I don’t know why I’m watching them on CNN right now… The thought of either of them being president is too scary to comprehend. Obama can’t talk policy to save his life. Sure, he can talk fluffed up rhetoric very well, but he stumbles over policy.

Hillary can’t open her mouth without lying or blaming everything on Bush.

The funny thing is, that’s really what Democrats do. They blame President Bush. When it comes to actually leading, they can’t handle it, because when they are in power, and their incompetence is on display, they have no one to blame.

I mean, seriously, who advocates (publicly) for the slowing down of the economy?

Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.”

At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? “Slow down our economy”?

It’s pretty sad that a strong economy takes the backseat to fighting so-called global warming. Clinton’s explanation for his comments was pretty weak as well. I believe, however, that this attitude is not shared by a majority of our representatives in Congress. There’s a reason why the Senate overwhelmingly rejected the Kyoto Protocol — because it was obvious that the treaty would have devastated our economy. But, then again… that was before Bush was elected, before Al Gore made global warming the Democrats’ number one issue… Perhaps Democrats are much more likely to appease radical environmental special interests…

It was inevitable… Rudy is going to dropout, and likely endorse John McCain. (Mike Huckabee ought to dropout too, but last night he appeared committed to pressing on.)

John Edwards is dropping out, however, he has not made any immediate endorsement. This, I find interesting. In 2004, Edwards reportedly begged John Kerry to make him his running mate. With a brutal and tight race ahead between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Edwards is in an interesting position. His endorsement might actually be important at this point. The question is, who will he endorse, and why? I suspect that his endorsement will only come on the condition that he be the candidate’s running mate in the general election. What does he have to lose? He’s a one-term Senator who couldn’t even win his home state for John Kerry in 2004, or his state’s primary this year.

The way I see it, Edwards’ best bet is to endorse Hillary Clinton. An Obama-Edwards ticket just doesn’t seem likely… Two Senators who ran for the presidency before their first terms as U.S. Senators were even finished on the same ticket? Don’t count on it. If Edwards wants to ride anyone’s coattails into the general election, he’d probably see Hillary as his best bet. She at least waited a few seconds after winning reelection to the Senate to declare her candidacy for the presidency.

Exit polls via Drudge:

McCain 34.3%, Romney 32.6%, Giuliani 15.3%, Huckabee 12%…

It looks to be a squeaker between McCain and Romney… Things don’t look good for Giuliani, who pretty much banked his whole candidacy on Florida.

UPDATE: Hillary “wins” Democrat primary… shares stage with corrupt impeached judge Alcee Hastings…

UPDATE: McCain wins… Rudy appears about to dropout and endorse McCain.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Listening to McCain’s speech…excellent words towards Romney, grabbing the mantle of Reagan.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Very high voter turnout. By my calculation, about 3.6 million ballots were cast as compared to about 1.6 million in 2000. GOP turnout exceeded Democrat by more than 190,000. Some have said the GOP isn’t energised – yeah, right.

I’m not live-blogging tonight. But, feel free to leave your thoughts, opinions, reactions, etc. etc. etc. Posted in the extended entry are excerpts I received via email earlier this evening.
Continue reading →

I feel that I have to revive the debate over the Clinton brand following Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack Obama.

First, let me say that the endorsement itself will probably have little impact. Last I heard, Hillary Clinton was leading in the polls in Massachusetts, and I’m not seeing Teddy’s endorsement swaying things back in Obama’s favor.

The real significance of the endorsement has to do with the implications of the endorsement within the party. For whatever reason, Senator Kennedy is a respected member of the Democratic Party. Unlike Kerry, who also endorsed Obama, he’s got no more potential climbs up the ladder, so it’s less like there was some political calculation behind the endorsement… that being the case, what does this say about the Democratic Party and their support for the Clintons? Let’s face it, this isn’t just about Hillary, it’s about Bill, too. And for Ted Kennedy to shun the Clintons is a big thing.

So, is this primary election causing a rift in the Democratic party? What happens if Hillary doesn’t get the nomination? What if she does? Discuss.

Drudge has the photo…

So, is this important?

No, not at all. When a similar photo of President Bush with Jack Abramoff appeared, the left made it out to be proof of some significant relationship, when the truth was that it was a picture commonly taken with President Bush and people who raised a lot of money for his campaign. I imagine the photo linked above was taken under similar circumstances, and they probably have no personal recollection of meeting Rezko specifically.

Now, Barack Obama would be silly to jump on this, because a photo-op that was taken at the same time probably hundreds were taken at a single event isn’t nearly as significant as Obama’s longterm relationship with Tony Rezko.

UPDATE: Liberal watchdog group CREW, which released the aforementioned Bush/Abramoff photo, claimed at the time that the existence of the photo “proved” that a relationship between Bush and Abramoff existed. Yet, as of now, there’s nothing on their website claiming a relationship between Rezko and the Clintons ever existed.

UPDATE: The Chicago Tribune notes, correctly, that the photo of the Clintons and Rezko is meaningless, and that Rezko is “Obama’s problem.”

In Democrat politics, there’s nothing hotter than the Clinton brand… At least, that’s the way it has been for a few years now… It seems that since Hillary has hit the campaign trail in her own quest for the presidency, we’ve seen significant damage to the Clinton brand. As Hillary and Obama get rough and dirty with each other, divisions in the Democratic Party have become significantly more apparent. Racial politics and gender politics have really taken their toll on the Democratic primary…

So, is the Clinton brand suffering from this race? How about if she loses the nomination? If brand has been damaged, is the damage permanent? Your thoughts.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: And if a grainy picture of Rumsfeld with Saddam means that Saddam was a client of the United States, then this very clear picture of Bill and Hillary with Tony Rezko must mean that Hillary helped Rezko out in every aspect of his life, especially the corrupt bits…

John Hawkins over at Right Wing News is live-blogging.

Senator Sam Brownback of the Joint Economic Committee released a few reports regarding the debate about economic stimulus. One of these reports, A Primer on Economic Recessions, according to the email release, “while forecasters have concluded that downside risks to economic growth have been rising, most forecasters (including the Federal Reserve, the Congressional Budget Office, and private forecasters) are not forecasting a recession for the U.S. economy.”

Of course, there are a number of indications of an economic slowdown, so clearly economic stimulus is needed… For more information go here.