2008 Presidential Election

[phil]

The "2008 Presidential election" season
is starting way too early ...

By the time we get to the primaries,
people will already be sick of all the candidates !

[Galactus]

Probably, but I can't wait to get Dumbass out of office.

[phil]

Still 706 days - 03 hours - 40 ...minutes to go !!

[phil]

The "good" news is that Junior's presidency is 75% over ...

Bad news is that he can still do lots of damage with the ¼ he has left !

[phil]

The Explanation Hillary Clinton Owes

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, February 13, 2007; Page A21

Yet another man has betrayed Hillary Clinton. This time it's George W. Bush, who not only deceived her about weapons of mass destruction but, when granted congressional authorization to go to war in Iraq, actually did so. This, apparently, came as a surprise to her, although in every hamlet and village in America, every resident who could either read or watch Fox News knew that Bush was going to take the country to war. Among other things, troops were already being dispatched.

Somehow, Bush's intentions were lost on Clinton, who then as now was a member of the United States Senate. This was the case even though she now rightly calls Bush's desire to topple Saddam Hussein an "obsession."

"From almost the first day they got into office," Clinton said last weekend in New Hampshire, the Bush administration was "trying to figure out how to get rid of Saddam Hussein." If that was the case -- and indeed it was -- then how come she now says she did not think Bush, armed with a congressional resolution, would hurry to war?

I certainly did. It was about the only thing I got right about the war, which, the record will show, I supported. If I were running for the presidency, I might call my position "a mistake" and bray about being misled. But it was really a lapse in judgment. For reasons extraneous to this particular column, I thought the war would do wonders for the Middle East and that it would last, at the most, a week or two. In this I was assured by the usual experts in and out of government. My head nodded like one of those little toy dogs in the window of the car ahead of you.

So I do not condemn Clinton and other Democratic presidential candidates -- Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and John Edwards -- for voting for the war because I would have done the same. I fault them, though, for passing the blame to Bush as the guy who misled them. They all had sufficient knowledge to question the administration's arguments, and they did not do so. Not a single one of them, for instance, could possibly have believed the entirety of the administration's case or not have suspected that the reasons for war were being hyped. If they felt otherwise, they have no business running for president.

The odd man out in this debate is Barack Obama, who was not in the Senate in October 2002 when Congress passed the war resolution. He has been on record from that time as always being opposed to the war. That is to his credit. But we will never know how he might have voted since, clearly, being in the Senate and having presidential ambitions work wonders on the mind. (Indeed, once Obama got to Washington, he made only one Senate speech on Iraq.) Can it only be coincidence that all the other Democratic senators now running for president voted for the war? Can it also be a coincidence that they, in fact, voted as a majority of the American people at the time wanted? Not a single one of them bucked the zeitgeist, yet other Democratic senators -- 21 of them, in fact -- voted against the resolution. They were the ones not running for president.

The zeitgeist has reversed course. A clear majority of Americans and a preponderance of Democrats now oppose the war and have no confidence in Bush's handling of it. Is it yet another coincidence that, aside from Obama, all the Democratic presidential candidates from the Senate have also reversed course, arriving at their opinions after excruciating thought, or have they merely put their finger to the wind? In other words, have they changed their minds or merely their positions? It's hard to know. In Clinton's case, she is dead center in American public opinion, foursquare for what's popular and courageously opposed to what's not. Most Americans oppose a precipitous pullout from Iraq and -- surprise! -- so does Clinton.

Too often when a candidate throws his hat into the ring, he tosses principle out the window. Yet this is precisely what we want in a president -- principles and the courage to stick to them. Instead of Clinton saying she had been misled by Bush and his merry band of fibbers, exaggerators and hallucinators, I'd like to hear an explanation of how she thinks she went wrong and what she learned from it. I don't want to know how Bush failed her. I want to know how she failed her country.

[loudaab]

maarts said:

The Right-wingers dont care about Obama right now because they think Hillary is going to get the nomination.

Is that so sure? Has Hilary really such a large chance to get that nomination? I'd like to hear how you come to that idea, PaulED.

Well that's what Rush Limbaugh says...heheehe--just kidding (although its true).
She's leading in polls by double digits and she's connected with all the big money people.
HOWEVER, californina and illinois are moving their primaries up to feb'08 and Obama is strong--real strong in both of those states. So if he could win both of those, it will be real interesting.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

He won't though because Bill Clinton is rallying the troops and creating some real pressure on old allies to stick with Hillary.

[loudaab]

skvorisdeadsorta said:

He won't though because Bill Clinton is rallying the troops and creating some real pressure on old allies to stick with Hillary.

Where are you getting this information from? Can you provide some links?

[skvorisdeadsorta]

The news, dude. There was a big article on how Spielburg and several directors came out rallying for Obama at the very beginning of the year and now they are contributing millions of dollars to the Hillary campaign due to some heavy breathing from Bill.

Really this isn't news at all. It's the split that we have in the democratic party between the conservative democrats like Bill Clinton who are now the old garde of the party and the new emerging more left democrats like Obama and Howard Dean. This has been pretty apparent from day one if you just spend 15 minutes on any blog, talking heads on any television network, or any newspaper, there has been made mention of the persuasion powers that Bill is employing to get his wife elected within the party. He's still very powerful.

There is also the unfortunate issue that I am not entirely sure that the voting public is going to go with an African American with the middle name of Hussein. I don't care, but I think that might be another obstacle in his way because while it may be 2007, I believe that much of the population is still living in 1907.

[kmc]

skvorisdeadsorta said:

The news, dude. There was a big article on how Spielburg and several directors came out rallying for Obama at the very beginning of the year and now they are contributing millions of dollars to the Hillary campaign due to some heavy breathing from Bill.

Really this isn't news at all. It's the split that we have in the democratic party between the conservative democrats like Bill Clinton who are now the old garde of the party and the new emerging more left democrats like Obama and Howard Dean. This has been pretty apparent from day one if you just spend 15 minutes on any blog, talking heads on any television network, or any newspaper, there has been made mention of the persuasion powers that Bill is employing to get his wife elected within the party. He's still very powerful.

There is also the unfortunate issue that I am not entirely sure that the voting public is going to go with an African American with the middle name of Hussein. I don't care, but I think that might be another obstacle in his way because while it may be 2007, I believe that much of the population is still living in 1907.

This is not what Olbermann reported last night.

[shin]

Given that Olbermann is literally always right, that pretty much settles it.

[kmc]

Pretty much always. Olbermann said the Holywood establishment (including Spielberg) with few exceptions is backing Obama. Not that it matters, but still. It has to do with Hillary's backing of the war and ridiculous catering to whatever crowd she happens to sit in front of.

[Galactus]

Spielberg, Geffen Bringing Movie Stars and Dollars to Obama Presidential Bid

Posted: January 25, 2007 1:25:30 PM

Spielberg, Geffen Bringing Movie Stars and Dollars to Obama Presidential Bid

Sen. Barak Obama's Hollywood dreams coming true as DreamWorks founders kick off scramble for presidential bucks and starpower

By Alex Ben Block for Hollywood Today

Hollywood-CA (rushprnews) 01/25/2007 - Obama-mania is coming to Hollywood. DreamWorks founders Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen are hosting a fundraiser Feb. 20 in Beverly Hills for U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "in support of his presidential exploratory committee," according to invitations that went out Wednesday to top Democrats in show business.

"To date this event is the most significant statement that's been made," says Andy Spahn, political advisor and spokesman for DreamWorks, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg.

All three have been supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in the past, donating to her Senate campaign and PAC. Sen. Clinton is starring in her own gala fundraiser here on Mar. 24 -- a major event, probably at a Beverly Hills hotel, with private dinners for big spenders. Variety reports that Sen. Clinton will include meet and greets at the homes of TV mogul Haim Saban and investment banker Sim Farar, for those who contribute at least $25,000. For her gala, Clinton will be looking to turn out enough star power to balance the A-listers supporting Obama, reportedly including George Clooney, Barbra Streisand Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Oprah Winfrey and Oliver Stone.

Spahn told entertainment newsmagazine Hollywood Today (www.hollywoodtoday.net) that Katzenberg fully supports Obama. He said that, "Steven (Spielberg) has not made an endorsement at this time," adding: "He will be helping a few of his party's candidates this Spring. He will decide on an endorsement in the months ahead, however."

For the political position of the third Dreamworks founder, David Geffen, Spahn directed me to a phone number at Geffen's offices. It was answered by a nervous assistant who said he was not an official spokesman, and asked not to be quoted. The assistant said that Geffen being one of the three co-hosts of the Obama reception, and hosting a private dinner at his home afterward for big contributors, should not be taken as "a formal statement of endorsement." When pressed, the assistant would only say that, "David has not issued a statement at this point."

Geffen has committed to Obama according to reports in the Los Angeles Times, New York Times and elsewhere. Still, Spahn insisted that was all based on rumors and cautioned that Geffen has not officially committed to anyone yet, and would have to speak for himself.

Geffen being cagey isn't unusual. The billionaire wheeler-dealer, who made his first fortune in music and recently bid to buy the Los Angeles Times, loves to make the dramatic statement, but wants to save it for the right moment.

Tickets for the Obama reception at the Beverly Hilton are $2,300 per person and $4,600 for a couple. According to the invitation, there will be a private dinner following the reception at Geffen's home. That event is for Obama fundraiser "Co-Chairs," "who commit to raising $46,000 for the evening (10 couples/20 tickets)," according to the invitation.

Obama will also be celebrated at another campaign fundraising event around the same time hosted by Ari Emanuel, the high profile agent who is a partner at Endeavor Agency, and brother of Rahm Emanuel, Congressman from Illinois, and major fundraising force in the Democratic party. Rahm Emanuel has said he favors Obama, who is from his home state, without formally endorsing him at this point.

A spokesman for Ari Emanuel and Endeavor on Wednesday confirmed they will also be hosting an event for Obama. The spokesman said the details are still being arranged and will be announced as soon as practical. Emanuel, the model for the agent character on HBO's "Entourage," represents a number of well-known clients, including Martin Scorsese, Larry David and Michael Douglas.

George Clooney was quoted in the L.A. Times that an Obama candidacy would be "the most electrifying thing to happen to the Democratic party since (Pres. John F.) Kennedy."

This high profile attention of a visit to Hollywood will serve another part of the Obama strategy, according to another veteran show biz political consultant. "He has no need to buy (expensive advertising) time, because the media have made him a focus. Thanks to that media attention, he has moved up faster in name recognition than anybody in history."

When Larry King was asked at a TV critic's press conference about Obama's seemingly irresistible lure for the news media, he commented: "He's the flavor of the month, and his book is number one. He's come out of nowhere. He's an enormously attractive figure- He's become a major force through the sheer energy of becoming a major force."

The importance of Hollywood's support is greater than ever for several reasons. First, Hollywood (meaning the entertainment industry) helps bring name recognition, which the candidates all need right now (even if they will disavow Hollywood values later on the campaign trail), as well as connections and marketing savvy.

Hollywood has a lot of money to give, and it's not tied just to the lobbying goals of an industry. It is often about ideas and values and policies, especially the war in Iraq. For candidates who have some success and strong personal positions that match up with Hollywood, these visits can be increasingly rewarding.

[Galactus]

Stars Choose Between Clinton And Obama

27/01/2007
Steve Gorman
Even as they ponder their Oscar choices, the wealthy stars of Hollywood's liberal establishment are weighing up the choice between the Democratic Party's two leading lights for president in 2008.

The entertainment industry has long been a cornerstone of support for Democrats seeking public office, and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, like her husband, former President Bill Clinton, has been one of the chief beneficiaries.

But a newcomer to Hollywood's money trail, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, is coming next month for a fund-raising reception hosted by three of the most influential moguls -- Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg of DreamWorks.

Invitations went out this week to 700 donors and activists asking them to give the allowed annual maximum of $2,300 (1,174 pounds) per person to meet Obama at the Beverly Hilton Hotel on February 20.

A private dinner at Geffen's home in Malibu will be held for those pledging to raise $46,000 for the Chicago Democrat.

But the first high-profile celebrity donation to a 2008 Democratic hopeful went the other way, with actress Elizabeth Taylor contributing $2,100 to Clinton's campaign.

"I like the way she thinks," Taylor said in a statement.

Several Democratic consultants told Reuters that Clinton remains in a class of her own on the Los Angeles fund-raising circuit, with strong ties to the entertainment community.

All indications are that veteran Clinton loyalists like producers Haim Saban and Steve Bing, former studio chief Sherry Lansing and magnate Ron Burkle remain firmly in her camp.

Nevertheless, a parade of celebrities have expressed support for Obama or are considering it.

Obama launched his exploratory committee 10 days ago and Clinton quickly followed suit.

A new Time magazine poll found registered Democratic voters favour Clinton over Obama by 40 percent to 21 percent, though Obama drew far greater support across party lines.

Hedging Their Bets

Many of the wealthy in Los Angeles will write checks to more than one campaign, especially early in the race, as donors hedge their bets, experts said.

"There will be a lot of donations to multiple candidates," Democratic strategist Bill Carrick said.

Spielberg plans to help several candidates and has also volunteered to host a fund-raising event for Clinton, though no specifics have been discussed, spokesman Andy Spahn said.

Spahn added that Spielberg will settle eventually on a single candidate. While Katzenberg has endorsed Obama, Geffen has not made public his support for any candidate.

Political analysts say there is plenty of Hollywood money to go round for Clinton, Obama and other Democrats eying the White House, including Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd, Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the party's vice presidential nominee in 2004.

Some Democratic activists have privately expressed anger at Clinton's early support for the Iraq war. They worry she may prove too divisive a candidate to win at election time or that some voters are facing "Clinton fatigue."

"There's no question that California in general, and L.A. in particular, likes to see new faces and somebody they see as a real comer, and to some degree Obama has achieved rock-star status quickly," Carrick said.

But others said Obama remains relatively untested and that the initial burst of enthusiasm he generated could fade.

"Barack Obama is going to learn things about himself that he himself never knew," veteran Democratic consultant Joe Cirrell said. "It's fashionable right now to be for him."

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Not Sold On Clinton

By Robert D. Novak
Monday, February 12, 2007; A17

The buzz in Democratic circles for the past two weeks has been over the decision to raise money for Sen. Barack Obama by two or three multimillionaire liberals from Hollywood who were thought to be supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president. An explanation that this is the movie industry's delayed reaction to some of President Bill Clinton's policies is not credible. The real reason for the defection is more troubling for Clinton's campaign.

In fact, the Hollywood defections have the same root as resistance to Clinton's candidacy among less glittering Democratic activists throughout the country. A substantial number of them do not want to participate in a coronation of the former first lady because they still doubt her viability as a presidential candidate. They question both her positions on the issues and her skills on the campaign trail.

What's wrong with Clinton was demonstrated by the Feb. 4 performance on NBC's "Meet the Press" of a competitor, former senator John Edwards, who displayed the qualities she lacks. He took firm positions and admitted error, in contrast to Clinton's careful parsing. It followed his virtuoso performance at the Democratic National Committee meeting two days earlier that overshadowed Clinton's speech there. Comparing Clinton and Edwards, one longtime observer of the Democratic scene called it "caution versus courage."

For many months, long before Clinton confirmed that she was a candidate, her agents have been pinning down commitments from a staggering array of Democrats who were connected in large or small degree to her husband to create an aura of inevitability about her nomination. That effort hit a bump two weeks ago with the announcement that David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Steven Spielberg, the founders of the DreamWorks film studios who all were thought to be staunch Clintonites, were sponsoring a fundraiser for Obama.

According to Democratic sources, former President Clinton got Spielberg to step away from a tacit endorsement of Obama. Spielberg has let it be known that he will host a future fundraiser for Clinton as part of a policy of helping all Democratic presidential candidates. But Katzenberg and Geffen seem to be clearly in Obama's camp.

Two theories for these defections have been put out by Democrats favorable to Clinton. First, the gay community in Hollywood is seeking revenge against Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy restricting open homosexuality in the military. Second, the entertainment industry still harbors resentment about Clinton-Gore administration criticism of the material that is presented to children.

But these explanations defy reality, in the opinion of Democrats not yet committed to any candidate. Hollywood, including the DreamWorks founders, was solidly behind Bill Clinton in 1996 and Al Gore in 2000.

The real reason for not desiring a Hillary coronation, as described to me by California Democrats, is resentment of her cautious sidestep rightward over the past six years. They still cannot get over her sponsorship in 2005 of legislation against flag burning. The whispered worry is that Clinton as the presidential nominee would be a loser in a year when the stars seem aligned for a Republican defeat.

What's wrong with Clinton was pointed out by Edwards in his "Meet the Press" performance. He not only said he was "wrong" about Iraq when he first supported the intervention, but he advocated universal health care and asserted: "Yes, we'll have to raise taxes." Clinton has hedged on each of these issues (as Edwards pointed out in the case of her stance on Iraq).

Edwards is not popular with the Democratic elite, who view him as a glib and shallow trial lawyer. They remember that he began his 2004 campaign for president as a centrist Southern Democrat in the Jimmy Carter-Bill Clinton mold, but after not getting anywhere he switched to left-wing populism. The viable alternative to Clinton may be Obama.

Nevertheless, Edwards's "courage" energized DNC members as Clinton's "caution" did not. The point is that many Democrats are voting no on a Hillary coronation.