Some basketball guy endorses Obama

Great! Now who the heck is this guy? I heard that he may have somehow been involved in politics too, but did you know he is in the hall of fame? And he played college ball at Princeton, wow!

Kidding aside, it's true that in my non-scientific poll I do hear appeal for Obama from traditional Republicans who are disappointed with the loony direction of their party. Of course, I also hear similar interest in Edwards as well. If the Democratic choice can reach out to independents and Republicans, that's great. I just hope the previous rumors of (a particular Democrat) finding a Republican VP candidate are just silly rumors. Not a single person in the GOP lifted a finger to stop the Bush machine so any outreach programs like that would be a fine way to lose Democrats in the field. Read More......

What are the odds of this being true?

Just days before Bush departs for his Middle East tour, the Pentagon reports a "significant provocative act" from Iran. Unbelievable (quite literally). The boy who cried wolf strikes again. Somehow I feel like we've been here before. Read More......

Chaneling Cheney

I would disagree with Markos about one point. Hillary isn't channeling Rudy. She and Rudy are channeling Cheney: "Vice President Cheney warned on Tuesday that if John F. Kerry is elected, 'the danger is that we'll get hit again' by terrorists." Read More......

Ron Paul supporters chase Sean Hannity through the streets

Wow. Hannity must have been wetting himself (earlier I said this was NYC, it's actually probably NH). Seriously, check out this video. You'll recall that FOX News cut Ron Paul out of the NH debate. His supporters are a bit teeved at FOX because of it, and it shows. (Hat tip, Crooks and Liars.)

Read More......

Hillary's awful comments about MLK

I'm not even sure what to write here. Hillary made some odd comments this afternoon on FOX News about Obama and "false hope." In these comments, she sounds as though she's knocking Martin Luther King. I don't believe for a minute that that was her intent, but the comments just come off as awful:

Clinton was asked about Obama's rejoinder that there's something vaguely un-American about dismissing hopes as false, and that it doesn't jibe with the careers of figures like like John F. Kennedy and King.

"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," Clinton said. "It took a president to get it done."

Clinton didn't explicitly compare herself to Johnson, or Obama to King. But it seems an odd example for the argument between rhetoric and action, as there's little doubt which figure's place in history and the American imagination is more secure.

"The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president" capable of action, Clinton said.

After the jump, my take on this and video of exactly what Hillary said.

First off, Obama in this parable is both King and Johnson - the dreamer who would be president - so Hillary's criticism doesn't really fly. The bigger problem for Team Clinton is that she really sounds like she's dissing MLK (did he have "false hope" too?). I'm convinced that wasn't her intent - she's not an idiot - but these quotes are just awful, and not what she needs right now.

I just took a look at the video myself, over at FOX's blog (I know), and the full quotes are a bit better in that she praises King. But still, when asked about "false hope" the first person who comes to mind is MLK? And then you start talking about how MLK would have been nothing without President Johnson? (And, anyway, it was John F. Kennedy's assassination that got the civil rights bill passed.) Ugh. Watch it for yourself:
Read More......

Hillary cried

Wow, we're analyzing tears now. Though, it could have an effect on the race. Though it's not clear which way. Is a woman crying a sign of her humanity, or does it reinforce the negative stereotype of the "weak woman"? And was the tearing up even sincere? Hillary gave an awfully nuanced and subtle attack on Obama during her tearing up. Yes, she could have winged it while sincerely welling up, but if she wung it, she's damn good. Read More......

Conservative pundit Kristol publishes false quote in first day on job at NYT

It's in their nature. Read More......

Bush's Messiah Complex

From Froomkin at the Wash Post:

With time running short on his presidency -- and on the eve of a trip to the Middle East -- President Bush seems to have overcome his aversion to talking about his legacy and is now speaking fervently about how he expects to be remembered.

As it turns out, the president sees himself as quite the heroic figure.

"I can predict that the historians will say that George W. Bush recognized the threats of the 21st century, clearly defined them, and had great faith in the capacity of liberty to transform hopelessness to hope, and laid the foundation for peace by making some awfully difficult decisions," Bush told Yonit Levi of Israel's Channel 2 News....

Bush's self-image contrasts sharply with his image among his fellow Americans. More than 60 percent of Americans disapprove of the job is doing, and a CNN poll in November found that 58 percent of Americans rated Bush either a poor president, a very poor president, or the worst president ever.

Bush's view of himself is particularly delusional as he heads to a region that remains traumatized, angry and distrustful on account of Bush's disastrous war in Iraq, his antagonism of Iran and his perceived crusade against Islam.

Read More......

GOP fears Obama's bipartisan outreach

And they should. I have continually been impressed by how much independents and Republicans tell me they like Obama. Whether he can effectively run a presidency that reaches out to everyone is another question, but it's clear that his message, and image, of being a post-partisan is working. And that could get him elected. I'm intrigued by the Washington Post's analysis as to whether in fact Obama is "post-partisan." They look at his voting record and say that he's been very liberal. So is that the benchmark for being above partisanship, voting 50% for conservative legislation and 50% for liberal? In other words, be a Joe Lieberman and screw both sides equally? I don't buy it. I think being above partisanship means you stick to your ideals but you're not a jerk about it. You don't exist to screw the other party. And you're happy to work with the other party to reach a compromise that helps everyone. That doesn't mean that half the time you vote for legislation that makes the American Conservative Union happy. I just find the Post's definition of partisanship to be faulty and a bit simplistic to boot. Read More......

More and better foreign policy voices: Matt Duss

Easily the greatest thing about writing for this site is the audience -- there are tons of you! It's a privilege and a pleasure to write for a tremendous readership, in volume but also in knowledge and engagement with the issues of the day. I've worked hard to live up to that opportunity, but I also know that there are other great, insightful writers out there who don't have this kind of platform. I strongly believe in giving a bigger megaphone to those who deserve it but perhaps aren't yet very well known, especially because that's the kind of perspective that allowed me to come on board here in the first place. So I'm going to make an effort to highlight and recommend emerging voices every few weeks or so, mostly on foreign policy but sometimes other topics as well. Call it my New Year's resolution.

First up is a smart, incisive foreign policy analyst: Matthew Duss. I'm cheating a little bit because he's an Editorial Intern at the American Prospect magazine and a contributor at it's blog, TAPPED, so he's not exactly languishing in obscurity; still, there's something of a disconnect between the "wonkosphere" and the "netroots", and he's just the kind of writer who helps bridge that gap. My favorite recent piece on his personal blog is this explanation of Sadr's savvy political strategy -- and how it's largely misinterpreted by American observers. Over at TAPPED, this recent piece on how Bush's "democracy agenda" is being completely subverted via US attempts to wrestle the rest of the Middle East into acquiescence with our Iraq policies (Egypt, in this case) -- and the likely eventual blowback -- is also a (quick) must read.

Duss has a Masters in Middle East Studies, and it shows. Add his site to your RSS, check out his stuff at TAPPED, and, most importantly, when you see his name attached to something, know that what he says is trustworthy and accurate. Dems often have a tougher time knowing whom to go to for reliable foreign policy analysis, and it's time we changed that. Duss will be an important voice on these issues for years to come, and you should know who he is. So now you do. Read More......

Headlines that hurt

(Source: NY Post)


(Source: Reuters) Read More......

The Republican train wreck

One of the most fun -- and perhaps the most gratifying -- things about the 2008 elections is the mess that's evolving on the GOP side. They have very flawed candidates -- flawed by the standards of their fellow Republicans. And, the negativity on their side is intense.

Let's do a quick review. Watching the ABC debate one thing was abundantly clear: The other candidates loathe Mitt Romney. For the past couple weeks, it's been obvious that the GOP "establishment" (the Weekly Standard, National Review types and their moneyed friends) hate and fear Mike Huckabee. John McCain is too much of a maverick and unpredictable. Thompson's campaign was a dud. And, Rudy "9/11" Giuliani seems like he's dropped off the face of the earth. The only candidate with any intensity is Ron Paul and he's got no shot.

What do the Republicans do? New Hampshire will provide some direction. If Romney wins, he may be on a roll. If McCain wins, he may become the default candidate. However this plays out, GOPers aren't going to be happy with their nominee.

On the GOP side, it's tight in NH, with a slight edge to McCain. The polls on the GOP side are closer and more volatile. GOP poll results after the break.

McCain's problem in NH is that he needs to win NH independents. But NH independents are leaning Democratic this year. In the CNN/WMUR poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire, McCain is up by six:

On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain leads former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by a narrower margin -- 32 percent to 26 percent, the survey found. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee -- whose upset win in Iowa came after being outspent by millions of dollars by Romney -- passed former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to gain third place.

In Saturday's poll, Giuliani had 14 percent and Huckabee had 11 percent; those numbers were reversed on Sunday.

In the Reuters/Zogby tracking poll, McCain is also in the lead:

McCain sailed past Romney in the new poll to open a five-point lead at 34 percent to 29 percent. Huckabee, a Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor, dropped back slightly to 10 percent, barely holding third place over former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at 9 percent.

"It was a big day for McCain," Zogby said. "He maintains a very big lead among independents, but his problem is that he won't draw as many independents as he did in 2000."

McCain won the state's primary that year with help from a surge of independent support, but eventually lost the Republican nomination to Bush.

About 6 percent in each party remain undecided, according to the New Hampshire poll.

Rasmussen Reports gives McCain a one-point lead over Romney at 32 - 31.

I'll admit to having a bias towards the poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire. Back in 1980, when I was a sophomore at UNH, political science students actually made the calls for the poll back in its early days. One of my favorite professors, Robert Craig, helped start the UNH poll with his colleague, David Moore. Now, according to Mark Blumenthal's rating of the pollsters, the UNH poll is one of the mostly highly respected.

Read More......

Oil price declines with recession talk

One day we hear from OPEC president Chakib Khelil that the price of oil is "not necessarily very high" and the next, prices decline as the market absorbs the troubling economic data. Unemployed people in wealthy countries tend to buy less when they're out of a job.

What do people do in economies that revolve around oil when the oil prices decline or does anyone outside of the lucky few even notice? In Nigeria, the "trickle down" never seems to work very well thanks to the unhealthy partnership between government and Big Oil. The money always stays in the same group of hands without any general improvement for the bulk of the people. Of course, that same unhealthy relationship doesn't work very well closer to home, does it? Too bad Washington continues to cower to this special interest who only has their own self interest in mind. Read More......

Monday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

One more day til the NH primary. That state was going to be the firewall for the Romney and Clinton campaigns. We'll see how well that strategy works.

Also, has anyone seen any piece of economic news that is remotely good? I know Bush keeps saying we have a strong economy. But, he lies about everything. Just seems every day, there's more bad news.

Let's get it started. Read More......

Another wave of write downs hitting global banks

Today it's Credit Suisse who are preparing to write down a mere $2.2 billion. That's chump change compared to Citigroup. The earlier rumors for Q4 write downs were $8-$11 billion, though more recently the number has increased, just a little bit, to $18.7 billion.

In addition to the newest wave of write downs, news on job cuts on Wall Street should be announced this week. Some initially thought this might all blow over so they maintained the numbers. It's now clear that this storm will be severe enough, so many of the big names are cutting staff. Read More......

Bush continues assault on American middle class

For anyone wondering if Bush will work with Democrats on the "economic stimulus" plan, this should remove any doubt. While this may be helpful (again) to big business, this does nothing to help average Americans. Haven't the GOP special interests pilfered the American system enough?

The decision to proceed with the four-month-old program, which allows participating Mexican trucking companies to send loads throughout the United States, comes despite language in the recently signed catchall spending bill aimed at blocking it.

But the Department of Transportation is taking advantage of a loophole in the new law, which prohibits the government from spending any money to "establish" the program. The government says the new rules don't apply to the current program since it was started in September.

Read More......