[KlaraNovikoffa]

Except that Condi seems to have proven herself to have faulty judgment -- and a world view that won't get us much past 2050

[Centurnion]

young, black and female. The choice is obvious: Condoleezza Rice. not convinced she's any of the above

[chuecaloversvv]

Shes the Anti-Universes David Letterman.

[ITYfl01c]

I used to think the job of president was one anybody could fill honorably if they hadn't been through the experience necessary to get there --an experience that requires you to hang up your ideals and become corrupt.

The current president is proof that you don't need intelligence to go through the paces to do the job, but he's also proof that you need good judgment and character to keep from being a failure. Just pulling a name out out of a hat and saying, "you're president!" runs about a 50/50 risk of getting someone with bad character by my reckoning --which might be better odds than the present system gives us.


Your criteria represent yet another approach that might work: choose a president by age, race and gender. Since you're obviously dismayed by old, white and male, the furthest you can get from that is young, black and female. The choice is obvious: Condoleezza Rice.

Christ who in there right mind would vote for her!!!!. I dont even know Republicans that like her

[ELURNSERB]

I think it was sarcasm.

[MattJargin]

I think it was sarcasm.

Zippy, you make emoticons superfluous.

[ëàìèíàò]

[gopsbousperie]

Abe Lincoln wouldn't have a chance.

Washington might be a shoo-in.

[effenseshoora]

February 4, 2007

Giuliani on 2008 Bid: ‘A Real Good Chance’

By RAY RIVERA

Rudolph W. Giuliani appeared to move a step closer to announcing his presidential ambitions yesterday, saying after an appearance in South Carolina that “there’s a real good chance” he will run.

Mr. Giuliani’s intentions have been all but taken for granted by most political observers. He has made two trips to New Hampshire — home of the nation’s first primary — and has promised to make more. He has formed an exploratory committee, hired campaign workers and moved to divest himself from a large chunk of his consulting business to avoid conflicts in the event of a presidential bid.

But on the nascent campaign trail itself, the former New York City mayor has coyly stepped around the question of “Will he or won’t he?”

After a 30-minute speech before Republican Party leaders in South Carolina, Mr. Giuliani fielded the question again, but this time came closer than he had before to giving a definitive response in public. “There’s a real good chance,” he told an Associated Press reporter.

Mr. Giuliani’s aides declined to comment further on the remark.

Other signals of his impending bid can be seen in his tightly packed schedule of appearances and fund-raisers in the days and weeks to come. According a source close to the campaign, the itinerary includes fund-raisers in Florida on Tuesday followed by more stops across the country before appearing as the keynote speaker at the California Republican Convention in Sacramento on Saturday.

Mr. Giuliani is not alone among potential Republican White House contenders who have yet to formally declare their intentions. Others include Senator John McCain of Arizona and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.

But Mr. Giuliani’s delay has caused some political analysts to wonder if he is waiting too long, although others have said his name recognition gives him extra time before deciding to get into the race.

Patrick Dorinson, spokesman for the California Republican Party, said if Mr. Giuliani is thinking about announcing anytime soon, the convention in Sacramento could be an ideal setting.

“It’s going to be very well attended,” Mr. Dorinson said. “We’ve received a lot of media interest and members of the party are very excited about seeing Giuliani, so if he wanted to make an announcement, it certainly could be a place to do it.”

In addition, Mr. Dorinson said, Mr. Giuliani will be the only potential presidential candidate speaking at the convention, so he will have the floor to himself.

The state party that propelled Arnold Schwarzenegger to the governor’s mansion might also provide a warmer reception to Mr. Giuliani than, say, Iowa or South Carolina, where his moderate stands on abortion, gay rights and gun control are likely to find stiff resistance from social conservatives.

Mr. Dorinson said he had not heard any speculation that Mr. Giuliani would announce there and had not seen an advance copy of his speech. If it did happen, it would coincidentally come on the same day that Senator Barack Obama, a Democrat, has said he will formally declare his candidacy in Illinois.

“There’s been so much talk about the Democratic race,” Mr. Dorinson said. “We’re just excited California Republicans will get to see a potential Republican candidate.”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[RokeIdeadioke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8

[jisee]

If there is anyone who can overcome whatever baggage that ^^^ might cause it would be Rudy ...

But even he might not be able to survive snippets played on cable news over and over and over ...

[actrisski]

Then again ...

Christianists vs Giuliani

Andrew Sullivan
07 Feb 2007 09:49 am




His defense of individual freedom is anathema to them. It's important to understand that the current Republican definition of conservatism is about religion, not politics. Terry Jeffrey puts it very candidly:Giuliani's positions on abortion and marriage disqualify him as a conservative because they annihilate the link between the natural law and man-made laws. Indeed, they use man-made law to promote and protect acts that violate the natural law.
If you want to know what he means by "natural law," check out Chapter Three in "The Conservative Soul," "The Theoconservative Project." For the theocons, natural law certainly trumps individual liberty:The late Russell Kirk argued in The Conservative Mind that the first canon of conservatism is "elief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems ... True politics is the art of apprehending and applying the Justice which ought to prevail in a community of souls."Other Christianists are much blunter about Giuliani's heretically secular instincts. Here's Tony Perkins, a major figure in the Republican base:"He's the front runner but it's kind of like here in DC, you drive over the Potomac at night and it looks beautiful but if you get down near it you certainly wouldn't want to take anything out of it and eat it. It's polluted it's got problems."I couldn't disagree more. And that is the core divide in contemporary conservatism: between fundamentalism and freedom, between a politics based on divine revelation and Thomist law-making and a politics based on man-made law and individual liberty. Giuliani is running as a secular, modern conservative to run what has become a religious, theological party. His fate is going to be a fascinating insight into what American conservatism can now mean. And the Christianists are not going to put up with secular, inclusive, reality-based conservatism.

(Photo: Jeff Fusco/Getty.)

Copyright © 2007 Andrew Sullivan.

[bppstorr]

.
In an article titled Edwards proposes health care plan, 2/5/2007 1:14 PM by Nedra Pickler, Associated Press, we are told that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards asserted the following:

"The time has come for a universal health care reform that covers everyone, cuts costs, and provides better care" The article also states:

Edwards said his plan will make it cheaper for families and businesses to have insurance coverage while providing health care to the uninsured.

The plan would free up money for health care coverage by abolishing President Bush's tax cuts for people who make more than $200,000 a year and by having the government collect more back taxes, Edwards said. But the truth about Nedra Pickler’s article is, which was suspiciously not reported, Edwards has not proposed the necessary amendment to our Constitution granting power to Congress to tax and spend or involve itself in the health care needs of the people within the various states. And so, what Edwards is proposing, and is going unnoticed by our media, is another proposed attack upon federalism, and a blatant proposed subjugation of our written Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agreed to. Those intentions may be summed up as follows:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."see Federalist Paper No. 45

Now, why is Edwards’ proposed subjugation of our written Constitution not reported? Seems to be quite apparent that our popular media works in concert with our Capitol Hill gangster crowd to expand the iron fist of the federal government over the people ___ in this case, seizing control over their health care needs and making them dependent upon the federal government for health care.

But what about Edwards, is he really sincere in wanting to help working people with their health care needs? Seems only too obvious, if Edwards were concerned about the working people, he would be proposing an end to income taxation and a return to our Constitution’s original tax plan which would “free up” the working people’s paychecks to meet their own economic needs rather then propose to subjugate our federal Constitution with another socialist idea.

Make no mistake, Edwards is a sheep in wolves clothes! A very, very dangerous individual to all freedom loving people. Keep in mind socialism is a blessing to folks in government, not the people, and allows folks in government to live large [six figure salaries, extravagant health care plans which the working people can only dream of, and, outrageous pension plans ___ all paid for by the taxed wages working people earn]. Folks in government get all this for nothing more than using the force of the federal government to redistribute working people’s paychecks they have taxed away from them, making wage earners poor and creating a dependent voting constituency which keeps these thieves in political power.

When will the American People wake up and come to the realization the object of the Capitol Hill gang, Republicans and Democrats in political power, is to keep themselves in power, live large, and enjoy the top of the shelf fruits siphoned from the pockets of working people? That is what socialism is all about…a big fat tax pig getting fatter.

The very purpose of income taxation is to make the people dependant upon government by confiscating their earned wages, which folks in government then use to bribe the voter with programs which keeps them in power. And, that is why Edwards, and his socialist pals on Capitol Hill will not propose an end to taxing the wages which labor has earned…their intention is to keep the working people as useful tax slaves for folks in government and very dependant upon government for their subsistence.

JWK

“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“___ Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

[shodulsilfeli]

February 8, 2007

Mormon Candidate Braces for Religion as Issue


Carlos Osorio/Associated Press
Mitt Romney gave the first major policy speech of his presidential campaign Wednesday in an address to the Detroit Economic Club.


By ADAM NAGOURNEY and LAURIE GOODSTEIN

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 — As he begins campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, is facing a threshold issue: Will his religion — he is a Mormon — be a big obstacle to winning the White House?

Polls show a substantial number of Americans will not vote for a Mormon for president. The religion is viewed with suspicion by Christian conservatives, a vital part of the Republicans’ primary base.

Mr. Romney’s advisers acknowledged that popular misconceptions about Mormonism — as well as questions about whether Mormons are beholden to their church’s leaders on public policy — could give his opponents ammunition in the wide-open fight among Republicans to become the consensus candidate of social conservatives.

Mr. Romney, in an extended interview on the subject as he drove through South Carolina last week, expressed confidence that he could quell concerns about his faith, pointing to his own experience winning in Massachusetts. He said he shared with many Americans the bafflement over obsolete Mormon practices like polygamy — he described it as “bizarre” — and disputed the argument that his faith would require him to be loyal to his church before his country.

“People have interest early on in your religion and any similar element of your background,” he said. “But as soon as they begin to watch you on TV and see the debates and hear you talking about issues, they are overwhelmingly concerned with your vision of the future and the leadership skills that you can bring to bear.”

Still, Mr. Romney is taking no chances. He has set up a meeting this month in Florida with 100 ministers and religious broadcasters. That gathering follows what was by all accounts a successful meeting at his home last fall with evangelical leaders, including the Rev. Jerry Falwell; the Rev. Franklin Graham, who is a son of the Rev. Billy Graham; and Paula White, a popular preacher.

Mr. Romney said he was giving strong consideration to a public address about his faith and political views, modeled after the one John F. Kennedy gave in 1960 in the face of a wave of concern about his being a Roman Catholic.

Mr. Romney’s aides said he had closely studied Kennedy’s speech in trying to measure how to navigate the task of becoming the nation’s first Mormon president, and he has consulted other Mormon elected leaders, including Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, about how to proceed.

Mr. Romney appears to be making some headway. Several prominent evangelical leaders said that, after meeting him, they had grown sufficiently comfortable with the notion of Mr. Romney as president to overcome any concerns they might have about his religion.

On a pragmatic level, some said that Mr. Romney — despite questions among conservatives about his shifting views on abortion and gay rights — struck them as the Republican candidate best able to win and carry their social conservative agenda to the White House.

“There’s this growing acceptance of this idea that Mitt Romney may well be and is our best candidate,” said Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative legal advocacy group, and a prominent host on Christian radio.

Mark DeMoss, an evangelical public relations consultant who represents many conservative Christian groups, said it was “more important to me that a candidate shares my values than my faith,” adding, “And if I look at it this way, Mr. Romney would be my top choice.”

Mormons consider themselves to be Christians, but some beliefs central to Mormons are regarded by other churches as heretical. For example, Mormons have three books of Scripture other than the Bible, including the Book of Mormon, which Mormons believe was translated from golden plates discovered in 1827 by Joseph Smith Jr., the church’s founder and first prophet.

Mormons believe that Smith rescued Christianity from apostasy and restored the church to what was envisioned in the New Testament — but these doctrines are beyond the pale for most Christian churches.

Beyond that, there are perceptions among some people regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the church is formally known, that account for at least some of the public unease: that Mormons still practice polygamy (the church renounced polygamy in 1890), that it is more of a cult than a religion and that its members take political direction from the church’s leaders.

Several Republicans said such perceptions could be a problem for Mr. Romney, especially in the South, which has had a disproportionate influence in selecting Republican presidential nominees.

Gloria A. Haskins, a state representative from South Carolina who is supporting Senator John McCain for the Republican nomination, said discussions with her constituents in Greenville, an evangelical stronghold, convinced her that a Mormon like Mr. Romney could not win a Republican primary in her state. South Carolina has one of the earliest, and most critical, primaries next year.

“From what I hear in my district, it is very doubtful,” Ms. Haskins said. “This is South Carolina. We’re very mainstream, evangelical, Christian, conservative. It will come up. In this of all states, it will come up.”

But Katon Dawson, the state Republican chairman, said he thought Mr. Romney had made significant progress in dealing with those concerns. “I have heard him on his personal faith and on his character and conviction and the love for his country,” Mr. Dawson said. “I have all confidence that he will be able to answer those questions, whether they be in negative ads against him or in forums or in debates.”

Mr. Romney’s candidacy has stirred discussion about faith and the White House unlike any since Kennedy, including a remarkable debate that unfolded recently in The New Republic. Damon Linker, a critic of the influence of Christian conservatism on politics, described Mormonism as a “theologically unstable, and thus politically perilous, religion.”

The article brought a stinging rebuttal in the same publication from Richard Lyman Bushman, a Mormon who is a history professor at Columbia University, and who said Mr. Linker’s arguments had “no grounding in reality.”

Mr. Romney is not the first Mormon to seek a presidential nomination, but by every indication he has the best chance yet of being in the general election next year. His father, George Romney, was a candidate in 1968, but his campaign collapsed before he ever had to deal seriously with questions about religion.

Senator Hatch said his own candidacy in 2000, which was something of a long shot, was to “knock down prejudice against my faith.”

“There’s a lot of prejudice out there,” Mr. Hatch said. “We’ve come a long way, but there are still many people around the country who consider the Mormon faith a cult.”

But if Mr. Romney has made progress with evangelicals, he appears to face a larger challenge in dispelling apprehensions among the public at large. A national poll by The Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg News last June found 37 percent said they would not vote for a Mormon for president.

Mr. Romney offered assurances that seemed to reflect what Kennedy told the nation in discussing his Catholicism some 50 years ago. Mr. Romney said the requirements of his faith would never overcome his political obligations. He pointed out that in Massachusetts, he had signed laws allowing stores to sell alcohol on Sundays, even though he was prohibited by his faith from drinking, and to expand the state lottery, though Mormons are forbidden to gamble. He also noted that Mormons are not exclusively Republicans, pointing to Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader.

“There’s no church-directed view,” Mr. Romney said. “How can you have Harry Reid on one side and Orrin Hatch on the other without recognizing that the church doesn’t direct political views? I very clearly subscribe to Abraham Lincoln’s view of America’s political religion. And that is when you take the oath of office, your responsibility is to the nation, and that is first and foremost.”

He said he was not concerned about the resistance in the polls. “If you did a poll and said: ‘Could a divorced actor be elected as president? Would you vote for a divorced actor as president?’ my guess is 70 percent would say no. But then they saw Ronald Reagan. They heard him. They heard his vision. They heard his experience. They said: ‘I like Ronald Reagan. I’m voting for him.’ ”

Adam Nagourney reported from Washington, and Laurie Goodstein from New York.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[nonDosearrany]

February 10, 2007

Giuliani Shifts Abortion Speech Gently to Right

By RAY RIVERA

As he prepares for a possible run for president — a road that goes deep into the heart of conservative America — Rudolph W. Giuliani takes with him a belief in abortion rights that many think could derail his bid to capture the Republican nomination.

But in recent weeks, as he has courted voters in South Carolina and talked to conservative media outlets, Mr. Giuliani has highlighted a different element of his thinking on the abortion debate. He has talked about how he would appoint “strict constructionist” judges to the Supreme Court — what abortion rights advocates say is code among conservatives for those who seek to overturn or limit Roe v. Wade, the 1973 court ruling declaring a constitutional right to abortion.

The effect has been to distance himself from a position favoring abortion rights that he espoused when he ran for mayor of New York City, where most voters favor abortion rights.

“I hate it,” he said of abortion in a recent interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News. “I think abortion is something that, as a personal matter, I would advise somebody against. However, I believe in a woman’s right to choose. I think you have to ultimately not put a woman in jail for that.”

For Mr. Giuliani, a Brooklyn-born Roman Catholic who once considered entering the priesthood, the issue has been a source of discomfort throughout his political career, especially during his first bid for mayor of New York nearly two decades ago.

Now, as he courts voters in more conservative areas, Mr. Giuliani is turning to the same nuanced approach he used back then to explain how he can be both for abortion rights, while being morally opposed to abortion.

While Mr. Giuliani also faces obstacles for his stands favoring gun control and gay rights, perhaps no social issue resonates as deeply in the hearts of Christian conservatives as abortion.

In his recent travels, he has directed questions on the issue toward a discussion about judges, saying he would appoint jurists who believe in interpreting, not making, the law: judges, he said, like Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr., who he has said he believed would place limits on Roe v. Wade.

“On the federal judiciary I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am,” he said last week in South Carolina. “I have a very, very strong view that for this country to work, for our freedoms to be protected, judges have to interpret, not invent, the Constitution.

“Otherwise you end up, when judges invent the Constitution, with your liberties being hurt. Because legislatures get to make those decisions and the Legislature in South Carolina might make that decision one way and the Legislature in California a different one.”

On the issue of a disputed abortion procedure called “partial-birth abortion” by opponents, he told Mr. Hannity that a ban signed into law by President Bush in 2003, which the Supreme Court is reviewing, should be upheld. And on the issue of parental notification — whether to require minors to obtain permission from either a parent or a judge before an abortion — he said, “I think you have to have a judicial bypass,” meaning a provision that would allow a minor to seek court permission from a judge in lieu of a parent.

“If you do, you can have parental notification,” he said.

Both appear to be shifts away from statements he made while he was mayor and during his brief campaign for United States senator in 2000. Asked by Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” in 2000 if he supported President Bill Clinton’s veto of a law that would have banned the disputed abortion procedure, Mr. Giuliani said, “I would vote to preserve the option for women.” He added, “I think the better thing for America to do is to leave that choice to the woman, because it affects her probably more than anyone else.”

And on a 1997 candidate questionnaire from the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League of New York, which Mr. Giuliani completed and signed, he marked “yes” to the question: Would you oppose legislation “requiring a minor to obtain permission from a parent or from a court before obtaining an abortion.”

Mr. Giuliani’s campaign aides say his positions on abortion have not changed, and that his stand on what critics call partial-birth abortions has been mischaracterized, saying he opposed a ban only if it failed to include an exception to protect the life of the mother. But the ban vetoed by President Clinton did include such an exception.

Those who have followed Mr. Giuliani’s career say he is unlikely to undergo a radical shift in his views in the manner of Mitt Romney, a Republican rival and former Massachusetts governor who advocated abortion rights until about two years ago.

Fred Siegel, author of “Prince of the City: Giuliani, New York and the Genius of American Life,” said Mr. Giuliani would likely be careful to avoid anything perceived as a flip-flop on the issue.

“Part of his appeal is that he doesn’t bend in the wind,” he said.

But Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, said Mr. Giuliani’s position was even more offensive than that of someone who believes abortion is morally acceptable.

“To say I think it’s morally wrong, but I think it’s a woman’s choice is like saying I’m opposed to segregation but it ought to be left up to the store owner to decide,” Mr. Land said. “That’s a preference, not a conviction.”

Rancor coming from both sides of the abortion debate is nothing new to Mr. Giuliani. When he made his first bid for mayor in 1989, he was widely considered anti-abortion. His stance immediately proved problematic in a city heavily in favor of abortion rights. New York was the first state to legalize elective abortions, three years before Roe v. Wade.

Early in the 1989 campaign, he told the city’s Conservative Party leaders he was personally opposed to abortion and was for overturning Roe v. Wade, except in cases of rape or incest. At the same time he said he opposed criminal penalties and ultimately saw it as an issue of “personal morality.”

The distinctions he drew were subtle to the point of producing conflicting news accounts in which he was alternately described as favoring abortion rights and anti-abortion.

The issue took on more importance that summer after a Supreme Court decision allowed states to put new restrictions on abortion. As criticism mounted, Mr. Giuliani remained silent for weeks after the decision. Finally, in late August of that year, he issued a statement seeking to “clarify” his position.

Where he previously asserted that he would stay away from efforts to protect or overturn the state abortion law, he now said he would fight moves to make it illegal.

Critics ascribed his switch to political opportunism. Chief among his critics were his rivals for the mayor’s post, the incumbent, Mayor Edward I. Koch, and the eventual winner of that election, David N. Dinkins, both of whom accused him of heeding the advice of his campaign strategists over his conscience.

Mr. Giuliani defended his change, saying it was the result of deep introspection, not political expediency. “I had to spend time not only thinking about it, but talking about it with my wife and people close to me to focus on it in a closer way than I have in the past,” he told The New York Times in an interview at the time.

“This is a guy who is a Catholic, who thought about going into the priesthood, he has close friends who are priests,” said Mr. Siegel, “when he realizes he can’t get elected in New York if you’re anti-abortion and he begins to modify his position, and eventually he goes all the way to being in favor of later-term abortions.”

Fran Reiter, who was a deputy mayor under Mr. Giuliani and played key roles in two of his campaigns, believes his acceptance of abortion rights was heartfelt, not a political move. After winning the mayor’s office in 1993, he supported and strengthened legislation protecting women’s access to abortion clinics.

The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League of New York was so convinced, it remained neutral in the 1993 and 1997 mayoral races, and did so again when he briefly ran against Hillary Rodham Clinton for United States in 2000 before dropping out of the race.

“That tells you how strongly we felt, that we would actually remain neutral when he’s running against the first lady of the United States,” said Kelli Conlin, the state organization’s president, who served on Mr. Giuliani’s 1993 transition team and on several mayoral commissions.

Now Ms. Conlin and other abortion rights advocates, including Ms. Reiter, say Mr. Giuliani clearly appears to be distancing himself from his former positions.

“The term strict constructionists has become a transparent code word for nominating judges who would overturn Roe, and both sides know it,” Ms. Conlin said. “I think this is a troublesome wink and a nod to the far right of the Republican Party, and that’s not the Rudy Giuliani I know.”

Buddy Witherspoon, Republican National Committeeman from South Carolina, said Mr. Giuliani’s recent appearance with party leaders there shifted his and some others’ perceptions of the candidate, though not enough to satisfy the most socially conservative among them.

“All I’d heard from the media is that he was a moderate in support of abortion,” Mr. Witherspoon said, “then I heard him say he did not support abortion, however he also said he did not think a woman should go to jail for having had an abortion.”


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[Nesskissabe]

February 10, 2007

Today’s Version of ‘I Will Run’ Is Way More Than 3 Little Words

By MARK LEIBOVICH

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — It can be hard to keep track of everyone running for president, let alone those who are merely “exploring” it, “unofficially running,” “testing the waters” or “starting a conversation with the American people.”

This is the stutter-step season of the 2008 presidential campaign.

Candidates keep announcing that they are running or almost certainly running, then, a few days or weeks later, saying so again while the news media dutifully record each step.

This week, for instance, former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts — a Republican who last month announced formation of an “exploratory committee” — made more headlines by saying he would announce that he was going to run for president. Next week, in Michigan. And former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York declared this week that “I’m in this to win” after filing something called a “statement of candidacy.”

On Saturday, Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat who last month announced the creation of his presidential exploratory committee (after telling Tim Russert of NBC in October that he was thinking about maybe running) — will finally make an “announcement” about his intentions at the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill.

Why not just state the obvious?

“It is incumbent on us to keep the announcement top secret,” said Robert Gibbs, an Obama spokesman.

Mr. Gibbs cited the need to build “suspense” in order to “draw as many reporters as possible into the frigid teen temperatures of Illinois in February.”

Hint: Mr. Obama and a throng of reporters will travel from Springfield to Iowa and New Hampshire.

There was actually a simpler, less media-saturated time when prospective candidates would just step up onto a podium somewhere and say they were running for president. And then they were running for president, no dilly-dallying, right down to business.

But the process became more convoluted in 1974 with the advent of campaign finance laws that would eventually spur the creation of presidential exploratory committees. The law mandated that anyone spending more than $5,000 while considering a campaign had to declare it with the Federal Election Commission.

“The process became a vehicle for a candidate to get attention,” said William Mayer, an expert on the presidential nominating process and an associate professor at Northeastern University in Boston.

Mr. Mayer said the incremental announcement method took hold in the 1988 campaign for the Democratic nomination. He cites the rollouts of Senator Paul Simon of Illinois (who announced on April 9, 1987, that he would announce that he was going to run for president on May 18) and the Rev. Jesse Jackson (a Sept. 7 alert for an Oct. 10 official start).

“If you’re an unknown candidate, your announcement is pretty much the one surefire way to get attention,” Mr. Mayer said. “So you might as well try to make it a twofer.”

Or threefer, or whatever the media will bear, which is a lot, given the swaths of airspace and cyberspace to fill. The practice of politicians publicly belaboring their decisions has only become worse in recent years.

“Candidates stretch out the announcements because they can,” said Elizabeth Wilner, the political director for NBC.

Twenty-four-hour cable and Internet saturation, Ms. Wilner said, “means there will always be someone waiting to report on every infinitesimal word change relating to their candidate status.”

There are, of course, instances of would-be candidates forming exploratory committees that yield fruitless exploration. Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, formed one in December, only to announce a few weeks later that he was not running.

There are also increasingly rare occasions when candidates dispense with all flirtation. The normally stem-winding Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, proved a paragon of efficiency last month when he declared, “No exploratory committee, I’m running.”

Of course, Mr. Biden then proceeded to ruin his grand opening by remarking about Mr. Obama’s being “clean” (which some viewed as racially offensive) and spending the aftermath apologizing for it.

To ordinary Americans, the string-along announcements can be disorienting. There is, after all, something off-kilter about a system in which Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, can say things like “I’m in, and I’m in to win,” which sounds like a clear declaration of her intentions and then goes on to establish “an exploratory committee,” a much less certain signal.

Rest assured, barring some dramatic development, Mrs. Clinton is running for president. And she will say so formally in some production at a later time, according to her campaign. In the meantime, she will continue her “conversation” with the American people in New Hampshire this weekend.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[Bobobsdo]

McCain’s Advisers Once Made Ads That Drew His Ire

There you have it in a nutshell. The problem with the system is that to become president, candidates give up the personal integrity needed to actually be the president.

They never get it back.

.

[Depolit]

Obama made it official that he's running. He has my vote. Dont vote for Hilary, she's a commi.

[investor]

How many people would seriously consider former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as presidential material if he were an UNattractive man?

I would find it extremely difficult (OK, impossible) to vote for a far right Mormon from New England. End of discussion.

[TSVIDeo]

The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the coalition forces officially began on 20 March 2003. Last Sunday, 02/04/07, Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" read the following quote from a speech by Barack Obama. The speech was given on 26 October 2002:

"... He’s [Saddam Hussein] a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."

Wikisource
That is called prescience, which is sorely lacking in this Republican administration. And where was Hillary Clinton at the time?