Former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination and former running mate of John Kerry, Senator John Edwards has told ABC News that he lied during his presidential campaign earlier year when he denied accusations that he had a relationship with 44-year old Rielle Hunter. (more…)
The Huffington Post is reporting on growing speculation that Edwards is set to endorse Barack Obama tonight. Edwards has already said that Obama is the likely nominee. Obama’s campaign has apparently announced a major endorsement at a rally in Michigan today.
As a state that could support Obama in the fall but requires some friendly gestures due to their delegate woes, and also as a state where the economic issues Edwards talks about are close to the hearts of voters, would be a great place to make such an announcement.
It’s still a rumor for now, but please bear with me. I’ve spent the day reading quotes and watching video of uneducated hicks Real Americans™ saying they can’t support Obama because he’s Muslim, or not “All-American” or just plain because he’s black, I need some encouragement.
UPDATE: The New York Times and ABC are confirming the endorsement.
Another presidential campaign, another also-ran badge for John Edwards. Only this time he won’t even get the VP consolation prize.
Edwards got lost this year amidst the Clinton v. Obama rumble. You could say a rich, middle-aged white guy simply had no shot in a year when historic firsts beckoned the party. But, really, I think voters just weren’t convinced that this patrician with the Southern drawl as meticulously maintained as his hair would really change America for the better. (more…)
As Claudia reported earlier today, John Edwards is dropping out. He’ll announce his decision to drop out later today in New Orleans, where he announced a year ago or so that he was running for president. His exist changes the Democratic race: he may not have been a true contender, but overall, he could count on quite some votes and he’s the best Democrat in head-to-head match-up with possible Republican nominees. (more…)
No glory unless you put your neck out there, right? I think these nomination fights are over, and it’s going to be John McCain and Hillary Clinton. (more…)
Different sources are reporting that John Edwards will announce that he’s leaving the presidential race at a speech in New Orleans this afternoon.
This is a big development, and it could mean that the nomination will be decided next week on super-Tuesday, instead of going to convention. I predict that it will help Clinton, who is ahead in the polls nationally but could be prevented from a majority by Edwards. That will no longer be a factor now, it’ll be a two person race, and at this point in time Clinton is set to win that race.
Which is depressing, but that’s life.
It’s about 4:30am here in Madrid, and I just got home. I hesitated before looking at the news, afraid I might ruin my good mood. When I saw the results of the primary….
I could pretend I’m indifferent. This is, after all, supposed to be a moderate site, and I do try to keep myself reasonable. Sadly, that’s not to be tonight. I’m thrilled by the results. I’m also surprised. Obama didn’t just win, he won by a HUGE margin. He got over DOUBLE the votes Clinton did. Clinton was actually closer in numbers to Edwards than Obama.
As to the Reagan-controversy, I’m obviously in agreement with Barack Obama: I think that most of Reagan’s changes were positive and necessary and I also agree with him that he was a great reformer (who knew what people wanted). Liberal bloggers and Democratic politicians, however, are blasting Obama over his comments about Reagan… and from a liberal perspective rightfully so. (more…)
Barack Obama did yesterday what many people considered to be impossible, only two months ago: he beat Hillary Clinton and John Edwards in Iowa. Obama got the support of most Independent and new voters, while Clinton’s and Edwards’ support came from long-time Democratic voters. Where Clinton represents the Democratic establishment and a hawkish foreign policy and a reasonably moderately liberal domestic agenda, Obama represents change (and hope), a more dovish foreign policy, and a reasonably moderate domestic agenda. Edwards, of course, is the angry populist. (more…)
Edwards, running a reasonable 3rd in the Democratic primary polls, today published a 4 step program to a healthier America in the Boston Globe. But would following his recipe really make America a better place to live?
Now, in fairness, the two men came from very different social backgrounds to begin with; Edwards was, as he incessantly reminds us, the son of a mill worker and Romney’s dad ran General Motors before getting elected governor. One wonders, though, if the way the two men made their fortunes didn’t shape their views of wealth. Getting a cut from exploiting tragedies and convincing juries to award massive damage amounts is markedly different from building businesses and putting people to work. It’s not hard to see why the latter would feel his money was more deserved than the former. Or why the latter would see the virtues of a free market while the former would emphasize the contributions of others.
Quite right.
The National Enquirer broke a story yesterday about a rumor that could potentially destroy John Edwards’ candidacy. According to the gossip magazine, Edwards had an affair with a woman named Rielle Hunter earlier this year. Not only that, the affair resulted in her being pregnant.
Memeorandum has a round-up of bloggers’ reactions. Some seem to think that the Clinton campaign is behind the story (also because Edwards is now leading in Iowa). I reject that: it seems to me that the Clinton campaign wouldn’t spread a rumor as vicious like this. If the Clintons are behind it, Hillary will probably have blown up her own campaign if the story is false. Assuming that the Clinton campaign is behind it equals believing that the story is true, to me at least. They wouldn’t spread the rumor if they weren’t 100% sure it’s true. What’s more, Mickey Kaus writes at Slate that he heard the rumor and knows that the Clinton campaign is not behind it. (more…)
EDITOR’s NOTE: This post has been pulled up, for newer posts scroll down.
During last year’s State of the Union Address, President Bush, feigning boldness, declared that America has a problem. In laying out his energy plan for the year, the president declared that America “is addicted to oil.” Al Gore, certainly the most prominent of the climate change champions, often echoes the very same idea. I have never liked this blame the buyer first argument. One reason is that it simply stinks of arrogant limousine liberalism, not to mention elitism.
Secondly, the argument is a poor one. Americans have no more of a predilection for oil than they did for the horse and buggy two-hundred years ago. What Americans are in fact addicted to is driving to work, heating their homes and putting affordable clothes on their kids (yup, we need oil for that, too). Those monsters!
Because of this, I can’t help but wince when I read stories like this one. John Edwards has decided to wage war on the SUV, declaring that it’s time for Americans to make the “sacrifice” by giving up their Sports Utility Vehicles. Now, I understand that SUVs are a cancer on our highways. I agree that they are gas guzzling eyesores that take up too much space and probably make our roads less safe. However, I find it incredibly naïve to place the onus, and the blame, on the American consumer.
After all, it was Congress that enabled consumers to get hefty tax breaks in exchange for purchasing the SUV, incentivizing the pubic to purchase them instead of the more sensible and environmentally friendly hybrid automobile. It was GM, again at the behest of the oil industry and the federal government, who killed their own electric car models for the sake of the more gas-dependent SUV. Observe which vehicles received the most advertising dollars, and then check out which industries did the most pocket lining on Capitol Hill. There are in fact automobile companies out there building alternatives to the combustible engine, although they face an uphill climb in the battle for subsidies.
Cost should not be an issue. When it comes to energy and transportation, government tends to absorb much of the upfront costs anyway. Governments take the hit when building nuclear power facilities, and government bails out and subsidizes (respectively) transportation industries like airlines and railroads because they are deemed an essential public service.
This shouldn’t be dumped on the consumer, because the consumer will buy what is available and affordable. If we want to see a change in consumption patterns, it doesn’t begin with the American family, it instead begins with Congress and their willingness to invest in environmentally responsible energy and transportation alternatives. The entrepreneurs are there, but they need our help.
The biggest sacrifice shouldn’t come from the consumer, but rather, from the campaign coffers of our elected officials.
(Cross posted at my blog)
It seems that Hillary Clinton has learned from the health care debacle in the 1990s:
As first lady in the early 1990s, she tried to reshape the nation’s health care system — an audacious effort that collapsed under its own complexity, Republican opposition and the Clintons’ unwillingness to seek compromise with lawmakers.
“I still have the scars to show for it,” she tells voters now, promising a more consensus-based approach to health care reform if she is elected president…
Burned by the experience, Sen. Clinton has since adopted what she calls “the school of small steps.”
Aides say her plan will be rolled out through a series of speeches focusing on different aspects of health care reform, with the topic of universal coverage to be tackled last.
She began last month with a speech on reducing health care costs. Among other things, she called for enhanced computerized medical record-keeping and encouraging insurance companies and providers to emphasize prevention of illness, rather than treatment.
Her second address, on improving health care quality, will come later this summer.
Of course, her consensus-based approach does not make her more popular among quite some Democrats. Edwards and Obama have both come up with far more bold proposals “which have been generally praised by activists.”
On the other hand, her approach might mean that she will be able to draw from the different existing plans - use the strong points from the other plans, getting rid of the weak ones - and by doing so, she might be able to come up with the best plan that stands a change of actually succeeding / being approved and implemented.
Is the Media deliberately attacking Democratic candidates and praising Republicans? The Daily Howler says yes.
I am not getting into that mess, but what I do find incredibly interesting is that one can already see a narrative being developed in the media:
- Giuliani: pro-choice candidate, strong on defense, hero, might be impossible to win the nomination
- Romney: pretty boy and flip-flopper (and from that strange faith!)
- John McCain: decent, good guy, his own worst enemy though
- Hillary Clinton: inevitable, intelligent, calculating, vicious, overly ambitious
- John Edwards: pretty boy and hypocrite
- Barack Obama: new voice, the revelation of this season, might not be able to challenge Hillary despite all of that
I find it fascinating to see that the media spend a lot of time building images, but do not spend an equal amount of time discussing policies / plans / issues.
It seems that John McCain has accepted the inconvenient truth - that he is not able, and will not be able, to raise as much money as a Mitt Romney or a Giuliani:
Twelve weeks ago, after raising less money than two other Republican candidates in the first three months of 2007, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the early favorite for his party’s presidential nomination, declared that it was his fault, said he hoped “to get better” at it and reorganized his finance team.
This week he said it hasn’t worked out too well, acknowledging that raising money is “very tough” and allowing that “we weren’t going to win this campaign on money anyway.”
There is also bad news for John Edwards: Governor Richardson has told other Democrats that he expects to outraise the former Senator. Fred Thompson, meanwhile, does well: he will have raised $5 million in just one month time.
What about the (other) frontrunners you ask?
- Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will hit the $25 million mark. Obama might outraise Hillary.
- Giuliani and Romney will -roughly - repeat their trick from the first quarter, although a Romney spokesman said that it would be difficult to repeat the result of the first 3 months of this year.
If Romney does not win the nomination, he would make a good VP candidate: experienced and a great fundraiser. He remains low in the nationwide polls, but he’s the best fundraiser in the Republican field nonetheless.
Bad news for Republicans: “By 52% to 31%, Americans say they want Democrats to win the presidency next year.”
Americans give the Republican Party their most negative assessment in the two-decade history of the Journal/NBC survey, and by 49% to 36% they say the Democratic Party more closely shares their values and positions on the issues.
The Democratic candidates do better than their Republican counterparts as well:
Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, who has strengthened her lead in the race for the Democratic nomination, leads Mr. Giuliani by 48% to 43% in a potential general-election matchup after trailing by a similar margin three months ago. Despite Mr. Thompson’s rise among Republican contenders, he trails the second-place Democratic candidate, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, by 50% to 31% in a hypothetical November 2008 contest.
Lets take a closer look at the results per party:
- among Republicans, Rudy Giuliani continues to lead the pack, this time with 29%. Fred Thompson is in second place with 20%. Romney and McCain both draw the support of 14% of those polled (Romney continues to rise in the polls).
- among Democrats, Hillary Clinton’s lead has grown: she now leads Barack Obama by 39% to 25%. In third place we find John Edwards (with 15%).
Why do Democratic voters support Clinton?
Fully 71% of Democrats rate the former first lady highly for being “knowledgeable and experienced enough to handle the presidency,” while 30% rate the first-term Sen. Obama highly on that dimension.
“Her competence campaign is working,” Mr. Newhouse said.
Hillary is doing a good job, or so it seems. Her goal is not to make to 70% of the American people like her (that is not going to happen anyway), her goal is to convince a majority of the American voters that - whether they personally like her and agree with her on everything or not - she is the most competent (Democratic) candidate.
If it is between her, Obama and Edwards, I agree with her: she is the most experienced one. She knows what politics are like at the presidential level. She knows how to make decisions that can (and do) change the world.
In the Republican camp it is safe to say that Thompson hurts McCain most. Romney will continue to rise in the polls, of that I am quite sure, Thompson - once he entered - will rise as well, Giuliani will lose some support, and suddenly we’ve got a three men race.
Ah, horse races, I know that they can be useless, but they are fun.
Dave “Mudcat” Saunders - who works for John Edwards - wrote a post for Time’s Swampland in which he lashes out to (certain) progressive bloggers. He writes:
I have bitched and moaned for years about the lack of tolerance in the elitist wing of the Democratic Party, or what I refer to as the “Metropolitan Opera Wing”. These are the people who talk of tolerance but the only true tolerance they ever exhibit is for their own pseudo-intellectual arrogance.
If you want a perfect example of how this “intolerance” is helping the Democrats lose national elections, check out the responses to Joe Klein’s post on Paris and Libby. To be clear, I have no problem with incivility. After all, I’m in the political business. However, as a pilgrim in the blogosphere, I thought blogging was for exchange of ideas, not personal attacks. Like his post or not, Klein in no way compromised the integrity of the fourth estate. This was not a news story. He was simply stating his opinion. Unless fourth estate integrity has been compromised, there is no rationale for calling him a “jackass”, “fool”, or “elite white guy”.
Dave, Dave… Dave. You don’t understand: the ‘liberal’ blogosphere is all about personal attacks. It is something like a hobby for these people; perhaps even a calling. It is what they do best. They are - normally - bad writers (with bad ideas of course), so they have to distinguish themselves from the pack by something else. Usually that results in the use of the f-word every other sentence and insulting those who might disagree with them on certain issues.
Oops: I think just did the same as I accuse them of doing.
Progressive bloggers responded to Mudcat’s post and… they’re not happy. For an impression visit:
- Taylor Marsh’s blog
- Daily Kos
- MyDD
Of course “Mudcat” has a point. Lord knows that I do not agree with progressive bloggers on many issues and I am also well aware of the aggressive nature of quite some progressive bloggers, commenters and readers but… if you want to deal with this, if you want to address this issue, it is probably best not to tell them to “go to hell.” Besides, as someone working for John Edwards, perhaps it is best not to address the issue at all - at least not publicly and not by insulting them. After all, the progressive blog community supports Edwards.
Well. It did.
For photos of John Edwards’ birthday party yesterday, go here.
Hopefully Libby will post something about the atmosphere; what Elizabeth Edwards said; what John said, etc.
Kevin Sullivan has a great post up about John Edwards latest idiocyplan (to fight terrorism):
The plan Mr. Edwards presented yesterday which he dubbed “A Strategy to Shut Down Terrorists and Stop Terrorism Before It Starts” — calls for a 10,000-person “Marshall Corps” to deal with issues ranging from worldwide poverty and economic development to clean drinking water and micro-lending. He said investing in those areas would shore up weak nations and help ensure that terrorism does not take root there. That, he said, would allow the country to stop potential terrorists before they even join the ranks.
There are “thousands committed to violence” today, he said, and America needs to use all of its tools to go after them. But he said millions more people are “sitting on the fence” about whether to join those ranks. “We have to offer them a hand to our side instead of a shove to the other side of that fence,” he said.
Kevin remarks:
I have a few problems with this. One, it’s another attempt by Edwards to strip this conflict of its very essence. We aren’t facing a radical, religiously motivated threat from a very real enemy, but rather, a desperate class of the downtrodden and the disenfranchised…
Secondly, the argument is factually inaccurate. Osama Bin Laden is an educated man from a wealthy family. Yasser Arafat was college educated in Cairo, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad graduated from the prestigious Iran University of Science and Technology…
Another problem with the Edwards plans is that it (again, perhaps unintentionally) belittles the size and scope of those who wish to harm us…
This leads me to my final gripe with the Edwards plan. In another attempt to grab the mantle of John F. Kennedy, it almost seems as if this particular bullet in the plan is a throw away, one intended to appease the sensibilities of the Left-Wing, baby boomer base of the party.
(Read Kevin’s entire, lengthy and (but?) thoughtful post)
It is very simple: the Democrats have, for years, been portrayed as soft on terrorism. People made jokes, for years, that the Democrats would like to hug terrorists; send them to a psychologist; give them some money and food; talk to them, like reasonable creatures, etc. Time and time again, Democrats / Democratic voters tried to fight these accusations by saying that Democrats are just as tough on terrorism as the Republicans, that they can be trusted with national security and that they truly - yes truly - understand the threat terrorism poses to the US. Now, Edwards comes in and reaffirms the caricature Republicans created.
Well done John, I’m sure the other Democratic candidates appreciate it.
In presidential debates, it is all about the color of one’s skin.
And there they had me thinking it was about ideas.
Yesterday, the Democratic candidates debated each other: for a lot of coverage (and videos) I suggest going to CNN.com.
Here is the video of a ‘clash’ (very mild one) between Edwards, Clinton and Obama:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZsPMtmBmRs]
Barack Obama’s reaction was extremely weak. He said exactly nothing. If he wants to fight the image that he’s an empty bag, I suggest he takes some debating classes. Very, very weak.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, handled herself very well. She showed leadership (ironically considering Edwards’ remark); she presented herself as being ‘above the fray…’ Very well done. She is a frontrunner: she has to make sure that she does not make any big mistakes. She did that and scored some points. Well done.
Hot Air has the video up of the candidates debating whether English should be the official language of the US. The only Democratic candidate who believes that English should be the official language: Gravel. Obama reacted and said that this question was meant to “divide us.” Hillary Clinton said English is the national language, but that making it the official language will create many problems: she opposes it because of the “legal consequences.”
Blitzer also presented the candidates with a nice hypothetical situation: US intelligence says that Osama Bin Laden is in Pakistan; they know exactly where; they ask permission to take him out but doing so will result in civilian losses as well. Would you give the order? Watch the video below the fold… (more…)
Former Senator John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, told an interviewer on Wednesday that he had read the classified October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate before voting to authorize force in Iraq, but his campaign retracted the statement yesterday.
A spokesman for Mr. Edwards said the candidate had “simply misunderstood the question” and noted that Mr. Edwards had read only a declassified version of the intelligence report.
The issue of who had read the full report has bubbled up over the last week with reports that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, had not read it before voting to authorize force in Iraq, even though she and other senators had access to the document. The report was the government’s most comprehensive intelligence assessment of Iraq’s prewar capability for unconventional weapons.
The issue surfaced for Mr. Edwards at a forum sponsored by Google when the interviewer, Elliot Schrage, spoke with him about the war.
“There was this National Intelligence Estimate that was confidential that only — that you had to have security clearance, or members of the Senate could read,” Mr. Schrage said. “Did you have a chance to read that, and was that part of the—— ”
“I read it. I read it,” Mr. Edwards said. “But the idea that somehow we had so much more information — having the information turned out to be bad, not good.”
A spokesman for Edwards, Mark Kornblau, explained: “He simply misunderstood the question. As Senator Edwards has said many times before, he read the declassified version of the N.I.E.”
Great, but that was not the question and I find it a bit hard to believe that Edwards misunderstood it. I think that he gave a politically handy answer without thinking thinking it through. Being the cynic I am, I think that Edwards thought he would get away with it and changed his story once it became obvious he wouldn’t.
That being said, I cannot possibly be sure about it, so I will keep it short.
What bothers me more, is that important people like Edwards and Clinton did not read the full report before authorizing George W. Bush to use force against Iraq. Whether one is a Republican or Democrat is completely irrelevant: it seems to me that part of their job is to make sure that they can defend their votes, especially on such important issues as say, going to war. This means that they have to read all information available.
Can they do so on all issues? Of course not. Can it be expected of them to do so on the most important issues that will ever face them in their career? I’d say yes.
That’s the headline at the New York Times:
Four years ago, the leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus began looking for a television outlet to co-sponsor and broadcast a presidential debate to address the concerns of minority voters.
Only one news channel made an acceptable proposal, and an unlikely channel at that: Fox News, in what some Democrats viewed as an effort to associate itself with a group that could help it make good on its claim of presenting “fair and balanced” news coverage.
But now that relationship is being shaken by the decision of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina to shun the debate, a move that has exposed fault lines among two major constituencies of the Democratic Party. While the withdrawal by the candidates frustrated members of the black caucus, it mollified liberals who had objected to the involvement of Fox News, whose programming includes some of the most conservative and pro-Republican commentary on the air.
So, what is the divide? Who want to participate and who do not? Well, lets start with the Democratic candidates who do want to participate in the debate at Fox: Joe Biden and…
That’s it. Joe Biden is the only Democratic candidate who has explicitly said that he will not withdraw from the debate. All the other candidates have either said that they will not appear on Fox, or have remained silent about the matter.
That’s going to be a great debate: “what do you think of this… let me see, Senator Biden?” “Well, here is what I think…” “Do you agree with that Senator Biden? “I think that my distinguished colleague said it marvelously, I agree completely. What a candidate!“
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who recently proposed an educational policy that urged “every financial barrier” be removed for American kids who want to go to college, has been going to college himself — as a high paid speaker, his financial records show.
The candidate charged a whopping $55,000 to speak at to a crowd of 1,787 the taxpayer-funded University of California at Davis on Jan. 9, 2006 last year, Joe Martin, the public relations officer for the campus’ Mondavi Center confirmed Monday.
That amount — which comes to about $31 a person in the audience — included Edwards’ travel and airfare, and was the highest speaking fee in the nine appearances he made before colleges and universities last year, according to his financial records…
He appeared at Stanford University, where he spoke on April 26, 2006; the Palo Alto institution paid him $40,000 to deliver his talks, according to financial records. And Edwards also headlined at the former University of Judaism — today the American Jewish University — in Los Angeles on Jan. 30, 2006, where he debated former Speaker Newt Gingrich before about 5,000 people. According to financial documents, the candidate received a fee of $40,000 at that appearance…
In 2006, records show Edwards made more than $285,000 speaking to nine colleges and universities, charging between $16,000 and Davis’ $55,000 for his talks. They ranged from the $12,000 he got on Jan. 10, 2006 from Gonzaga University Law School in Seattle to the $40,000 he banked from the University of Texas Pan American Foundation on May 22, 2006. Other schools that have paid Edwards to speak before he was a declared presidential candidate: Hunter College in New York ($35,000), Mount Union College in Ohio ($16,00) and Vanderbilt University in Nashville ($40,000).
Well, that’s certainly ironic.
John, listen, it’s simple: if you are going to campaign on the issue of poverty there are certain things you shouldn’t do. One of them is charging $50,000 for a lecture about… poverty.
He’s giving his opponents the gun and the ammunition to shoot him.
I just received an e-mail from someone about a fascinating website: Quantcast. It keeps track of how many people visit blogs of the candidates (for president). For instance, look at this: a comparison between Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama. As you can see, Hillary’s entry into the presidential race this past January resulted in nearly 120K unique visitors in one day.
If you go here you can find more specific information about, in this case, Hillary Clinton(’s website). Replace “Hillary Clinton” with “Mitt Romney” and you get this: “51k+ U.S. monthly uniques. The site attracts a primarily older, more educated, mostly Caucasian, rather male audience.”
John McCain: “96k+ U.S. monthly uniques. The site caters to a primarily older, rather male, more affluent, more educated following.”
Good news for Mitt Romney: he’s currently leading in the polls in Iowa (and New Hampshire).
Republican Mitt Romney has pushed from a distant third place into a small lead in Iowa, the continuation of progress he has shown since the first of the year in the Hawkeye state, while Arizona Sen. John McCain has has remained steady and one-time front-runner Rudy Giuliani has slid substantially, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows…
Romney’s jump comes as his organization in Iowa develops, and as Giuliani has wrestled with the abortion question and reports that he might downplay corn-fed caucus-goers in favor of GOP voters who will choose their favored presidential candidates in the weeks immediately after the Iowa caucuses. Romney is performing quite well among the very conservative and the conservative, while Giuliani has lost significant support among those likely voters – this coming after Romney’s strong performance on the CBS newsmagazine program 60 Minutes…
Edwards leads among Democrats in part because of the strength of his support among union households, where he wins 30% backing, compared to 27% support for Obama. Clinton wins just 13% among those voters. Edwards also does well among those likely Democratic caucus-goers who consider themselves moderate, while Clinton leads among liberals and the very liberal. While Edwards performs less well among the very liberal, Obama retains a reasonably steady level of support across the philosophical spectrum among those who say they plan to participate in the Democratic caucus next January.
Romney has a lot of potential. I said so when he first entered the race and I still think that he will rise significantly in the polls. Romney’s strategy isn’t to become popular all across America: he focuses on a couple of key states and hopes that he will get a momentum going. For the exact percentages, go to the website of Zogby International.
Romney’s lead is a narrow one, but it’s a lead nonetheless.
Yesterday was the first Democratic debate regarding the presidential elections. Overall, it seems that if you, like me, did not watch it, well, you didn’t miss out on much. For a round-up go to Instapundit. One must read post on the debate, is this post at Reason Magazine.
It seems that John Edwards, quite simply, underperformed, same goes for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton did not impress most people either and… well… That’s the debate in a nutshell.
On the other hand there is this post at TMV, praising Obama and Clinton. More at NRO’s The Hillary Spot.
Bad news for Rudy Giuliani: his lead in the polls is shrinking quite dramatically. The main cause seems to be… (growing) support for Fred Thompson - who still has to announce his candidacy. Where, in February, “44 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents preferred” him for the nomination, “that figure is [now] down to 33 percent.”
McCain, meanwhile, holds steady at 21 percent, Fred Thompson “ran third in this poll, with 9 percent, tying him with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.”
Romney, in other words, is rising in the polls. To be frank, I find it surprising that his numbers are still, relatively, low. Romney is a terrific CEO and became Republican Governor, of a Blue state and handled himself well. He saved the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, which made him popular among quite some people (and gave him experience useful for a presidential candidate, to say the least).
Click here to read more.
Jerome Armstrong published the results of presidential preference polls conducted by MyDD, Daily Kos and MoveOn, this month.
The results: Edwards leads bigtime, Clinton receives virtually no support.
It would be a major mistake for the Democrats to listen too much to the netroots. They are way out of touch with mainstream Democrats, let alone the average American voter.
The netroots can raise money and serve as ‘footsoldiers’ but they should not determine what policies the Democrats favor.
|
|