Biden Speech Bombs With Philadelphia Firefighters

When Barack Obama and Joe Biden first began campaigning in 2008, their complimentary advantages as candidates were fairly clear – that is, Obama was the candidate who spoke to the young and minority voters (who had, up until that point, been his base) most capably, while Biden was the one who spoke to restive blue collar workers. As a matter of fact, Biden’s constant references to “taking the train” back from Washington were probably intended to demonstrate this supposedly more homespun character.

Yet as Vice President, Biden has shown himself to be prone to gaffes, even in his supposed home turf, a fact that has complicated this otherwise simple division of labor between him and the President. And Biden’s lack of comfort in the public eye, has, at least recently, become increasingly difficult not to notice. For evidence, simply look at his speech today to the International Association of Firefighters in Philadelphia.

The Blaze Newspaper

Why? Because that speech reportedly had all the hallmarks of a vintage Biden gaffe-fest. To begin with, according to Business Insider, Biden mouthed odd lines such as “I wish my kids would become wealthy,” apparently intended as a means of reassuring the audience that Democrats aren’t anti-wealth. Needless to say, the line fell flat.

Above: Philly Firefighters Honor One of Their Own

And then there was the fact that despite Biden’s attempts at pandering, he seemed to almost purposefully avoid hitting the right notes. One Philadelphia Firefighters’ Union President was apparently visibly upset at Biden for failing to include even one sentence regarding a local dispute in Philadelphia over an award to firefighters. From Business Insider’s report:

Bill Gault, president of Philadelphia Fire Fighter’s Union Local 22, said after Biden’s speech that he wanted Biden to endorse the implementation of an award to city firefighters that provided raises and protections against furloughs. An arbitration panel granted the award in early July, and last week the union filed a lawsuit against the city to ensure that it is enacted.

“I just wanted him to say one sentence to my mayor to honor the firefighters’ award,” Gault told Business Insider. “But I guess I can’t expect him to do that.”[...]

Gault was hoping for an endorsement from the vice president, which led to his disappointment.

“We feel unappreciated in this city. And if you ask these men in here, they’ll feel the same way,” Gault said. ”I‘m disappointed that the vice president didn’t say, ‘Mr. Mayor, honor their agreement.‘ It’s a very simple sentence.”

Simple, indeed, yet Biden skipped saying it. He did, however, throw in an obligatory dig at GOP nominee Mitt Romney – a dig that, when paired with the reaction to Biden’s speech, may sound more than a little ironic:

I don’t think he gets you. I don‘t think he understands what you’re all about, what makes you tick, what makes you decide to go in this profession, which you couldn’t pay 90 percent of the population to do.

Read the rest and see a video:

http://news.yahoo.com/biden-speech-bombs-philadelphia-
fire-fighters-041402627.html?_esi=1

Secret Service Assigns Protection to Senator Barack Obama

The Secret Service has assigned a security detail to Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed to FOX News on Thursday.

A DHS official said that a request came from the candidate but would not say anything about the reason for the protection or the nature of any threat(s).

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff authorized Obama’s protection after consultations with the congressional advisory committee, according to department spokesman Russ Knocke.

Secret Service Spokesman Darrin Blackford said the congressional advisory committee currently is comprised of Chertoff, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and one additional member selected by the others but not necessarily a member of Congress.

Obama’s campaign will not elaborate on specific details, but FOX News has learned that the request did not emerge from a singular reason, but a combination of considerations, including the logistical and security concerns associated with Obama’s attending two 20,000-plus person rallies in recent weeks and his rising popularity. Obama’s being a high-profile African-American running for the presidency was also taken into consideration before for the formal request was made.

The request also emerged from a more generalized type of concern raised by comments written on fringe Web logs and sites, but not a specific threat, FOX News has learned.

Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren would not provide details of what led to the extra security, but said he was not aware of it being “based on any threat.”

“Security has been implemented,’ Zahren told FOXNews.com without providing specifics into why the order for a detail was implemented or how many agents are assigned to the Illinois senator.

It’s the earliest security assignment for a candidate in a presidential campaign. Usually protection is not provided until a party chooses its nominee, however, Sen. Hillary Clinton, another Democratic candidate, has Secret Service detail because she is a former first lady.

Democrats: U.S. has lost global standing

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press

COLUMBIA, S.C. – The United States has lost its global standing during George W. Bush’s presidency and needs a Democratic commander in chief to restore America’s place in the world, Democrats running for the White House said Saturday.

We are today internationally and domestically a nation that is no longer a leader,” said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, one of three candidates to address a convention of the South Carolina Democratic Party.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee, said the world needs to see that “America can be a force for good.”

“What their perception is that America is a bully and we only care about our short-term interests,” Edwards said. “The starting place is to end the bleeding sore that is the war in Iraq.”

Richardson, Edwards and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden said they would make ending the war a priority.

“The American people are looking for us as Democrats,” said Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “They’re looking for someone literally, not figuratively, to restore America’s place in the world.”

Biden said the country’s other problems cannot be solved until the U.S. successfully deals with Iraq.

Most of the major Democratic contenders were heading to San Diego to address delegates at the annual state Democratic Party convention. Only Biden was skipping the event to campaign in South Carolina throughout the weekend.

New York Sen.  Hillary Rodham Clinton was set to speak first in San Diego Saturday, followed by Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Rep.  Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. Edwards and Richardson were scheduled to speak Sunday.

Four years ago, former Vermont Gov.  Howard Dean — then a little-known figure in the Democratic field — brought delegates to their feet at the state party convention with his fiery denunciation of the Iraq war. His rivals at the time, including Massachusetts Sen.  John Kerry, who eventually won the nomination, were loudly booed for defending their 2002 vote to authorize the war.

Candidates of both parties have always spent considerable time in California, primarily to mine the state for campaign cash. But as one of many large states holding its primary next Feb. 5, California may also play a more influential role in the electoral process.

Back to Baker-Hamilton

By David Ignatius
The Washington Post
Wednesday, April 4, 2007; Page A13

Lee Hamilton, the former Indiana congressman who is a one-man bipartisan commission, recently suggested a simple test for evaluating political leaders. The best choice, he told a Washington gathering, is the person who can build consensus around difficult policy issues.

By that measure, we are seeing a long list of would-be dividers but not many leaders. The United States is losing a war in Iraq, yet instead of uniting around a policy that could reduce the damage and create a sustainable strategy for the future, Congress and the White House are on a collision course over funding for the troops.

A glimmer of hope that U.S. politicians haven’t all lost their minds was a statement this week by Barack Obama challenging his party’s extreme wing. “I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground,” he said in an interview with the Associated Press. “I don’t think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage.”

Obama has the political maneuvering room to be sensible now because he was skeptical about the war from the start. But that didn’t stop a blast from the left-wing blogger Kos, who wrote Monday that Obama “just surrendered to Bush.” If Obama is in fact ready to challenge his party’s most partisan activists, perhaps he is a man who can meet Hamilton’s test.

The Democrats’ problem is that they seem determined to join the Bush administration in doubling down bad bets on Iraq. In the Democrats’ case, the mistaken gamble is that by imposing a Washington timetable for troop withdrawal, America will compel good behavior from the fratricidal Iraqis. That idea is naive. But then, so is the Bush administration’s politically divisive strategy for an open-ended troop surge in Baghdad. No matter how clever Gen. David Petraeus’s battle plan, it won’t work unless it can be sustained politically, in Baghdad and Washington. The crucial asset for Petraeus is time, which in turn is a function of political consensus at home. And that asset is wasting, even as the number of U.S. troops goes up.

Here we return to Hamilton, co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, and his partner on the other side of the bipartisan hyphen, former secretary of state James A. Baker III. Four months after its release, the Baker-Hamilton report still looks like the best way to unite Democrats and Republicans before there is a dangerous collision over funding for the war. The report has something for everyone: It shares the Democrats’ goal of withdrawing most U.S. troops by March 2008 and stresses the need for milestones in Iraq. But it endorses the Bush administration’s view that milestones should be jointly negotiated with the Iraqi government, rather than imposed by Washington. And it recognizes that troop withdrawals must be contingent on political and military conditions on the ground.

The Baker-Hamilton report focused on the need for a sustainable policy — one that would make Iraq an American project rather than George W. Bush’s war. That requires a shift in military strategy from U.S. combat operations to a counterinsurgency approach centered on training and advising the Iraqi military. But the study group, composed of five Democrats and five Republicans, also said it could “support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission.”

The most controversial aspect of the Baker-Hamilton report was its call for greater American diplomatic engagement in the region, including talks with Iran and Syria and a new push on the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Four months later, Bush administration officials have sat around a table in Baghdad with Syrians and Iranians, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is beginning a serious effort to midwife the birth of a Palestinian state, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is visiting Damascus. We’re all Baker-Hamiltonians now.

The Baker-Hamilton report offered a way out of the partisan wilderness when it was released in December. It still does. It provides an Iraq platform on which responsible Republicans and Democrats can gather. Neither side will get everything it wants, but both can claim a measure of support for their positions. That’s the essence of building consensus.

A train-wreck debate on Iraq will be destructive for both parties, not to mention the people in the Middle East. The Baker-Hamilton report is the best framework for building a policy that is sustainable, in Washington and in Baghdad. Leading Republicans and Democrats say that, in principle, they still support Baker-Hamilton. So do something about it.

The writer co-hosts, with Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria, PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues athttp://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal. His e-mail address isdavidignatius@washpost.com.

Communist Victory In Vietnam: Seven Steps

By Paul R. Hallrah
The Conservative Voice
March 21, 2007 

The August 3, 1995 edition of the Wall Street Journal carried an interview with former North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin, a member of the North Vietnamese general staff and the man who received the surrender of South Vietnam’s President Duong Van Minh on April 30, 1975. The interview was conducted by Stephen Young, a Minnesota human rights activist.

Colonel Tin described the military and political events of the war from his vantage point in Hanoi. What he described was the step-by-step defeat of U.S. forces, not on the battlefield, but in the White House, in the Halls of Congress, in the streets of America, and on our college and university campuses. Sound familiar?

As I read Col Tin’s recitation of how events played out in Vietnam – step-by-step-by-step – I couldn’t help but think of the motto embroidered across the shoulder patch that I wore during the last eighteen months of my military service. The shoulder patch was the insignia of the U.S. 7^th Army, and the motto embroidered across the bottom read, “Seven Steps To Hell.”

Col. Tin was asked, “How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?” He responded, “By fighting a long war which would break their will… Ho Chi Minh said, ‘We don’t need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.’ ”

Liberals, cut-and-run Democrats, and the anti-war left now signal to al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad that we’re preparing to do the same in Iraq.

Step One.

Col Tin was asked, “Was the American anti-war movement important to Hanoi’s victory?”He responded, “It was essential to our strategy… Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9:00 AM to follow the growth of the American anti-war movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark… gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses.”

Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark are back, and they’ve been joined by Cindy Sheehan, a host of anti-war leftists, and nearly the entire Democrat Party… all bashing the Commander in Chief and clamoring for an early surrender in Iraq.

Step Two.

Col. Tin was asked, “How could the Americans have won the war?” He responded, “Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted (General) Westmoreland’s requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.”

While George W. Bush has given battlefield commanders all of the troops and equipment they’ve requested, Democrats complain that it’s either too little or too much.

Step Three.

Col. Tin was asked, “What of American bombing of North Vietnam?” He responded, “If all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn’t worry us.”In the Iraq War, Rules of Engagement are written by lawyers in the Pentagon.

Step Four.

Col. Tin was asked, “What about Westmoreland’s strategy and tactics caused you concern?” He responded, “Our senior commander in the South, Gen. Nguyen Chi Thanh, knew that we were losing base areas, control of the rural population, and that his main forces were being pushed out to the borders of South Vietnam… Johnson had rejected Westmoreland’s request for 200,000 more troops (and) we realized that America had made its maximum military commitment to the war… ”Democrats and anti-war radicals maintain constant pressure to turn public opinion against the administrations new “troop surge” strategy, even threatening to cut off funding for our troops.

Step Five.

Col. Tin continued, “Tet was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South Vietnam cities during a holiday… when few South Vietnamese troops would be on duty… Our losses were staggering… (General) Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for reelection.”In America, in 2006, Democrats and anti-war radicals hounded a highly competent Defense Secretary out of office and used bloated anti-war rhetoric to gain victories in the mid-term elections.

Step Six.

Col. Tin was asked, “What of Nixon?” He responded, “Well, when Nixon stepped down because of Watergate we knew we would win. (Prime Minister) Pham Van Dong said of Gerald Ford… ‘He’s the weakest president in U.S. history; the people didn’t elect him. Even if you gave him candy he doesn’t dare intervene in Vietnam again.’ ”So who will Islamic Jihad see across the battle lines in the next administration… Hillary Clinton? Barack Hussein Obama? A trial lawyer from North Carolina?

Step Seven.

“Seven Steps To Hell”… and one day Democrats will be called to answer for each and every one of them.

Restore Civility in Debate, Politics and Government

By John E. Carey
Peace and Freedom
March 11, 2007

There seems a lack of civility, good manners, decorum and protocol in Washington these days.

And it has spread beyond Washington to the internet and to email onscenities.One side frequently calls the other side names; instead of making organized, logical arguments.

We entered the world of the “blogosphere” on July 4, 2006. In this internet land of people discussing world events, the language we found often is particularly harsh, polarizing and nasty.

Former President Bill Clinton entered (or re-entered depending upon your point of view) the fray on Sunday, September 24, 2006, during an interview with Chris Wallace on the Fox News Sunday show. Associated Press writer Karen Matthews, reporting on the exchange, called it “combative.”

That’s not a word usually associated with a president during a media interview. I can’t think of that word ever applied to an ex-president during a media exchange — especially with a president.

This may just qualify Mr. Clinton for another description: “not presidential.”

Clinton accused host Chris Wallace of a “conservative hit job.” Not presidential at all. He seemed to be just venting rage. Who needs that?

Did president Clinton miss a memo about letting others mix it up in public with the opposition and their media? Even my Vietnamese-born wife observed: “Good thing Clinton didn’t interview with Bill O’Reilly on Fox. It might have ended up with Bill and Bill on the floor slugging each other.”
Not presidential.

It is bad enough we have to hear the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “talking smack” as they say, at the United Nations; now we have to hear it from a former President of the United States? Makes one wonder what side is Bill Clinton on? And why does he see a need to lower himself to the level ofHugo Chavez and Iran’s Ahmadinejad?

On President Bush’s trip this week to South America, not only has he refrained from talking about Mr. Chavez: he has refused to mention him by name.

Thoughtful, courteous national discourse has managed to get us through a revolution against the most powerful nation on the Earth, a War Between the States, two World Wars and other tragedies and trying times.

If we can get along, maybe we can discuss the problems and get the best answers. Maybe a more civil and etiquette-driven discussion of the issues can help us get through the War on Terror.

Instead, we have become a nation led by name-callers, insult-slingers and generally rude, angry and impolite representatives.

And sometimes, the media, maybe unintentionally, magnify the animosity.

My friend, retired Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters at The New York Post, wonders about “the unscrupulous nature of those in the media who always discover a dark cloud in the brightest silver lining. They are terror’s cheerleaders.”

What does this teach our children? And does it do us any good?

Candidate for president John Edwards recently defend his own bloggers for their use of “the most hate-filled, blasphemous and obscene remarks—all of which were brought to the attention of Edwards—that have ever been written by any employee of a presidential candidate,” according to the Catholic League of the United States.

In other words: a new low.

Opposite Mr. Edwards, we were delighted to see Governor Bill Richardson call for civility among the national candidates.

Senator James Webb, a former Marine and Secretary of the Navy, met the President of the United States in November. Maybe Mr. Webb was a little too taken with himself after beating Senator Allen in the election. Whatever the reason, news papers reported that Mr. Webb, while a guest at the White House, ”tried to avoid President Bush,” refusing to pass through the reception line or have his picture taken with the president. The president had to seek out the illusive Mr. Webb, a guest inside the Executive Mansion.

“How’s your boy?” President Bush asked the Senator then elect, referring to Webb’s son, a Marine serving in Iraq.

“I’d like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President,” Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.

“That’s not what I asked you,” Bush said. “How’s your boy?”

“That’s between me and my boy, Mr. President,” Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.

When Webb was asked about the apparently rude response to a question from the President of the United States, he responded by saying, “So I know the drill. I’m looking forward to working with people in this administration.”

The language and smart remark to the President of the United States, and the host of the event in his own residence, seems an insult to me and not an indicator of someone eager to work with the opposition. It is not the language of a gentleman.

“I’ve got good friends on the Republican side,” added Webb, a former Republican.

I would say, apparently, that Senator Webb does not know the drill: at least the drill taught to the leaders of Communist Vietnam, where the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Vietnam held a cordial discussion in November or at the United States Naval Academy, Webb’s alma mater, where many of America’s finest young men and women are taught to behave in a certain matter and make the case cogently and without obscene language or smart remarks.

We can assure readers that at the Naval Academy, midshipmen are instructed to conduct themselves as gentlemen and gentlewomen.

Our American history is full of great men who teach us the importance of good conduct for the common good. Some say George Washington actually authored “The Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour [sic] in Company and Conversation.”

Though not the author, Washington embraced good manners so famously that the “Rules” could easily have been his own creation. The good manners of John Adams also echo to us through history.

With Thomas Paine, Adams watched a young American officer conduct himself less than diplomatically and courteously before the King of France.

Adams wrote to his wife, describing the “Man of Choleric Temper.” Adams said the man “like so many Gentlemen from his State, is abrupt and undiplomatic. Last evening, at a Royal Reception, he confronted His Most Christian Majesty Louis XVI with Words both ardent and impatient, whilst Mr. Paine wrung his Hands at the other man’s lack of Tact. Never did I think that I would see our impetuous Paine so pain’d by another’s want of Courtesy and Civility. To our amazement, however, the King took [the man’s] Enthusiasm in good Part.”

When told one of his generals, John C. Fremont, had been nominated by a group of 400 anti-Lincoln loyalists to run for president, Lincoln opened a Bible and read aloud from I Samuel:22, “And everyone that was in distress, and everyone that was in debt, and everyone that was discontented gathered themselves unto him; and he became a captain over them; and there were with him about four hundred men.”

Modern statesmen pulled the country together, not by tearing others apart or barking at the media, but more often by thoughtful discourse and conduct.

“Both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt operated beautifully on the reporters who surrounded them,” wrote David Keirsey and Ray Choiniere in “Presidential Temperament.”

“Both used the press as if it were their own publicity machine.”

This was largely achieved in a civil, diplomatic style.

A modern day solon of wisdom and truth might be former Indiana Congressman and Democrat Lee Hamilton. Hamilton volunteered some stern remarks about the importance of truth. “Facts are not Republican and they’re not Democrat,” he said.

“They’re not ideological. Facts are facts,” said Mr. Hamilton.

I cannot ever recall seeing Gerald Ford, out late president whom we honored last December, look mean, uncivil, rude or terribly angry.

Neither can I remember John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan (”The Great Communicator”), George H.W. Bush, or George W. Bush look petulant, angry or rude. I also cannot recall any of them knowingly distort the facts.

Other great national leaders also reflect respect, even admiration, for the importance of good protocol and decorum.

Winston Churchill described a 1941 university ceremony this way: “The blitz was running hard at that time, and the night before, the raid … had been heavy. Several hundreds had been killed and wounded. Many houses were destroyed. Buildings next to the university were still burning, and many of the university authorities who conducted the ceremony had pulled on their robes over uniforms begrimed and drenched; but all was presented with faultless ritual and appropriate decorum, and I sustained a very strong and invigorating impression of the superiority of man over the forces that can destroy him.”

Let’s hope leaders become enlightened enough to avoid the forces that can destroy them. For our sake and the sake of our children. Especially as we in the United States near an important national election.

I regret the times that bad conduct, anger and a disregard for etiquette got the best of me. I hope our present day political leaders see the light too.

To get though the war against terror and to achieve victory, a united, clear-thinking leadership just might be important.

Angry rhetoric and arson with clever words serves no good purpose.

I am be wrong but that’s how we see it.

Visit us at:
http://peace-and-freedom.blogspot.com/

Obama: Iraq strategy strengthened Iran

CHICAGO – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday blamed Bush administration failings in strengthening the strategic position of Iran, which, he says must be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The Illinois senator said that means “direct engagement” with Iran similar to the meetings with the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.

“One of the most profound consequences of the administration’s failed strategy in Iraq has been to strengthen Iran’s strategic position; reduce U.S. credibility and influence in the region; and place Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in greater peril,” Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobbying group.

The Bush administration recently altered its position, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying this week that the U.S. is willing to talk to Iran on security in Iraq.

Obama also emphasized in his speech his commitment to protecting the security of Israel, which he called “our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy.”

“Our job is to renew the United States’ efforts to … help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share that vision,” Obama said.

The speech was the second time in recent months that Obama has formally addressed foreign policy in his hometown of Chicago. In November, Obama called for a reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

But Obama focused on Iran Friday, calling President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime “a threat to all of us.”

A member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama said the world — not just the United States — must stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program.

“While we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons,” Obama said.

Obama said Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race.

Fellow senator and Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton has warned Bush not to take any military action against Iran without congressional approval.

Iran has refused to freeze its enrichment-related activities and the U.N. Security Council has imposed sanctions targeting its nuclear and missile programs and persons involved in them.

Iran has refused to halt its nuclear program, contending it is to provide energy — not weapons — for the country.

Beware the bloggers

By Dan K. Thomasson
The Washington Times
February 25, 2007

In this world of electronic wizardry and instant opinion, the blogger just may be king. So every presidential candidate wants one or two to tap into the enormous potential of the Internet with its ability to stimulate huge amounts of campaign cash from obsessive tube watchers who seem to believe nearly anything they read on it as long as it’s bad stuff about those who don’t agree with them.
    
Whether or not the staid world of national politics is ready for these undisciplined rants and diatribes remains to be seen. But if there were doubts about the perils of relying too much on these newest of media darlings during the coming campaign, there is already ample evidence to change one’s thinking. When it comes to bloggers, what the candidate buys he may not be able to live with, given a general insensitivity to political correctness, accuracy and decent language.
    
Take the recent case of the potty-mouthed bloggers hired by the former senator and vice-presidential nominee, John Edwards, for his seemingly perpetual campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. One of those, Amanda Marcotte, whose writing has been viewed, among other things, as anti-Catholic, recently resigned, although Mr. Edwards had decided against firing her despite obvious qualms. Mr. Edwards had ended several weeks of indecision by saying he was keeping Miss Marcotte and another female blogger on his staff, though he, too, had been personally offended by some of their writing, which was so profane and tasteless that few presidential hopefuls could be caught endorsing it.
    
Miss Marcotte has been quoted as wondering how things would have changed if the Virgin Mary had been able to take Plan B, the emergency contraception. And she charged that Catholic policies about birth control and abortion were rooted in the church’s need to ensure a steady stream of tithing members.
    
Her biting sarcasm, as reported, also extended to the controversial Duke University rape case, which still is pending but has been severely damaged by evidence contradicting the alleged victim’s claims.
    
“Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair,” she is quoted as writing.
    
Confirming how unwise the former senator’s decision to keep her was, Miss Marcotte ended her brief foray into national politics in typical fashion, lashing out at “right-wing shills,” chiefly from prominent Catholic organizations, for forcing her resignation. Predictably, liberal bloggers dashed to her defense. So far her cohort, Melissa McEwan, has not resigned.
    
By its very nature, the art of blogging offers a measure of freedom and reach beyond anything in the past. And because it does, it should carry a degree of responsibility matching that scope and privilege. But, of course, it does not. In fact, just the opposite is true, giving broad access to every nut case with a cause and permitting nearly anyone to say nearly anything about anybody, often anonymously, without a shred of proof and without fear of liability.
    
Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois Democrat, already has felt that sting from an online magazine that used the fact he attended a Muslim-sponsored grade school as a 6-year-old to intimate he had fundamentalist Islamic connections. The magazine’s editor has refused to disclose the source of the story or its author. The piece actually has been disavowed by nearly every reputable journalistic enterprise, including a respected sister print publication of the Internet magazine.
    
Even newspapers now seem to experiment with online stories written on a laptop by a “reporter” and immediately put online without any editing. For one who has spent his entire life in the discipline of the checking and rechecking that occurs in any legitimate newspaper, I can’t think of anything more dangerous and irresponsible. If that is the wave of the future in news, a free press and all it stands for may choke to death on misinformation. But, tragically, that is exactly what blogging is all about.
    
It is easy to predict that before this campaign is completed more than one presidential hopeful may regret the rush to the unruly world of the Internet, where the knack of making things up puts the most inventive politician to shame.
    
    Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service. 
    

Bill Richardson: Our Kind of Guy

By John E. Carey

We salute today “Kate Squared” (Kate Nash and Kate Nelson) who write for a site called “Richardson’s Quest.”

A nameless (I hate those that hide by using anonymity) blogger calling herself the “Advice Goddess” yesterday assessed Richardson’s foreign policy ability, but decided he came up short on a key presidential quality: the swagger. “Many Americans seem to vote for president based on who they’d most like to have a beer with. Richardson, in photographs, looks, well, stubby, sweaty and unpresidential.”

Well, those are great reasons to reject the most highly qualified candidate: Bill Richardson is smart in foreign policy (former Energy Secretary that dealt with North Korea, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.), and sharp in domestic policy by virtue of his time as a Congressman and Governor.

Le’ts just review the others:

Senator Clinton: High negatives and now talking trash at Senator Obama.  You don’t score points by “going ugly early.”

Senator Obama: His last job was as a city councilman?

Senator Biden: One job his entire life: Senator. Looks into the mirror too much. Says stupid stuff when he might just remain quiet.  Should lose the vote of Indians, immigrants and everyone who goes to 7-11.

Mister Kucinich: While Mayor of Cleveland, Ohio, he earned the nickname “Dennis the Menace.” Didn’t he declare Cleveland bankrupt?

Former Senator John Edwards: Wasn’t he the one that stood behind bloggers the devil might have denounced have denounced? Dead duck. He went ugly early and used surrogates to do it.

Tom Vilsack: Who?

Chris Dodd: No hope.  Runner up to Vilsack.

Richardson has a loveable quality about him and he is a healer, asking the other candidates to “take the pledge” against tearing each other down. Genius.

Visit us at:
http://peace-and-freedom.blogspot.com/

Gov. Bill Richardson’s Quest

By Kate Nash and Kate Nelson
From the site “Richardson’s Quest”
http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/feb/22/richardsons-quest/
Thursday, February 22, 2007

Feeding the kitty

The Rocky Mountain News today reported Gov. Bill Richardson’s fund-raiser in Denver on Wednesday night produced $150,000 – $50,000 more than expected. It was at the home of a Qwest executive, but Richardson assured the paper there would be no special treatment for everyone’s favorite phone company.

Belly up to the bar

A blogger who calls herself the “Advice Goddess” today assessed Richardson’s foreign policy creds, but decided he comes up short on a key presidential quality: the swagger. “Many Americans seem to vote for president based on who they’d most like to have a beer with. Richardson, in photographs, looks, well, stubby, sweaty and unpresidential.”

Aw, come on. Richardson’s nothing if not a guy you’d want to have a beer with.

Soup’s on

Blogger John Carey watched the Nevada forum Wednesday and came away a Richardson supporter. Not only does our guy have the experience, Carey says, but he “looks like he sure enjoys a good meal.” Take that, Advice Goddess.

Just be nice

During a union-sponsored presidential forum in Carson City, Nev., Wednesday, Gov. Bill Richardson came up with what could be the best idea of the campaign: no negative campaigning.
“The worst thing we can do is tear each other down,” he said.

Sounds great, especially after the apparent spat Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama got into earlier in the day over comments about Clinton that were made by Obama supporter and Hollywood hotshot David Geffen.

Richardson later suggested Obama apologize on Geffen’s behalf. Said Obama: No way.
While we liked Richardson’s up-with-people idea in Carson City, we couldn’t get behind his wardrobe choice: tan slacks with a dark suit jacket? Oh, sigh.

Overall, Richardson did well in what was billed as a debate but resembled nothing such. He spoke with seemingly little effort and called host George Stephanopoulos “Georgie.” We’re certain he meant it in only the nicest way.

Space aliens for Richardson

The National Review found a 2004 story about Richardson attempting to reopen the Roswell “incident” and pondered on how that might (or might not) hinder his presidential ambitions. Either way, the Review figures, Richardson has a ready-made campaign slogan: “Bill Richardson: A President For Americans of All Colors, Including Little Green Men.”

Bad impression

Andrea, a Richardson supporter who keeps the http://www.billrichardsonblog.com chugging, followed him around New Hampshire last weekend and has been writing (for daaaaays) about what she saw. Our favorite discovery is that Richardson does a poor impression of President Bush. That’s probably a good thing if he really wants to win.

Not enough glamour

At the American Prospect’s online site, Matthew Yglesias wondered why Richardson isn’t getting more traction – and wishes he would. Sadly for Richardson, Yglesias posits that we’ve moved from the era of governors as presidents to one of celebrity-politicians as presidents.

Not ready for prime time

The Denver Post covered Richardson’s New Hampshire trip and dunned the guv for being short on message.

Nevertheless, Richardson had a great comeback: “I’m still working on my shtick.”

Shecky Greene would be so proud.