- Jan 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Feb 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–28
- Mar 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Apr 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- May 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Jun 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–30
- Jul 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Aug 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Sep 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
- Oct 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Nov 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–30
- Dec 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
Saturday, December 30, 2006
The Gift of Understatement
Posted by on 12.30.06 @ 6:46PM
My personal favorite sentence from the New York Times' Saddam obituary:
"Rarely traveling abroad, and surrounded by often uneducated cousins, he had a limited worldview."
A Man of Affirmative Action
Posted by on 12.30.06 @ 6:23PM
Jeffrey Toobin takes to the New York Times op-ed page to praise President Ford's support for racial preferences. "Praise" may be too weak a word.
Saddam Celebrations, Saddam Sadness
Posted by on 12.30.06 @ 10:46AM
One Iraqi's reaction:
"It's like God asking you to choose between heaven and hell," said Thamer al-Musawi, 47, a salt-and-pepper-haired barber in Baghdad's Karrada neighborhood, speaking before the execution. "If Hussein gets executed, you go to hell. If he doesn't, you go to heaven. I will choose hell just so Hussein is executed. He is not a human being. He does not deserve to be alive."
Reaction at Daily Kos:
"What a dog and pony show! You would think a legitimate democracy would have a fairer appeals process, or at least one where they put some thought into their actions. I think this execution was completely illegal, because the US setup Iraqi 'government' is completely against international law. What a sad joke."
and...
"What of his enablers? The WH staff and aides, the congressmen, Lieberman (worthy of his own entry), the think tanks, the columnists, the editors, publishers and journalists, Judy Miller (worthy of her own entry, too), the 2004 Bush voters (too harsh?), the CIA, the generals, the radio and TV hosts, the directors, fucking O'Reilly, Novak, Kristol, Goldberg, Boot, Friedman, and....Bush is and was the "decider", but by God, he had a whole lot of help. Shame on them all. Shame on this nation."
Saddam can't hang without all the 2004 Bush voters joining him at the gallows? And back to Bush...
"At the end of the war in Italy, Mussolini was executed on April 29, 1945, and his body, along with others, was hanged at an Esso gas station in Milan. As much as this would be so very appropriate for Bush, I'd rather see him in on trial in the Hague answering to charges against humanity."
And my personal favorite:
"...it tries to take some of the air out of John Edwards announcing for president, highlighting the fiasco in New Orleans..."
We don't need Saddam Hussein to disappear John Edwards, pal. We already got Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Saddam is Dead
Posted by on 12.29.06 @ 11:11PM
According to Iraqi TV. Video was taken of the execution, but hasn't been released yet. It isn't clear how the networks are going to handle the footage, but I'm sure it'll be online.
Saddam Swinging Soon
Posted by on 12.29.06 @ 5:44PM
AP: " A top Iraqi official said Saddam will be executed before 6 a.m. Saturday, Baghdad time, or 10 p.m. Friday EST."
Edwards Needs Two Americas to Hit Up for Money
Posted by on 12.29.06 @ 1:31PM
It seems to me that the premise of John Edwards's campaign is that a win in Iowa will make his candidacy appear viable enough that the money will keep rolling in to allow him to remain competitive against Hillary and (perhaps) Obama going forward.
My question: Is that really realistic in today's political world? Moreover, doesn't Hillary's geographic base in New York make it very difficult for Edwards to get a foothold among fundraisers there?
Ways of War
Posted by on 12.29.06 @ 1:27PM
A clever feature on today's LA Times op-ed page: Four historians, each of whom has written a book about a great war leader, discuss how their subjects would have handled Iraq. According to the experts, Genghis Khan would have let proxies do most of the dirty work inside the large cities and executed the entire army. While Genghis Khan would have "announced that Allah willed the Mongol victory as divine punishment; to resist the Mongols was to defy the will of God," Lincoln would "abandon the notion of divine will to justify war." And Lincoln would fight "one war at a time," while Caesar would likely attack Syria and Iran.
The entry on Washington, which casts him as an insurgent-sympathizer who would condemn the whole enterprise (and throw in with James Baker!), is by far the least interesting. But the other three take the exercise seriously and are worth reading.
Liberal Encounters Ideas, Starts Crying
Posted by on 12.29.06 @ 12:14PM
I generally enjoy Ann Althouse, but wow, this is pretty embarrassing.
When Blogs Get it Wrong
Posted by on 12.29.06 @ 11:31AM
Hugh Hewitt is obnoxious in his defense of blogs in this interview with WSJ scribe Joseph Rago, who criticized blogs in a column last week for, among other things, their "minimal reportage." It's hard to see how one could disagree with Rago on this point. Yes, there are instances in which bloggers do what would be considered reporting, but an overwhelming majority of blog posts are based on linking to a MSM story and commenting on it. This fact doesn't stop Hewitt from cross examining Rago with such sanctimonious questions as:
HH: Well, thus far, I’ve identified the NSA story as being representative of the mainstream media, and Porkbusters and coverage of Supreme Court justices as being representative of new media, and I think new media is winning that run down. Do you want to put forward…other than Katrina, although I’m not sure you’d want to put forward Katrina, any major story on which the mainstream media has dominated in terms of reporting and analysis over the blogosphere?
This is an absurd on Hewitt's part. You never hear the end of it when bloggers get something right, but when they get something wrong, everybody forgets. Last year, an
That's just one example, which I offer not to discredit all bloggers, but to respond to the arrogance of Hewitt. The informal nature of blogs, the speed of the medium, and the limitless space allows bloggers to brainstorm, debate ideas, throw out theories, get feedback and make use of all the arcane specialized knowledge they may have. On the whole, this is a good thing. However, at the same time, the MSM, which has the ability and resources to do more hands on reporting, and which acts as a filter, deserves respect as well. Obviously, I blog myself and find blogs useful, but I also think some bloggers, ironically, have developed the same sense of elitism and self importance that they deride the MSM for.
More on the Pardon
Posted by on 12.29.06 @ 9:47AM
The former Watergate prosecutor gives Ford a mixed grade for the pardon:
While I do not believe Ford was wrong to pardon Nixon, the timing of the pardon was premature and may have cost Ford the margin of victory in the 1976 election. Had Ford kept to his original plan and allowed time for formal charges to be lodged against Nixon, spelling out the specifics of his culpability, it would have been up to Nixon to either accept the pardon or fight the charges in court. But pardoning Nixon without requiring at least an acknowledgment of responsibility for serious misconduct and for lying to the public left the door open for the spate of revisionist books and articles that followed the resignation.
The question is whether, knowing that he was going to pardon Nixon anyway, it was better for Ford to act sooner to expedite the healing process.
Meanwhile, Bob Woodward, reports in today's Washington Post that Ford's personal friendship with Nixon played a role in the pardon:
"I think that Nixon felt I was about the only person he could really trust on the Hill," Ford said during the 2005 interview.
Ford returned the feeling.
"I looked upon him as my personal friend. And I always treasured our relationship. And I had no hesitancy about granting the pardon, because I felt that we had this relationship and that I didn't want to see my real friend have the stigma," Ford said in the interview.
Edwards's 'New' Focus
Posted by on 12.29.06 @ 9:36AM
John Edwards is running for president, and "charting a different course," according to Associated Press:
"There's a maturity that comes with
going through and being tested in the spotlight of a national
campaign," Edwards said Thursday, alluding to his experience two
years ago as the Democratic vice presidential
nominee.
So, a single Senate term devoid of any significant policy
achievement and one failed campaign for president/vice president
count as valuable experience. "I'm mature; I'm a failure!"
Meanwhile, he's quitting his other "job:"
Former Sen. John
Edwards has resigned as director of the poverty center he founded
at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill so that he can
focus on his second run for president.
That would be the job that also enabled him
to focus on his second run for president. In other words, nothing
is really going to change other than he won't be getting paid by
North Carolina taxpayers to run for president.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Re: Ford, Reagan, and Carter
Posted by on 12.28.06 @ 4:19PM
John: Good points all. No doubt the stars were much better aligned for Reagan's election and governing prospects in 1980 than they were in 1976. But what a lot of pain and setbacks to go through to get there - in addition to the lost years from the man's prime. All in all, though, I suspect you're right about the timing. The train wreck of the Carter presidency certainly did allow a million flowers to bloom.
First Amendment Watch
Posted by on 12.28.06 @ 4:03PM
NASCAR driver Kirk Shelmerdine is rebuked by the FEC (second item) over a Bush/Cheney decal. So the right to put a political sticker on your car is now conditional?
Darn Those Charitable Obituries!
Posted by on 12.28.06 @ 2:59PM
Memo to Matt Yglesias: When people die, the first things written about them are generally nice. You've got to wait until at least the next evening before the contrarian stuff follows.
Romney and Iraq
Posted by on 12.28.06 @ 2:25PM
Rob Bluey interviews Mitt Romney, and the response at AnkleBitingPundits (under "Elsewhere in the 'Sphere") is "Romney on Iraq - 'I'm not going to weigh in.' Pathetic." (Via the Rightometer.) ABP's Patrick Hynes works for McCain, of course, and the characterization is somewhat unfair: What Romney is declining to weigh in on isn't Iraq in general but a troop surge specifically. But there's no question that Romney's hedging somewhat on both the surge question and the are-we-losing question.
Edwards and the Nutroots
Posted by on 12.28.06 @ 2:08PM
This DailyKos diarist is awfully down on John Edwards. (Via Brain Doherty.) Interestingly enough, though, in the poll at the end, at this writing a plurality of respondents (40%) say Edwards is "Honest." Not too bad, considering those polled had just read an attack on Edwards's integrity.
Re: Ford, Reagan, and Carter
Posted by on 12.28.06 @ 1:37PM
Paul: Counterfactuals like this are always fun. I'm not so sure an earlier Reagan presidency would have been an unalloyed good. If Reagan had beaten Carter in 1976, his margin of victory would surely have been much lower than it was 1980, which would mean diminished coattails. What would the Reagan years look like without a Republican Senate? Surely his legislative accomplishments would have been diminished.
And how about monetary policy? Would the 70s Reagan have kept the disasterous Nixon-appointed Fed Chairman Arthur Burns (who believed that wage and price controls rather than monetary policy would be the key to controlling inflation)? He wouldn't have replaced Burns with the sleazy William Miller, who leaked details about Treasury Secretary Michael Blumenthal's personal life to Carter in a (successful) effort to get Blumenthal's job, would he have? Would we have gotten Volcker a year early? Greenspan a decade early? The answers to these questions would radically change the legacy of the hypothetical administration.
Ford, Reagan and Carter
Posted by on 12.28.06 @ 11:42AM
A 2004 column by Fergus Cullen of the Union Leader, reposted today, asks the time honored question, “What if Reagan had beaten Ford in ‘76?” Cullen’s piece focuses on Reagan’s near-miss in the “Reagan's defeat in Cullen’s automatic assumption that Reagan would have lost to Carter is strange, especially given how close Ford came to defeating Carter while burdened by his Nixon past. As Getting Reagan four years early would of course have had many benefits. For one, the mental decline that shadowed his second term (clearly the onset of Alzheimer’s, the denials of his retainers notwithstanding) would have been averted if he had been president from 1977 - 1985. For another, the 1979 Iranian revolution likely would have been handled differently. And if one looks at that event as a central one in the rise of political Islamic radicalism, “what a difference” indeed had Reagan defeated Ford.
Ford Was No Savior
Posted by on 12.28.06 @ 11:36AM
John Podhoretz takes issue with the "ahistorical sentimentality" in the wake of Ford's death.
Ford's Convertible Dodge on Iraq?
Posted by on 12.28.06 @ 11:18AM
Posting on The Corner, Bill Bennett is steamed that Gerald Ford gave an interview with Bob Woodward in which the former president said that he disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq -- and didn't want the interview published until after he was dead. Bennett asks, "just how decent, how courageous, is what Jerry Ford did with Bob Woodward?" The man behind The Book of Virtuesconcludes that it would have been more ethical for Ford to have criticized Bush and Cheney to their faces, refrained from any criticism until after Bush was out of office, or stayed silent.
Now, I happen to think that the Iraq debate has been impoverished by the fact that so few people who actually want to see the Bush administration succeed have been willing to make these kinds of arguments publicly. But even leaving that aside, it doesn't appear to me that Ford was trying to slag President Bush from the grave. Instead, it seems that Ford gave a wide-ranging interview and that the Washington Post has decided to emphasize his Iraq comments in their posthumous coverage.
Ford presided over the end of the Vietnam War. It is of at least minor historical interest what he thought about Iraq, just as it is interesting to hear his comments about Henry Kissinger. Ford may well have thought he would live to the end of Bush's presidency. He never sought to undermine his successor publicly and, in fact, issued a statement in support of Donald Rumsfeld earlier this year. I could be wrong, but I don't think Ford's intention was to be able to criticize Bush without having to answer for his criticisms.
Edwards, Part Deux
Posted by on 12.28.06 @ 10:33AM
John Edwards made it official today with his speech in the Ninth Ward announcing his candidacy. Edwards will probably be able to count on strong union support, and he's polling well in Iowa, where he had a surprisingly strong second place finish in 2004. But with unemployment at 4.5 percent, it's hard to see his "two Americas" speech gaining much traction. That isn't to say poverty doesn't exist or that income inequality isn't a concern for any Americans, it just isn't a primary concern for enough Americans to make it the basis for a presidential run.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Ford Funeral
Posted by on 12.27.06 @ 9:41PM
President Ford's funeral plans have been finalized. There will be a private service at St. Margaret's Episcopal Church in Palm Desert, Calif. This weekend, his body will be flown to Washington, D.C. where it will lie in state through New Year's Day. On Tuesday, there will be a memorial service at the National Cathedral. Ford will be flown to his final resting place in Grand Rapids, Mich. and buried on the grounds of his presidential library.
It appears that incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will be unable to make the Ford funeral services, due to a previously scheduled trip to South America with a bipartisan group of senators. Understandable, though one detects a little snottiness in the comments by Reid's spokesman, at least as reported. Our relations with some of these South American countries isn't very good, Jim Manley reminds us. And Mrs. Ford hasn't called Reid back yet.
Re: Edwards is In
Posted by on 12.27.06 @ 5:50PM
At least Edwards didn't goof the announcement as badly as Hillary's one-time opponent in the NY Senate race, Jeanine Pirro:
Pirro's weaknesses were also on display...Halfway through her announcement, she began a sentence with disgust -- "Hillary Clinton" -- and then stopped dead for several seconds and looked pained. "I'm sorry. Could I have Page 10?" she whispered.
Edwards Is In
Posted by on 12.27.06 @ 5:26PM
John Edwards is running for president again in 2008, says the Associated Press. And the campaign is already a comedy of errors:
Edwards' announcement was made in the wake of President Gerald Ford's death and after his campaign accidentally launched his campaign Web site a day early, then shut it back down.
That's Edwards for you -- overeager yet overshadowed.
Ford vs. Bubba
Posted by on 12.27.06 @ 4:06PM
President Ford had a reputation for centrism and bipartisanship, but he could score points against the Democrats when speaking at GOP conventions. One of my favorite Ford lines was an anti-Clinton zinger from his speech at the 1996 Republican National Convention:
A few years ago, when I suddenly found myself president, I said I was a Ford, not a Lincoln. Today, what we have in the White House is neither a Ford or a Lincoln. What we have is a convertible Dodge.Isn't it time we have a trade-in?
Ford vs. New York
Posted by on 12.27.06 @ 1:56PM
Editor & Publisher tells the story behind one of the most famous headlines in newspaper history: FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD. The best part:
In contrast, the corresponding hed in The New York Times that day was: "FORD, CASTIGATING CITY, ASSERTS HE'D VETO FUND GUARANTEE; OFFERS BANKRUPTCY BILL."
Mass. Marriage Update
Posted by on 12.27.06 @ 1:30PM
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that it had no power to force the state legislature to act on a voter initiative to end same-sex marriage in the commonwealth, but rebuked legislators for avoiding their constitutional duty.
How different the debate would be today if the SJC had exercised similar judicial restraint in the Goodridge case.
And for All You Conspiracy Theorists Out There
Posted by on 12.27.06 @ 11:29AM
Gerald Ford was the last surviving member of the Warren Commission, which determined that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating John F. Kennedy.
The Godfather of Soul and the Funky President
Posted by on 12.27.06 @ 10:20AM
There's something strangely appropriate about James Brown and Gerald Ford dying within days of each other. Ford was first elected House Minority Leader in 1965, the same year that Brown released his first Top 10 pop hits, "I Got You (I Feel Good)" and "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag." And Brown actually wrote a song that is (sort of) about Ford, the 1974 hit Funky President (People It's Bad).
Ford 66, Bush 1
Posted by on 12.27.06 @ 2:13AM
One of them may have been elected twice, while the other was never elected and held the office for just 896 days, but if there's one area where President Bush lags President Ford, it's in the use of the veto. From the NY Times obit:
Gerald Ford, RIP
Posted by on 12.27.06 @ 12:20AM
Former First Lady Betty Ford has told the Associated Press that Gerald Ford, the 38th president of the United States, died yesterday at 93. More is likely to follow.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Because 2008 Speculation Isn't Premature Enough...
Posted by on 12.26.06 @ 7:37PM
How about we look ahead to 2012? Hotline On Call:
The new Census Bureau 2006 state population estimates are out and the numbers offer some insight into the post-2010 Census reapportionment of congressional seats. While it's still too early to predict exactly which states are gainers and losers, a few things are already clear.Taken together, those shifts would seem to favor a more Republican House, at least at first blush.According to an analysis by Polidata, a political data consulting firm, seven states are all but certain to lose at least one seat: Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Another six states are all but certain to gain at least one seat: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Texas and Utah.
A few other interesting projections from Polidata: Texas could pick up as many as 4 congressional seats; New York and Ohio could lose 2 seats. California, for the first time since statehood, may not pick up any seats.
Polidata's Clark Bensen also observes that Florida (currently with 25 seats) is now poised to replace New York (29 seats) as the third most populous state - and that both states might end up with 27-member delegations when the dust settles after reapportionment.
What Makes L-o-s-e-r-s Tick
Posted by on 12.26.06 @ 6:25PM
The Washington Post attempts to psychoanalyze long-shot presidential candidates. Make no mistake -- it will be a minor miracle if either Democrat Dennis Kucinich or Republican Duncan Hunter do well in a few primaries, much less win the presidential nomination of their respective parties. But do we really need Princeton scholars to explain their candidacies to us?
And I guess it's technically true that neither Jesse Jackson in 1988 nor Pat Buchanan in 1996 came that close to winning on the final delegate count. But they did both come in second in multi-candidate races, which is better than most analysts had predicted.
OMB
Posted by on 12.26.06 @ 12:30PM
No, not Office of Management and Budget: Obama Media Bias, creeping into this AP story about Sen. Joe Biden's presidential aspirations:
Re: Obamamania
Posted by on 12.26.06 @ 12:21PM
I don't think that particular poll means that Hillary is in trouble, because as everyone pointed out, it's early. It does, however, make an Obama candidacy seem more plausible. Over the past few weeks many preference polls for the Democratic nomination came out where Obama's numbers were in the 16-20% range with Hillary in the mid 30s. Many analysts pointed to these numbers to say, despite all of the publicity Obama has gotten, his numbers have hardly moved. What the NH poll shows is that concentrated media attention in one state actually did boost his numbers. Whether he can replicate this in other states and sustain it is another story entirely.
Easily Earned Legalization
Posted by on 12.26.06 @ 10:32AM
If you thought the problem with the Senate's Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill was that it wasn't enough like a straight-up amnesty, there's good news:
Counting on the support of the new Democratic majority in Congress, Democratic lawmakers and their Republican allies are working on measures that could place millions of illegal immigrants on a more direct path to citizenship than would a bill that the Senate passed in the spring.This may seem likely to attract a new wave of illegal immigrants, but that will be mitigated by beefed-up enforcement. Oh, wait...The lawmakers are considering abandoning a requirement in the Senate bill that would compel several million illegal immigrants to leave the United States before becoming eligible to apply for citizenship.
The lawmakers are also considering denying financing for 700 miles of fencing along the border with Mexico, a law championed by Republicans that passed with significant Democratic support.Never mind.
The Devil is in The Constructiveness
Posted by on 12.26.06 @ 10:04AM
Ezra Klein has an op-ed in today's LA Times banging the drum for universal health care. I absolutely adore this line regarding a particular "serious, albeit extraordinarily complicated, plan" for universal care in California:
The details of the plan are unimportant; it's the constructiveness of the proposal that matters.This sentence may be the perfect distillation of everything that has been wrong with American liberalism since the Progressive Era: A preference for action over ideas, an elevation of good intentions over real-world effects, a deference to the highly specialized expertise of a few technocrats on matters of enormous import, and a total indifference to the possibility of unintended consequences.
RE: Obamamania
Posted by on 12.26.06 @ 12:29AM
It's also worth remembering that other candidates have seen similar bumps in the New Hampshire polls fade before the primary. Steve Forbes in 1996, Bill Bradley in 2000, and both Howard Dean and Wesley Clark in 2004 all found themselves at or near the top of the pack in polling that occured much closer to the first ballots being cast than the surveys showing an Obama surge. None of them managed to win the primary.
Each of the above candidates faltered for different reasons. Perhaps none of their circumstances will apply to Obama. But it's still a little early to write off Hillary just because of the Illinois senator's standing in polls after his first Granite State campaign swing.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Obamamania
Posted by on 12.25.06 @ 10:37PM
There's been quite a bit of chatter about the new Concord Monitor poll showing Barack Obama in a statistical dead heat with Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. ("The mighty Hillary juggernaut closes its vise-like grip on the post of Senate Majority Leader," giggles Mickey Kaus). I'd be cautious about reading too much into the sudden Obama surge, though. It's still very early, and while Obama is a terrific speaker, he has yet to be tested in a competitive race (his Senate victory was a cakewalk, remember). His recent visit to New Hampshire got good reviews, and he's the flavor of the month. But whether he can sustain his current strength as the campaign gets rolling remains to be seen.
Peace on Earth?
Posted by on 12.25.06 @ 10:10PM
Daniel Drezner notes civil wars going transnational: Iranians meddling in Iraq, and Ethiopia invading Somalia (on account of the Islamist side of the Somali conflict threatening to target Ethiopia).
Speaking of which, Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt says "the opposition wants to turn this beautiful, prosperous, and (culturally) diverse country into (another) Somalia." Jumblatt also has some interesting things to say about the Iran-Syria alliance, as Cliff May highlights.
Merry Christmas
Posted by on 12.25.06 @ 8:28AM
Best wishes especially, as always, to military families who can't be together at the holidays. On that note: 50 heroes from 50 states.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Tracking Mr. Claus
Posted by on 12.24.06 @ 7:58PM
Reid may be right about Santa not having a computer, but some folks who keep an eye out for him -- via radar and satellites at least -- sure do. The kids in your house may want to follow Santa's track in the sky courtesy of NORAD. Take it from me, dads, it's better than trying to talk 'em out of staring up in the sky if there are a lot of clouds and no stars are visible. Merry Christmas, everybody.
Yule Log
Posted by on 12.24.06 @ 5:36PM
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. But he is not the fellow posing as Santa when he messages you on the Internet, so do not under any circumstance answer any of that mail. The real Santa does not have a computer and communicates with us directly through our hearts, minds, and imaginations.
In this sense, he is always logged on, always and always.
Edwards and '08
Posted by on 12.24.06 @ 11:57AM
WaPo's Dan Balz says Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are clearing the Democratic field. But in the last paragraph he mentions that John Edwards is leading in the Iowa polls -- sort of a buried lede. According to Balz, Edwards is making his official annoucement in the next week, "the timing dictated in part by his advisers' belief that he will get more attention during an otherwise slow news week than he might in January, when the new Congress begins and President Bush unveils his new Iraq strategy."
In the New York Observer, Jason Horowitz checks in with Edwards as he schmoozes donors in Manhattan:
Mr. Edwards feels that he'll be able to take advantage of his existing network of contributors to find the resources he'll need to mount a serious bid. "This is an area I don't have to guess about," he said. "I have both a track record and a wide and deep support network nationwide, including New York, that I'm still very close to. If I decide to run, I know I will be able to raise the money to run a serious campaign."But he is starting this time around at a pronounced disadvantage. According to the Federal Election Commission Web site, Mr. Edwards' One America Committee P.A.C. had $20,611 on hand as of the end of November. As of September, Mr. Edwards' 2004 Presidential campaign was still more than $300,000 in debt.
And with high-profile rivals like Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama to contend with, the former Senator is likely to find that resources are considerably more difficult to come by this time around, even in the country's most donor-rich precincts.
"He wasn't running against a New York Senator last time. It creates a precarious situation for any fund-raiser to go against their own Senator, especially when she is the front-runner," said one New York fund-raiser sympathetic to Mr. Edwards. "Giving to Hillary is a win-win: She is either going to be the nominee, or she is going to be the New York Senator for as long as she wants to be."
- Bowling Alone
- Mission Implausible
- The Continuing Crisis
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
