arms of Michael Moore to the arms of George Bush," referring to the liberal filmmaker whose name was heartily booed at the Republican National Convention.


Political fortunes have ebbed and flowed for both parties in the past several weeks:


Democratic chances of winning a seat in Pennsylvania faded when GOP Sen. Arlen Specter survived a primary challenge from a conservative, then won the endorsement of the state AFL-CIO.


Democratic hopes of a serious challenge to Sen. Kit Bond in Missouri, never strong, became a casualty of Kerry's decision to halt advertising in the state.


The Republican senatorial committee reported $22.5 million cash on hand as of the end of August, compared with the Democrats' $10.5 million. Hoping to use its advantage, the GOP signaled plans to spend more than $1 million in a late bid to upset Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold.


To the relief of GOP strategists, former HUD Secretary Mel Martinez, who is Cuban-born, won the nomination for an open seat in the presidential battleground of Florida. He will test Betty Castor in a race slow to develop in a hurricane-battered state.

Yet Republicans have concerns of their own.

Tom Coburn, an obstetrician and former GOP House member, faces unexpected scrutiny following his acknowledgment that he sterilized patients several years ago without written consent.


Sen. Lisa Murkowski, appointed to her seat by her father, Gov. Frank Murkowski, has been struggling against nepotism charges as well as against Knowles.


Polls show GOP candidates Pete Coors in Colorado and Rep. Richard Burr in North Carolina trailing. They also indicate that Tenenbaum, who fell behind Rep. Jim DeMint this summer and reshuffled her campaign, has begun cutting into his lead with criticism of his call for a national sales tax to replace the income tax.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Democratic distractions
Friday, September 24, 2004 Posted: 7:37 PM EDT (2337 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- High-level Democrats, including some inside the Kerry campaign, were appalled by this week's political sideshow.

Just as John Kerry began finding his voice on Iraq, he was in danger of being drowned out by Democratic operatives Joe Lockhart and Terry McAuliffe. But the Democratic presidential candidate had only himself to blame.

Democratic critics can hardly comprehend that Lockhart, President Bill Clinton's spokesman who was recently taken aboard the campaign by Sen. Kerry, telephoned a notorious Bush-bashing eccentric who was CBS's source of the discredited documents.

They also are unhappy that McAuliffe, the Clinton-selected Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman who supposedly was eclipsed when Kerry clinched the nomination, has launched an advertising campaign attacking President Bush's National Guard record.

The complaints are not limited to specific cases. One party activist with a nationally familiar name calls Lockhart and McAuliffe "attack dogs" who go beyond the facts and get Sen. Kerry off message.

But the nominee brought Lockhart into the campaign and could, with a single telephone call, suppress McAuliffe's Bush-bashing. This is Kerry's campaign, and he is responsible for these distractions from his new focus on Iraq.

It is hard to believe that so experienced a political operative as Lockhart followed a CBS producer's suggestion to telephone retired National Guardsman Bill Burkett, whose claims of evidence to destroy Bush were rejected by Al Gore's campaign in 2000. (Both Lockhart and Burkett say the documents were not even discussed during their brief conversation.)

Lockhart was added to the Kerry campaign team because he is renowned as a smart political insider who knows everything. Anyone vaguely familiar with politicians was aware of Burkett's unstable background, but Lockhart told CNN interviewer Bill Hemmer Tuesday: "I didn't know who the guy was."

When Hemmer pressed Lockhart about the propriety of calling Burkett, the Kerry spokesman tried to change the subject. He contended that Bush White House spokesman Scott McClellan "has held two White House briefings in the last two months" -- an accusation he elaborated and repeated.

However many briefings actually were held within the confines of the White House, Bush's staff has conducted 37 question-and-answer sessions with White House reporters since the beginning of August.

When Kerry clinched the presidential nomination, nobody expected Lockhart to be setting the tone for the senator's general election campaign. Even more unexpected is McAuliffe running an independent TV campaign.

A much criticized Washington wheeler-dealer, McAuliffe was imposed as chairman by Bill and Hillary Clinton on reluctant DNC members after the 2000 election. In March, Kerry staffers whispered that McAuliffe probably would not complete the year in the chairmanship and certainly would not be speaking out any longer.

They were wrong on both counts. McAuliffe not only stayed at the DNC but has been one of the party's most visible talkers. His implication that Bush senior adviser Karl Rove gave the disputed documents to CBS provided the distinctive McAuliffe touch.

Shortly after "60 Minutes" used questionable documents in assailing the Bush service, McAuliffe and the DNC put out a TV ad ("Fortunate Son") repeating the gist of the CBS program. The Kerry campaign was alerted in advance to these ads.

The National Guard question distracts the public from tuning in to Kerry's concentration on Iraq as the one issue capable of erasing Bush's lead. Kerry's speech Monday at New York University was stylistically the campaign's best, though his four-point program sounded Bush-like and left his excited partisan audience on a downer.

Even without self-imposed distractions, Iraq does not offer an easy path into the Oval Office. The president's strategists were delighted that Kerry said "we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure" -- suggesting the U.S. is worse off with Saddam Hussein out of power.

It is probably too late for Kerry to change his stance by promising early troop withdrawal -- a step risking all on one roll of the dice.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to exaggerate the Democratic dismay over Lockhart and McAuliffe. In talking to a variety of Democrats who seldom agree with each other, I was surprised by the unanimous concern over the distractions. John Kerry might be advised to bring order to his own campaign as he tries to pin the torment of Iraq on George W. Bush.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ats/index.html

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Could election lightning strike twice in Florida?
Democrats say they find problems, little progress since 2000
By Greg Botelho CNN
Monday, October 4, 2004 Posted: 12:28 PM EDT (1628 GMT)


WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (CNN) -- Despite intensive public scrutiny and extensive reforms, Democratic criticisms heard in 2000 are echoing again in Florida, setting up another possibly bitter election, and perhaps another post-election battle.

Democrats have decried ineffective voting machines, discrimination against African-American voters and boosting Ralph Nader as a way of hurting Democrats -- all stemming from, they say, Republicans' attempts to manipulate elections in their favor.

"I think a lot has changed since 2000, and it's changed for the worse," said Scott Maddox, chair of the Florida Democratic Party. "The bottom line: We can't let it be close, because if they can cheat, they will."

Republicans, who control Florida's governor and secretary of state offices (as they did in 2000), call such accusations groundless and foresee a fair, well-run election November 2.

"There are a lot of people here who know how to run an election properly," said Mindy Tucker Fletcher, a senior adviser to Florida's Republican Party. "But you only hear about the negatives."

Four years ago, the Sunshine State was ground zero for political and legal wrangling in a historic election dispute. The showdown ended with a Supreme Court ruling halting ballot recounts, giving George W. Bush a state win by 537 votes and a 271-267 Electoral College majority.

With two more electoral votes, 27, Florida arguably carries even more importance this year than in 2000.

But political experts warn against reading too much into the again sharp political rhetoric, or expecting a repeat of the razor-close, controversy-ridden 2000 election. "Every state was decisive in 2000, so let's not just focus on Florida," said Stephen Craig, a University of Florida political sciences professor. "Let's not assume that Florida is the end of the rainbow."

Focus on Florida

The 2000 election in Florida introduced terms like "hanging chads" and "butterfly ballot" into the American vernacular, and introduced the world to Palm Beach County.

County election officials voided 19,120 ballots because they were double-punched, while conservative candidate Pat Buchanan scored a surprisingly high 3,000 votes in the heavily Democratic area -- all, Democrats said, because of a confusing ballot design.

A Palm Beach Post survey of ballots concluded that, if voters' true intentions were taken into account, Democratic candidate Al Gore would have won Florida, and become the nation's 43rd president. Top Republicans dismissed the report, saying it was impossible to accurately identify voter intentions based only on discarded, improperly filled out ballots.

Palm Beach County -- and the rest of Florida -- has undergone extensive election reform in the last four years. Chief among them, state officials decertified punch-card machines that left votes hanging in 2000, using optical scan or touch-screen voting machines instead.

"Since the 2000 election, Florida has led the nation in election reform," said Jenny Nash, press secretary for Secretary of State Glenda Hood. "We have one of the most rigorous [voter machine] certification processes in the nation."

Elections officials have also stepped up voter education efforts. "They teach you, step by step," said Katherine Madigan, commending such efforts in Palm Beach County. "They're talking about how to do it, they even give you a fake ballot."

Theresa LePore, Palm Beach County's supervisor of elections, says she realizes there will always be critics, just as there will always be errors, simply because humans are involved. "Our staff knows we're being held to a much higher standard, and we're doing everything we can to make sure that nothing happens," said LePore, designer of the "butterfly ballot." "But we're human, sometimes mistakes are made."

Dems: GOP manipulating elections

Leading Democrats express doubts a fair presidential election can be held in Florida, given the actions of Republicans in power. "A repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely," said former President Jimmy Carter in a Washington Post guest editorial. "Some of the state's leading officials hold strong political biases that prevent necessary reforms."

"With reforms unlikely at this late stage of the election, perhaps the only recourse will be to focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious process in Florida."

Maddox, the state Democratic Party chair, in sentiments voiced by Carter and other Democrats, cites several examples of what he calls the GOP's "blatant partisanship to use the Elections Division to their advantage."

Republicans, he says, engineered a so-called "felons' list" that tried to disqualify 22,000 African-Americans (likely Democrats) and only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans). He also accuses Republicans of touting new voting machines' precision while encouraging their supporters to vote absentee. GOP voters and lawyers, he adds, have supported Nader (in his successful quest to get on Florida's ballot) in a bid to take votes away from John Kerry.

"Florida voting officials have proved to be highly partisan, brazenly violating a basic need for an unbiased and universally trusted authority to manage all elements of the electoral process," wrote Carter. "[Gov.] Jeb Bush, naturally a strong supporter of his brother, has taken no steps to correct these departures from principles of fair and equal treatment."

Florida election officials strongly refute such claims, pointing to reforms aimed at making elections just, simple and truly democratic. Hundreds of "successful" elections have been held across the state since 2000, said Nash, Hood's press secretary.

Secretary Hood has conducted her job in a nonpartisan manner," said Nash, rebutting allegations that Republican Party political aims guide Hood's actions. "We expect people will be watching Florida very closely, and we're very proud of what we've done."

As to Carter's claims, Nash said, "We were disappointed because former President Carter did not contact Secretary Hood to get updated and accurate information." Nash invited him to meet Hood in Tallahassee, Florida, to hear about "the progress that has been made."

"What will be our downfall is the elected officials who keep looking for problems," said LePore of the intense scrutiny. "Every little mistake is blown out of proportion. ... Good thing my hair is blond, so you can't see the gray."

Turnout seen as key

So could election lightning strike twice in Florida? Neither party is taking any chances.

Republicans have stepped up their voter registration efforts considerably, their volunteer base rising from 20,000 in 2000 to 70,000 this year, according to Fletcher.

Maddox likewise touted the Democrats' grassroots efforts and promised a strong turnout.

A New York Times analysis gave Democrats an edge: New voter registrations in highly Democratic areas rose 60 percent between January 1 and July 31, 2004 (compared to the same period in 2000), with a 12 percent jump in heavily Republican areas.

While Democrats contend the 2000 elections energized their ranks, that sentiment did not play out in the 2002 gubernatorial election -- in which, after polls predicted an even race, Jeb Bush decisively defeated Democratic challenger Bill McBride. "Democrats realized the importance of mobilization [after 2000]," said Craig. "But they did not do the grassroots that might have made the difference in 2002. We'll see whether or not they learn from that."

Statistically, a second straight presidential election in Florida decided by a few hundred votes is highly unlikely. But problems still exist, said Craig, meaning elections officials have plenty of work to do through November 2. "We're not to the point where everybody who wants to vote can vote, and everyone who can vote has their vote properly conducted," said Craig. "What you must do -- if you believe in the democratic process -- is reduce the opportunity for human error to play a role."



http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ida/index.html


If GOP tried to do the same the Dems would be screaming about "vote tampering"

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Kerry Disagrees With Wife on Bin Laden
By NEDRA PICKLER ASSOCIATED PRESS
October 05, 2004

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/s.../100503990.html

TIPTON, Iowa (AP) - John Kerry often says he loves that his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, speaks her mind. But that doesn't mean he always agrees with her. And on Tuesday he said he didn't.

Kerry told reporters he disagreed with his wife's assessment that the possible U.S. capture of al-Qaida terrorist leader Osama bin Laden before the Nov. 2 election could be politically motivated.

He momentarily confused the man blamed for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks with deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, saying: "I have said again and again that even if Saddam Hussein is captured or killed in the next instant, it won't change my view about how I can run a more effective war on terror or how I can make America safer."

Correcting himself, Kerry said: "Osama bin Laden should have been the complete focus of our effort in the war on terror." He said his wife was "cautioning people against the possibility" that a capture could be politically motivated, not saying it would be. Heinz Kerry predicted at a recent fund-raiser that bin Laden will be captured just before the election.

Though the election is a month away, Kerry's campaign has started raising money to prepare for a recount - telling prospective donors it doesn't want to be "outgunned" like Democrat Al Gore's campaign was in 2000.

The Federal Election Commission last week told the Kerry-Edwards campaign it could use its legal compliance fund to cover any recount costs. The FEC was responding to a request by the campaign for guidance on whether it could use the fund, which is financed with limited donations from individuals.

"Right now I need all of you to join me and make a pledge: The mistakes of the 2000 election will NEVER be repeated again," Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill wrote Monday in a fund-raising e-mail. "The day after the election, as the recount began, Al Gore's campaign was already outgunned, outmanned and outmatched - we learned one lesson: be prepared."

The FEC has not yet said whether Kerry and President Bush can raise unlimited individual donations to cover recount costs, as the 2000 candidates could. During the Florida ballot dispute, Bush voluntarily limited his donations to $5,000 each and raised nearly $14 million; Gore accepted unlimited checks and spent about $3.2 million on the recount.

---

Associated Press writer Sharon Theimer in Washington contributed to this report.

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

WHAT CLINTON DOESN'T SAY

Tue Oct 26, 3:08 AM ET Op/Ed - New York Post



Bill Clinton left his sickbed yesterday to stump for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. His return to the campaign trail — six weeks after quadruple-bypass heart surgery — drew inevitable comparisons to injured Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling.

Not surprisingly, Clinton campaigned like the loyal and partisan Democrat that he's always been. But it's significant that in his remarks yesterday, the former president stuck almost exclusively to domestic issues.


Doubtless there's a good reason for that.


John Kerry has blasted Operation Iraqi Freedom as "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."


Does Bill Clinton agree with that?


There's nothing on the record to suggest that he does.


Indeed, Clinton to date has never taken issue with President Bush's decision to topple Saddam Hussein's regime. On the contrary — from the start, he has been unequivocally supportive of the need to finally make Saddam comply with international sanctions or face the consequences.


Just days after Bush's now-controversial State of the Union Address in 2003, Clinton declared: "After what happened on 9/11, the will of the international community has stiffened, as represented by this last U.N. resolution, which said clearly that the penalty for noncompliance is no longer sanctions."


What's that?


A link between the events of 9/11 and the need to confront Saddam Hussein?


Coming from Bill Clinton, yet?


Moreover, he said: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan (news - web sites) or internationalize Iraq (news - web sites) or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."


In fact, as recently as four months ago, Clinton noted: "I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq."


Of course, there was a time when John Kerry used to agree with that, too.


Like back in 1998, when Clinton sent a bombing strike against Iraq in an effort to force compliance with U.N. weapons inspectors.


"Saddam Hussein's objective is to maintain a program of weapons of mass destruction," warned Kerry back then.


"It is important to hold him accountable by force. No one will question that it is Mr. Hussein who has precipitated this confrontation — and no one else."





Yes, you read correctly: "It is important to hold him accountable by force."

Kerry even felt that way when President Bush asked for the authority to use the same kind of force against Saddam. That's why he voted "aye."

But that was before the antiwar crowd took effective control of the Democratic Party. Suddenly, Kerry was busy parsing words, explaining that he'd only supported the "authorization" to use force — not its actual use.

Naturally, Bill Clinton is too staunch a Democrat to point out to his audiences that John Kerry is all wrong on the war. But the fact remains that when it comes to Iraq, Bill Clinton is miles closer to the Republican president than he is to his own candidate.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...2&e=1&u=/nypos t/20041026/cm_nypost/whatclintondoesntsay

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Edwards Positions Himself for 2008
By LIZ SIDOTI

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat John Edwards lost the election for the vice presidency this week and will lose his Senate seat in January. But he's hardly going away. He's positioned himself for a full-out presidential run in 2008, a campaign that in a way he's already begun.

For now, though, politics is on hold. His wife, Elizabeth, was diagnosed with breast cancer this week just after Democrat John Kerry and running mate Edwards conceded the race to President Bush. ``Together, our family will beat this,'' Edwards said on Thursday in a statement that made clear her treatment would be the focus of his immediate future.

Longer range, the North Carolina senator with the good looks, Southern charm, rags-to-riches biography and ``tomorrow can be better than today'' pitch is in the top rank of candidates expected to compete for the White House in four years.

That's despite his liabilities: He's leaving the Senate after a single term; he has little foreign policy experience; he couldn't deliver his own state or any other in the South for Kerry, despite boasting that ``I will beat George Bush in my backyard.'' But he now has the experience and public exposure of a national campaign.

While Edwards has not announced his intentions, he never has been shy about his presidential aspirations. He introduced Kerry on Wednesday with a speech that could be considered the first of the 2008 contest. ``This campaign may end today, but the battle for you and the hardworking Americans who built this country rages on,'' Edwards said. ``At the end of our heartache today resides an eternal hope for the country we're going to fight for and the country we're going to build together.''

Democrats say they expect Edwards to be extremely active in the party, speaking at events, raising money and endearing himself to the rank and file. Campaigning for the nomination years early, in effect.

Another potential 2008 Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, has a large following and plenty of name recognition, too. And, unlike Edwards, the former first lady also has a job that will keep her in the spotlight.

Edwards will be unemployed in January when he leaves the Senate after just six years and a swift rise in politics. He chose not to run for re-election at the same time he was running for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination as a long-shot candidate.

Barely a blip in primary polls, Edwards fought to counter a perception that he was little more than a pretty face and a gifted speaker. Then he wound up in second place in Iowa.

Eventually, he lost to Kerry but he won the respect of party officials - and the Massachusetts senator - with his ability to raise money and connect with voters with a message of optimism about achieving the American dream.

After the primary season, Edwards campaigned for the vice presidential nomination by traveling the country talking up Kerry and raising money. Kerry asked his Senate colleague to join the ticket, and he campaigned hard to the end.

His advisers and friends say he hasn't spoken to them about his next political move - or his plans in the meantime other than to help his wife heal. They say he was focused on helping Kerry win the White House and didn't dwell on the ``what if'' during the campaign. For now, Edwards will see out his Senate term and commute between homes in Washington and Raleigh, N.C. No one expects him to return to the courtroom and his previous profession as a trial lawyer.

Those who know him believe Edwards will become involved with a couple of ``worthy causes.'' ``He'll find some things to make his own and throw himself into to make America a better place,'' former North Carolina Gov. Jim Hunt said. ``He's positioned beautifully for the future. He will have the time and all the opportunity. He will have the forum and he can pick his issues.''

And, he can afford to focus entirely on 2008. A multimillionaire who amassed a fortune as a trial lawyer, Edwards doesn't need a job to pay the bills.


Some Democrats say they believe the party will embrace Southerner Edwards as it did Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, considering Tuesday's losses in the White House and in Congress. The only Democrats in recent years to be president were small-town Southerners.



11/05/04 17:09


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...31.htm&sc=1131

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

So who's waiting in the wings for 2008's show?
By Thom Patterson CNN.com
Saturday, November 6, 2004 Posted: 9:49 PM EST (0249 GMT)

(CNN) -- For President Bush, it's the beginning of the end. The U.S. Constitution limits elected presidents to serving two four-year terms, so the victorious incumbent will take a bow in 2008.

So which Republicans might seek to lead the party ticket in four more years? Obvious overtures would be crass in political society, but a handful of names get regular mention by political observers. And some delegates who attended the Republican convention in New York said they could tell who might be flirting with the idea.

"When you tell people at a convention that you're from New Hampshire, they tend to hold on to your hand a little longer and look into your eyes a little deeper," said six-time Republican National Convention delegate Tom Rath. "But beyond that, there was no overt, 'Are you with me if I go?'"

Delegates wouldn't dare ask, Rath said. "We know how to do this... there's kind of an elegant dance, as they say."

Since the early 1950s, New Hampshire's primary has served as a barometer of how well potential candidates might do among the electorate -- and the fear is that backers might decide to withdraw financial support if a candidate seeking party nomination did not make a strong showing in that state.

Although vice presidents are often an obvious guess, Dick Cheney, who has a heart condition, isn't expected to ask voters to hand him a promotion.

Among the names mentioned as GOP nominee possibilities are Sens. Bill Frist, John McCain, Chuck Hagel, and George Allen; New York Gov. George Pataki; former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Many of this group met with influential delegates during the GOP convention in September. Frist met with Iowa delegates. Hagel, Pataki, Giuliani, Allen and McCain called on New Hampshire's representatives.

Crystal ball

Rath considers early speculation about presidential contenders "the epitome of stargazing," and tried to minimize the significance of "the dance."

"We're a battleground state," Rath said of New Hampshire. "And as such, we have a lot of very high-profile visits from folks who would be on anybody's list. And in that regard [those] people came and kind of pumped up the delegation and told them how important it was."

McCain sought his party's nomination in 2000. And during this year's Republican convention he drew quite an audience of Granite State delegates. "We had some people in that delegation who were very close to -- and great fans of -- Senator McCain," Rath said. "And they were front and center when he came, and I think that that was totally appropriate after his run four years ago."

GOP strategist Scott Reed, campaign manager for Sen. Bob Dole's 1996 presidential run, said McCain was someone to watch in 2008. "The front-runner in the Republican party will be John McCain, based on his performance at the convention, support for Bush and his polling numbers both nationally and in the early primary states," Reed said. "His favorable rating [in national voter surveys] is at about 70 percent among Republicans, Democrats and independents, which is kind of unique."

Shall we dance?

When you ask the candidates, their moves are classic two-steps -- side steps really. Nothing's "ruled in or out" and they're focusing on current jobs.

A spokeswoman in McCain's office said his only focus this year was securing a fourth term in the Senate. And he snagged a solid win on November 2 with more than 75 percent of Arizonans supporting him.

Romney made several visits to New Hampshire earlier in the year.

"Watch the governor of Massachusetts, very attractive," Reed said. "He's getting very high marks for governing and he's an overnight top-tier candidate in the neighboring state of New Hampshire. Romney is someone to watch, he's gotten way out on the gay marriage issue -- being against it --which helps him with social conservatives, which is the base of the Republican Party."

But Shawn Feddeman, a spokeswoman for Romney, said her boss' focus was "helping President Bush get elected ... and beyond that he anticipates running for re-election in 2006."

Giuliani's popularity after his response to the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York fueled speculation that he might run in 2008. But Reed said the former New York mayor should take a more roundabout route toward the nomination.

"I think he'll get smart and realize that the path to the nomination is to take on [New York Sen.] Hillary [Rodham Clinton] and defeat her in '06," Reed said.

Giuliani's office said he's not thinking about running for president. "He's not ruling anything in, he's not ruling anything out," said spokeswoman Sunny Mindel. "As Mayor Giuliani says all the time ... future will take care of itself."

Lisa Stoll, a spokeswoman for Pataki, said the New York governor has left himself with several options. "He's not ruling out running against Senator Clinton in 2006," she said. And "he has not ruled out running for re-election -- his term expires in 2006."

Allen is focused on serving Virginia, but also hasn't decided for or against a shot at the White House, spokesman John Reid said. The senator is "flattered that a number of people have approached him or mentioned to him that he would be a great candidate one day, down the line."

As for Hagel, spokesman Mike Buttry, said. "Senator Hagel will make decisions at the appropriate time."


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...gop/index.html

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

STEP BY STEP, HILLARY IS MAKING HER MOVE
Sun Jan 30, 2005
By John Leo

Hillary Clinton is likely to be the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee because she is so much smarter than her rivals now on the horizon. Once in the Senate, she made a beeline for the Armed Services Committee because she understood that the first female president will have to be a hawk, just as the first Catholic president (JFK) had to be adamant about not aiding Catholic schools, and the first Jewish president will have to voice doubts about Israel.


When she ran against young Rick Lazio for the Senate, my wife and I had dinner one night with four other couples. The four other women, all liberal Democrats, were bitterly and almost violently anti-Hillary, mostly because they thought she had served as the enabler for Bill Clinton's self-destruction. But all the women at the table wound up voting for her, partly because Lazio was a poor choice, mostly because Hillary ran such a strong campaign.


She startled a lot of analysts by running so well upstate, an area New York City residents know nothing about and like to refer to as "apple-knocker country." This part of the state is traditionally Republican and reliably hostile to urban liberals. Hillary Clinton nearly carried it, losing to Lazio by only 47 percent to 50 percent upstate. People tell me she knows more, and responds better, to upstate New York and its problems than any other statewide politician ever has. Imagine this capacity projected onto anti-liberal "apple-knockers" nationwide.


Suddenly Clinton seems to be on the move, laying the groundwork for a centrist campaign in 2008. She has come out in favor of immigration reform, in effect, saying: Close the borders. She has demanded a role for religion and faith-based programs in the public square. And last week, while clearly underlining her pro-choice position, she expressed many sentiments firmly held by the anti-abortion movement. She called abortion a "sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," called for pro-choicers and pro-lifers to work together to reduce the number of abortions, and praised the influence of religious and moral values in delaying teenaged girls from becoming sexually active. Imagine, an important Democrat saying a good word for abstinence.


On all three of these issues, Clinton is bucking the Democratic elites and the base of her party, less so on abortion than on immigration and the public expression of religion. She is also answering the big question currently bothering Democratic head-scratchers: What do we have to do to win nationwide elections? Hillary's sensible answer seems to be: Stop trying to overcome and stigmatize huge majorities of voters.


The number of Americans who want to seal our borders is in the 70 percent range. So is opposition to the anything-goes abortion regime introduced by Roe v. Wade. Three-quarters of Americans believe abortion should be restricted. Under 25 percent would allow it in all cases. And America is lopsidedly religious, with believers in the 90 percent range.


Yet the Democratic elites are conducting a relentless and escalating campaign against any public expression of faith. I have never seen a level of anti-religious fanaticism like the one we have now. Read the hostile press releases of Democratic hit groups like People for the American Way and the Anti-Defamation League, and you wonder if their leaders are secretly being bribed by Republicans to shrink the number of believers willing to vote Democratic.


The Hollywood left can't resist pumping its contempt for religion into show after show. The other night in a rerun of "Law and Order," Sam Waterston, the prosecutor character, said a white-supremacist group that had just killed two lawyers is something like the Christian right. Only in Hollywood would anyone casually compare conservative Christians to an organization of racist killers. This kind of stupidity delights the Democratic base, but it creates an enormous dilemma for Democratic politicians who actually want to win.


So far Hillary Clinton seems to be one of the few to recognize the scope of the problem. Besides, unlike John Kerry, a nominal Catholic who seems lost when the topic of religion comes up, Hillary Clinton is actually a religious person who can talk convincingly about faith without sounding like a hypocrite or a panderer. On church and state, she says, "There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles." Rather, she said, believers must be allowed "to live out their faith in the public square."


Clinton's newfound moderation seems abrupt. Just a year ago she said that opponents of abortion "are counting on the vast majority of fair-minded Americans to be ignorant, to be unaware. ... They think they can accomplish their goals as Americans sleep." This is the standard view of opponents to abortion as sinister and sneaky. You don't have to be overwhelmed by Hillary Clinton's sincerity to conclude that she is making some smart moves now.

She is beginning to distance herself from Democratic dogma.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...smakinghermove

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

nightrider127

I hope she don't run for the office of president. I would like to have a real choice in 2008. I just can't see myself even considering voting for her.

__________________
Missing Mommy and Daddy.
Missing my Lady,Dingo, Mitzi and Spud.
Missing my Aunt Ann.

excuseme

A lot of people in NY were saying the same thing, but I feel they underestimated the Clintons. The Clintons are a real political powerhouse and will have no trouble taking the whitehouse back.

Jolie Rouge

Hillary Makes It Clear

For anyone who may have been doubting, there is now NO QUESTION that Hillary Clinton is running for president in 2008. In a series of speeches last week, she unofficially declared her candidacy. She did so by moderating her position on abortion and suggesting we teach abstinence; she condemned illegal immigration; she emphasized the importance of prayer in her life; and in each speech, she reminded her audiences that she supported the war in Iraq.

All of these positions are foreign to Ms. Clinton’s far left political passions over the years. There is no way she would swerve toward the center in this way unless she is running for president. No way. Next, I suppose she’ll be talking about how to strengthen the military even though she has despised it in the past. She will say anything.

While Hillary is busy moving to the center, the Democratic Party is about to move to the left. It now looks all but certain that Howard Dean will be elected the DNC chairman on February 12. Here’s how political analyst Dick Morris feels about it:
Interestingly, the Clintons have not mounted much of a fight to stop him, and political analysts in both parties are trying to figure out why. Why would they give up control of the party they’ve dominated for the last 12 years?

I have a suggestion. I believe it is just fine with the Clintons to see the Democratic Party veer to the left and essentially self-destruct. I think it is fine with the Clintons that many of the Dems in Congress remain intent on being obstructionists, even though the voting public is sick of it. Hillary, of course, will remain above the fray as she shifts toward the center.

I think it will be fine with the Clintons if the Democrats get spanked once again in the 2006 mid-term elections. If the Republicans gain even more seats in Congress in 2006, that will put the Democratic Party into a full-fledged crisis.

That sets the stage perfectly for Hillary, the centrist, to ride in on the proverbial white horse and save the party from the liberals. That’s the plan as I see it. Sadly, it might just work.

Hillary ranked far above any of the Democrats who ran for president last year, including John Kerry. So, she is popular. The question is, how many people will believe Hillary’s new centrist positions? How many will it turn off? I don’t know.

Certainly some voters will believe that by electing Hillary president, they will get Bill back in the White House. I suppose that is possible, but one wonders what Bill would have to gain by moving back to Washington and being under the microscope and Hillary’s thumb. Maybe he stays in New York.

Obviously, I could be wrong about the scenario laid out above. But when I hear Hillary soften her position on abortion and recommend teaching abstinence, no other scenario comes to mind but a run for the White House in 2008 as her party implodes in the meantime.

Finally, some of my Republican friends who are involved in politics believe that Hillary is “unelectable” because of all the skeletons in her past. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t agree – for two reasons. First, by 2008, how many voters are really going to remember Hillary’s questionable past? And second, who are the Republicans going to run in 2008? The GOP bench is pretty much empty.

I think Hillary can win the Democratic nomination in a cakewalk. And with Bill out there on the stump for her, she could win it all. Again, I hope I’m wrong!

Very best regards,
Gary D. Halbert


SPECIAL ARTICLES

Novak on why Dean is bad for the Dems.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak...t-novak31.html

Mort Kondracke defends Hillary, sort of.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Com...2_1_05_MK.html

Reinventing Hillary Clinton, again.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050...4527-2313r.htm

An interesting read from a liberal on the Social Security dilemma.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110006234

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?