Blogs For Victory

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.

If you watched the Democrats debate on Monday, you’d have seen Barack Obama gave a weak defense of his connections to Tony Rezko.

BLITZER: I’m going to go to Suzanne Malveaux in a second, but I just want to give you a chance, Senator Obama, if you want to respond. Senator Clinton made a serious allegation that you worked for a slumlord. And I wonder if you want to respond.

OBAMA: I’m happy to respond. Here’s what happened: I was an associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with [Tony Rezko] to do a project and I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project. That’s what she’s referring to.

Obama would like people to believe that this is the full extent of his connection to Tony Rezko… but it’s not.

The Chicago Sun-Times gives us 8 things you should know about the connections between the two, and of course you can check out our file on Obama at No Agenda.

As recent history has shown, when you give tax cuts to the people who create jobs, it stimulates the economy. Tax relief is good thing, but unfortunately, according to an AP story this morning, a deal has been reached over the issue of tax rebates for economic stimulus which includes give rebates to those who weren’t paying taxes… in other words: welfare.

Democratic and Republican congressional leaders reached a tentative deal Thursday on tax rebates of $300 to $1,200 per family and business tax cuts to jolt the slumping economy.

Congressional officials close to the negotiations said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio reached agreement in principle in a telephone call Thursday morning.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the two wanted key members of their parties to sign off on the accord before any announcement.

The accord came as the White House said Thursday an agreement was imminent.

Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed to drop increases in food stamp and unemployment benefits during a Wednesday meeting in exchange for gaining rebates of at least $300 for almost everyone earning a paycheck, including low-income earners who make too little to pay income taxes

Tax relief should go to those who pay taxes. While I understand that if we want any kind of tax relief and economic stimulus that we’re going to have to make some compromises with Democrats who care more about giving handouts than fixing the economy, but let’s face it, if a recession is on the horizon (and that’s debatable) we should look at what kind of tax relief has worked in the past… The Bush tax cuts that targeted job creators worked very well…