They used to give away free copies of the evening Independent every day it rained here in St. Petersburg, Fla. The old paper is gone, but the storm clouds have gathered this evening over the bayfront Mahaffey Theater where the Republican candidates for president have come to debate in a two-hour show starting at 8 pm EST and sponsored by CNN and YouTube.

by Mark Silva

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. -- "Welcome to the Ron Paul debate,'' reads the banner strung across an expressway leading into downtown St. Petersburg, where the Republican candidates for president assembled this evening for a nationally televised debate run by CNN.

But this really is the Rudy Giuliani debate -- played out in a state where Republican voters are heavily leaning toward the former mayor of New York, who still must strive to hold his claim to national front-runner's status among his party's candidates. It's a claim that will be quickly challenged in Iowa, New Hampshire and other primary contests in January, with Giuliani looking forward to a 20--plus state sweep of primaries on Feb. 5 to repair whatever damage is done.

And this is the Mitt Romney debate -- as the former governor of Massachusetts strives to hold an early advantage that massive early campaigning and costly television advertising has earned him in Iowa and New Hampshire.

And this is the John McCain debate -- as the senator from Arizona attempts to make good on the story line of that McCain-is-rebounding-story. McCain, who forfeited Iowa in his first bid for the White House in 2000 and has relatively little support there today, counts on New Hampshire to rekindle his campaign, just as the state's voters boosted him in '00.

This also is the Mike Huckabee debate -- as the former governor of Arkansas and Baptist minister appeals to those social conservatives within his party who ask themselves if they really want a Giuliani, who supports abortion rights, or a Romney, who once supported abortion rights but now opposess abortion, or a McCain, whose time may have come and gone.

And, OK, it's also the Ron Paul debate -- as the only anti-war candidate in the crowd attempts to parlay the support he has found on the Internet into a respectable ground campaign in the early primary states. And it's the Tom Tancredo bar-the-borders-debate, and the Duncan Hunter, revive-the-military-industrial complex debate

It is, after all, the big debate of the night. So join us here in the Spin Room before, during and after the two-hour show starting at 8 pm EST to tell us whose debate it really was.

Posted by Mark Silva at 6:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

by Frank James

It's the holiday season, not necessarily the best time to be told that you're not going to get the pay raise you had hoped for.

But that's exactly what President Bush is telling federal workers as he gets very Scrooge-like, announcing a reduction in their expected pay raises, in some cases quite substantial, just in time for the holidays.

For workers who live in pricey metropolitan areas, like Washington, D.C., New York, Los Angeles or Chicago, the president is pretty much doing away with a cost-of-living adjustment meant to narrow the gap somewhat between what federal workers and private-sector workers earn in such areas.

In a letter the president sent congressional leaders, he essentially says federal workers must take one for the team, as it were, since giving them the raises they expected would hurt the nation's war on terror.

In a formulation Bush himself might appreciate, we must cut the bureaucrats' pay raises here, so we can fight the terrorists over there. You really can't make this stuff up.

Here's how the Associated Press reported the story:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush ordered Wednesday that federal workers living in more expensive regions of the country will get smaller pay raises than expected, citing what he called unacceptably high costs to the nation.

Current law provides that federal civilian workers will get a 2.5 percent across-the-board raise in January. That will not change under Bush's order.

The law also gives an extra pay bump to some federal employees based on a formula that incorporates cost of living and comparable private-sector pay. On average, workers who live in such metro areas were due to receive an additional raise of 12.5 percent. Bush is cutting that added bump to 0.5 percent.

That means that workers scheduled to receive pay differentials will now receive a total pay raise of 3 percent, not 15 percent, on average.

Bush said he was taking action because the scheduled pay raises would exceed his budget by $12.7 billion next year, and only compound in later years.

"Such cost increases would force deep cuts in discretionary spending or federal employment to stay within budget," Bush said in a letter to congressional leaders. "Either outcome would unacceptably interfere with our nation's ability to secure the homeland and pursue the war on terrorism."

The president has the power to put in place his own pay plan in times of a national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the nation. Bush has invoked this authority before, as have other presidents over the years.

The White House move is obviously not going over well with the federal workers. In a statement issued today, Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, the largest independent union representing federal workers said:

“When you consider all of the important contributions that civilian employees make each day to the federal workplace, a 3 percent salary increase is simply inadequate,” President Kelley said. “Pay is a critical factor in the government’s ability to recruit and retain skilled and talented employees.”

Under the White House plan, federal employees will be given a 2.5 percent raise in base pay in 2008, but would see only a 0.5 percent increase in locality pay. Locality pay is a geographic-based adjustment that is added to employees’ base pay under the General Schedule and is designed to help close the pay gap that exists between federal employees and private sector workers. According to the Federal Salary Council, that gap currently stands at an average of 23 percent.

Those who have complained that only the military has been asked to sacrifice during this time of war can now rest in the knowledge that the nation's bureaucrats are also being asked to sacrifice.

Posted by Frank James at 5:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

by James Oliphant

NEW ORLEANS—The Big Easy isn't taking this one lying down.

This rebuilding city has its pro sports team back and is set to host the Sugar Bowl, the NCAA Championship Game and the NBA all-star game this winter. Hotels and tourist areas are operating at full speed. Getting around isn't a problem. The convention center has been upgraded.

So you might understand why some residents and local media are miffed that the city has been deemed unfit to host a presidential debate. And they believe that the Commission on Presidential Debates has yet to give the city a straight answer as to why.

Local columnist Jarvis DeBerry, of the Times-Picayune, wrote this week that the commission is "now discovering that New Orleans is not the woman who cries quietly into her napkin at the news of her rejection. To the contrary, she is the woman who demands to know what the hell's wrong with the person walking away."

To New Orleanians, it's isn't about prestige. It's about focusing the candidates – and the American public – on the status of the region more than two years after Hurricane Katrina hit and the levees failed. City councilman Arnie Fielkow told the New York Times that the city "has been through too much, and progressed too far, to be falsely disparaged on this national stage."

The proposal was organized by the advocacy group Women of the Storm, in cooperation with four local universities and was supported by seven presidential candidates, including former Sen. John Edwards, who launched his presidential bid here. Anne Milling, founder of Women of the Storm, called New Orleans the "clear moral choice" for hosting a debate.

Posted by Jim Oliphant at 2:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (10)

U.S.S. Kitty Hawk is towed by tug boats on arrival at its home port in Yokosuka, Japan on Tuesday Nov. 27, 2007 after being refused a Hong Kong port call by the Chinese government. (AP Photo/Katsumi Kasahara)

by Frank James, updated at 3:40 pm with White House response

The saying "Any port in a storm" may resonate with mariners and even landlubbers around the world but apparently they're not the ones calling the shots inside the Chinese government.

The U.S. Navy is apparently fighting mad with China because of a recent incident in which the Chinese prevented two U.S. naval ships seeking safe harbor from a Pacific storm from entering the port of Hong Kong.

As Los Angeles Times reporter Julian Barnes reports, this is a violation of maritime customs dating back centuries.

And apparently, you don't have to go to a naval academy to know this. All you need do is listen to some Jimmy Buffet lyrics.

Barnes quotes Adm. Timothy J. Keating, commander of U.S. Pacific Command:

"This is, kind of, an unwritten law amongst seamen, that if someone is in need, regardless of genus, phylum or species, you let them come in; you give them safe harbor," Keating said. "Jimmy Buffett has songs about it, for crying out loud."

The ships, two minesweepers named the Patriot and the Guardian, rode out the storm without damage though anyone whose been on a ship tossed around by waves and wind can identify with any of the sailors who would rather not repeat the experience anytime soon.

As Barnes notes, the incident involving the minesweepers was followed by a day by the Chinese mistreatment of the U.S. Navy's aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk and her strike force which thought it had permission to dock in Hong Kong so the American crews could have Thanksgiving dinner with their families who had flown there for the occasion.

The Chinese foreign ministry refused the Kitty Hawk strike force entry. After the disappointed Americans aboard headed back out to sea, the Chinese government reversed itself but not in time since the Kitty Hawk by that point was 300 miles away.

The Chinese have essentially kept mum about all of this.

That's too bad. It would be informative to hear from them directly their reasons for closing Hong Kong to U.S. warships, especially since the Chinese arguably benefit from that very same U.S. seapower. American ships patrol the sea lanes China uses to import raw materials, including oil, and to export all those manufactured goods from Chinese factories to the rest of the world.

That's a point U.S. diplomats are no doubt making to the Chinese in an effort to prevent a repeat of last week's incidents.

UPDATE: White House Press Secretary Dana Perino was asked at today's West Wing press briefing about the Chinese behavior towards the U.S. Navy. Here's the back and forth with a reporter.

Q Dana, there's a report that the Chinese foreign minister told the president today a reason that a U.S. aircraft carrier was turned away from Hong Kong was due to a misunderstanding. First of all, can you confirm that? And secondly, is that an acceptable explanation?

MS. PERINO: The president met today with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang this morning in the Oval Office. They discussed North Korea, Iran and many other bilateral issues that we have with China. The president raised the issue about the recent aborted port call by the USS Kitty Hawk. Prime -- Foreign Minister Yang announced -- assured the president that it was a misunderstanding. I was not able to be there, but that's the readout that I have for you, that that's the explanation that was given to the president.

Q Is that an acceptable explanation?

MS. PERINO: I don't have anything more from -- I don't have a presidential reaction. I just know about the meeting.

Q What kind of misunderstanding? How do you have a misunderstanding that you'd turn an aircraft carrier away? Do you know what the explanation was?

MS. PERINO: I don't know. I don't know what his explanation was. All I know, that he told the president that it was a misunderstanding. I don't have details. But I'll see if I can get anything more for you.

Posted by Frank James at 1:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (15)

by Rick Pearson

DES MOINES—Democratic presidential candidate Joseph Biden says any talk that the U.S. troop surge in Iraq is working is "fantasy" since its goal was to lead to a fully functioning unity government in the war-torn country.

The Delaware senator, speaking to the Iowa State Association of Counties at a downtown hotel today, also joined his rival and Senate colleague, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, in calling for a massive investment in the nation's infrastructure—its roads, bridges and sewers—to make up for a longtime lack of upgrading public works.

Biden, the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said one key to helping counties and other municipal governments deal with federal mandates is to help free up some of the money now used to fund the Iraq War.

Amid reports that the U.S. military surge has helped to stabilize insurgent attacks in Baghdad and a recent Pew Research Center poll that found 48 percent of Americans now believe the U.S. military effort in Iraq is going well, up from 30 percent in February, Biden said, "This whole notion that the surge is working is fantasy.

"The surge was to provide breathing room. Breathing room for what purpose?" he asked the officials assembled from Iowa's 99 counties. "To work out a coalition government to end this civil war."

Biden said there is "let me emphasize, no political progress among the major factions" in trying to govern Iraq. Biden has long supported a decentralized federal government system for Iraq.

Dodd, who appeared earlier before the counties' organization, portrayed himself as a political conciliator and appeared to take a shot at a major rival for the nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, by referencing the campaign slogan—turn up the heat—that her campaign unveiled earlier this month.

"You understand as I do that we weren't elected to squabble. We're elected to produce results on behalf of the people we represent," Dodd said.

"Some people talk about turning up the heat, firing up the crowd, making people angry and convincing people how strong a fighter you are," Dodd said. "I think the American people would like to tone down the heat, tone down the rhetoric and they'd like to see us get together and start solving problems for the people of the states. The fighting needs to stop. Producing results is where we need to be as a country."

Like Dodd, Biden, a former county official in Delaware, said there was a desire by the American public to get results, not partisan rhetoric.

Biden said that watching a national budget surplus turn into a deficit during the past decade was not "any one person's fault" and was a "national problem," not one for Democrats or Republicans to place blame or resolve.

"American people are neither liberal or conservative. The American people are pragmatic," Biden said. Saying the need to upgrade infrastructure is not an "ideological" issue, he contended, "there are pragmatic answers to every one of the problems we face."

Posted by Frank James at 1:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (24)

by Chris Jones

Presidential candidate Barack Obama is finally going to see the hit Second City revue "Between Barack and a Hard Place." Or bits of it, at least.

The Obama for America campaign will host a fundraiser at the Wells Street comedy joint (5 p.m. on Friday, Dec. 7), featuring Obama himself.

The 90-minute event will feature a custom 15-minute show by the current cast of the mainstage revue. Most of the Obama material from the revue will be performed, including the "I am Barack Obama" sequence which pokes fun at the way Obama has become a malleable symbol of impossibly disparate liberal hopes and dreams. A maybe-gay Abraham Lincoln (who likes to call Obama "B.O.") is also slated for an appearance. Michelle Obama already saw the whole show at a public performance in July, as did Maya Soetoro-Ng of Honolulu (Sen. Barack Obama's half sister), and her husband, Konrad Ng. Most of Obama's staffers also checked it out over the summer.

If you want to join the Senator, live in Old Town, be ready to open your wallet. Tickets are $750 per person.

Posted by Frank James at 1:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

by Andrew Malcolm

Turns out, some Obama PAC money came from PACs.

Before he ostentatiously stopped taking money from political action committees to run for president, Sen. Barack Obama quietly took money from political action committees.

As a presidential candidate, Obama claims to be an outsider eager to shake up the Washington establishment by refusing to accept donations from political action committees and Washington lobbyists. This year, they're the bad guys.

But this wasn’t always the case.

Back in 2005 and 2006, Obama raised $123,283 from other political action committees and put them into a political action committee of his own. He called it Hopefund.

Hopefund is what is known as a “leadership PAC,” a frequent target of campaign watchdogs because it can raise money in much larger bundles than individual candidates. The Candidate of Hope from Illinois followed the example set by Senate and House members who establish such accounts to raise money and then spread it around to other politicians in the hopes of gaining new best friends. Legally, such PACs are supposed to operate independently and cannot coordinate with any campaigns of their owner.

Now that Obama is running for president, he's handing out the bulk of Hopefund money to politicians and groups who happen to be in early presidential voting states, as the Washington Post's John Solomon noted the other day. The pace of giving has increased in recent months and this has led to some remarkable coincidences.

New Hampshire state Sen. Jacalyn Cilley, for instance, received $1,000 from Obama's PAC last summer. Six days later she happened to endorse the same Obama for president. "I endorsed him because I believe in him and his policies," she said.

Likewise, Obama's PAC recently felt moved to donate $9,000 to Rep. Paul Hodes, who happens to have been the first member of Congress from New Hampshire to endorse Obama early this year.

With a straight face Obama spokesmen deny there's any connection between his...

presidential campaign and the PAC donations. "Sen. Obama has long been doing whatever he can to help elect fellow Democrats all across the country," said Joshua Earnest.

Of course, opposing campaigns seek to capitalize on such coincidences. Yesterday, the Clinton campaign issued two statements on the Post article. One said, "On the campaign trail, Sen. Obama is outspoken about his desire to reform the campaign finance system so it was surprising to learn that he has been using his PAC in a manner that appears to be inconsistent with the prevailing election laws."

When Obama's camp appeared to ignore the jab, Clinton's forces issued another statement, "The Obama campaign's failure to deny that it committed campaign finance violations speaks volumes."

But those who throw stones in political tit-for-tats should be careful. An Obama spokesman sought to turn the issue toward Clinton's reluctance to reveal financial records and to order the release of millions of pages of documents relating to her years as first lady, which are now locked up in her husband's presidential library until after the 2008 election.

And there is also the Clinton problem with fundraising bundler Norman Hsu and the coincidence, as detailed last summer by The Times' Dan Morain, of former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack giving up his own presidential campaign, endorsing Hillary Clinton and suddenly receiving thousands of dollars from Clinton supporters to help retire his campaign debt.

Altogether, Obama collected $4.4 million for Hopefund. The donations came from some of his biggest backers including the Illinois energy firm Exelon and the Illinois Pork Producers.

According to Federal Election Commission records, other significant Obama PAC donations in the last two years came from AT&T, Lockheed Martin, Comcast, and Walt Disney. There was even money from currently evil law firms that have major lobbying practices in Washington including Brownstein Hyatt and DLA Piper.

But that was then.

Posted by Frank James at 12:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (19)

by Jim Tankersley

It's fair to say Jay Footlik has a unique background for a congressional candidate. He's a lawyer, a Middle East and renewable energy policy wonk and a former Clinton White House advisor. His father left his family when Jay was four, an experience Footlik recounted in his first campaign commercial in Illinois' 10th district, where he's running against business consultant Dan Seals in the Democratic primary for the right to challenge Rep. Mark Kirk.

Footlik is also a former child actor. His career features small parts in two 1980s movies. One was Iron Eagle with Louis Gossett Jr. The other, a Michael J. Fox classic, features prominently in Footlik's new campaign ad.

The ad, airing on cable starting today, mimics the opening credits of The Brady Bunch and includes several local Footlik volunteers talking about why they're switching from Seals -- who narrowly lost to Kirk in 2006 -- to Footlik this year.

“I voted for Dan last time, but Jay’s got the experience we need in Congress,” one says. “I think Jay is the one who can beat Mark Kirk,” another adds. Eventually, a smiling young woman appears.

“I loved him in Teen Wolf,” she says.

For the record, imdb.com says Footlik played "Student No. 1" in the 1985 teenager-discovers-he's-a-werewolf-and-uses-his-powers-for-basketball-domination flick. Footlik's campaign elaborates by saying he auditioned for a leading role but was apparently too tall -- the actors weren't supposed to be taller than Fox. As consolation, Footlik got a scene with Fox and a line of dialogue.

Seals, on the other hand, "fully admits that he cannot compete with Jay on his acting credentials," campaign manager Patrick Mogge said today. "But Dan's second grade daughter did a great Thanksgiving dance in her recent school play."

Posted by Jim Tankersley at 12:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Jim Tankersley

Pledges have become quite the rage in politics over the last decade or so -- Grover Norquist's no-tax-increase pledge most famously -- but usually it's candidates who sign them. Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards turned the tables this morning, unveiling a web site that asks voters and caucus-goers to pledge their allegiance to candidates who don't take money from lobbyists or "special interest" political action committees.

The pledge, posted here, states its target as the "broken system in Washington that works for special interests and not us." But politically, its target would seem to be a single person: Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., who leads the Democratic presidential field in national polls.

Clinton, Edwards' campaign notes frequently, accepts lobbyist and PAC money. Edwards never has. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the other leading Democratic presidential contender, accepted lobbyist and PAC donations in the past but hasn't this campaign.

The Edwards camp says signing the pledge wouldn't stop anyone from voting for Obama -- or for Clinton, if she announced she was no longer taking lobbyist dollars. Of course, the pledge can't actually stop anyone from voting for any candidate -- it's not written in blood -- but announcing it brings some obvious strategic benefits for Edwards.

For starters, the pledge reinforces Edwards' populist campaign themes that pit average Americans against powerful interests that have a "stranglehold" on the federal government, as one spokesman put it today.

"Lobbyists have taken control in Washington and America’s hard-working families pay the price," the pledge website reads. "They've stopped universal health care. They've secured unfair and unsafe trade deals that have cost America good middle-class jobs. They've left our children at risk from unsafe toys. They've sabotaged clean energy legislation that would address global warming. And they've squashed efforts for cheaper generic prescription drugs. Enough is enough. America belongs to us."

The site also asks people who sign the pledge to provide an e-mail address and zip code -- handy data for campaign micro-targeters to have when they go to turn out voters this primary season. The campaign says it hopes to get 1 million people to sign on.

Posted by Jim Tankersley at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

by Mark Silva

Abortion plays an unavoidable role in any Republican primary election, particularly elections like those coming this winter: In which Rudy Giuliani, the party’s front-running candidate for president, supports abortion rights for women.

Yet, as a measure of how pragmatic Republicans may be willing to be next year – looking for a White House winner who may not align with them on social issues that matter – Giuliani is running well among a traditionally conservative Republican constituency, Florida’s.

In preparation for tonight’s debate of the Republican candidates in St. Petersburg, Opinion Research Corp. interviewed 1,099 Floridians, including 300 who say they are likely to vote in the Sunshine State’s Jan. 29 primary election.

Only 19 percent of the likely Republican voters surveyed said they believe that abortion should be legal “under any circumstances, and 61 percent said it should be legal “under only certain circumstances.’’ Another 19 percent said it should be illegal always. Just 2 percent voiced no opinion.

And in this same Nov. 25-26 survey, 38 percent of the likely Republican primary voters voiced a preference for Giuliani. His closest rival in Florida: Former Gov. Mitt Romney, with 17 percent. Sen. John McCain draws just 11 percent.

Giuliani also supports gay rights – though stops short of endorsing gay marriage. Among the Republican voters surveyed in Florida, 77 percent said marriage between homosexuals should not be recognized as valid under the law, with the same rights as traditional marriage. Just 19 percent said it should be.

On the one matter which the former New York mayor has made his signature issue, Giuliani’s strength in the fourth-largest state is measured by this gauge: Far and away the majority of likely Republican voters in Florida – 53 percent – saying he would best handle terrorism as president. McCain drew just 19 percent on this score.

And on the question of which Republican stands the best chance of beating the Democratic nominee in 2008, Giuliani was a runaway favorite: 61 percent.

Posted by Mark Silva at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (17)

by Sabrina Fang

Posted by Rhonda Stewart at 11:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

by Frank James

Political reporter Adam Nagourney has an interesting retrospective in today's New York Times on the race that never was, the widely anticipated but aborted Year 2000 contest for a Senate seat from New York between then First Lady Hillary Clinton and New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

The premise for the story is that, if the electoral stars align just right in Iowa, New Hampshire and a spate of states on Feb. 5, these two could face off in 2008 and political junkies will finally have the contest they were denied when Giuliani withdrew from the 2000 Senate race, mainly because he didn't have the fire in the belly to be in the Senate.

After being chief executive of a city of eight million souls, being one of 100 in a deliberative body didn't appeal to Giuliani, Nagorney makes clear. It sounds like Giuliani was, for the most part, just going through the motions, not even talking much about federal issues in a race for a federal office.

An aspect missing from the story however is that there was a very real sense during that 2000 campaign that Sen. Clinton's belly fire of ambition raged beyond the Senate all the way to the White House. Many believed she didn't see her political future ending in that deliberative body of 100 either.

There was the strong suspicion that for Clinton the New York Senate race was just a way station for the most glittering of all the political prizes, the White House.

There was this from a June 14, 2000 op-ed piece written by Ross Baker, the well-known Rutgers University political scientist:

To hear Rep. Rick Lazio tell it, voting for Democratic Senate nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton should be likened to casting a ballot for an undocumented immigrant or an extraterrestrial.

The Republican Senate nominee has breathed new life into the argument that Clinton is just dropping by the State of New York on her way to the White House, and real New Yorkers should spurn her advances in favor of a guy who dug his youthful toes into the sands of Great South Bay.

Then there's this from a Nov. 29, 2000 Steve Neal column in the Chicago Sun-Times:

Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2004?

The senator-elect from New York, who is moving out of the White House, is hoping to return as the first woman president of the United States. It's not so wild a dream. As the rising star of national Democratic politics, she is in a strong position to win her party's nomination.

Even though she has vowed to serve out her six-year senatorial term, New York voters won't hold her to that pledge. Robert F. Kennedy sought the presidency four years after his election to the senatorial seat that Clinton will soon be sitting in. There's no doubt that her eyes are on the prize.

Neal was right in terms of the big picture though he was off by four years in terms of timing.

If anything, there's an irony in all this. Because Giuliani was mayor of the nation's largest city, he didn't need the Senate to establish his credibility as an eventual White House candidate, which was only enhanced in the eyes of many by his 9/11 performance.

Meanwhile, Clinton desperately needed to win the Senate to give her presidential aspirations some street cred. So in a way it can be argued that the striking thing about that 2000 race was that both Giuliani and Clinton were, in their own ways, looking beyond the Senate.

Posted by Frank James at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

by Mark Silva

Ron Paul, that freedom-loving candidate for president, will take his support where he can find it -- including, it appears, from the Moonlite Bunny Ranch in Nevada.

Paul, appearing on Fox News Channel's Fox and Friends this morning, was asked about his endorsement from Dennis Hof, owner of the Moonlite Bunny Ranch near Carson City, Nevada -- scene of one of the early caucuses.

Hof has reported being so impressed with Paul at a campaign stop in Reno that he has decided to raise money for him. Hof and two of his prostitutes, including a woman who goes by the name of Air Force Amy, also attended a Paul news conference. The women reported liking what they saw, but suggested they still want to shop around the rest of the field.

Jeff Greenspan, a spokesman for Paul, has said that the congressman from Texas does not personally condone prostitution, but doesn't think the federal government should regulate it.

Paul, who has run for president as a Libertarian and now is raising a lot of money as a maverick Republican, anti-war and also anti-abortion, had this to say about Hof's endorsement.

"“Now I don’t know much about him, but I don’t screen anyone who wants to send me money,'' he said on Fox today. "If they believe in freedom and want to endorse it and they want to give me money, what they do with their freedom is their business, but I don’t screen people.

"We got 37,000 donors in one day,'' said Paul, who has been raising big money on the Internet, "There’s no way I could find out what each individual believes in. As long as they endorse what I believe in, the Constitution and individual liberty, freedom means people have a choice with what to do with their lives and their money and what they want to do with their religious beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that if you believe in freedom you endorse what people do with their freedom”.''

Posted by Mark Silva at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (45)

by Craig Gordon

One of the occupational hazards of covering Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign is running into friends from New York City. The conversation is always the same.

"How can Giuliani be leading in the polls?" these New Yorkers sputter in disbelief. "Don’t they know what he’s really like?"

That’s often followed by a detailed critique. One recalled how Giuliani had berated a well-regarded schools chancellor, Ramon Cortines, who ultimately quit. Another noted that the cleanup of Times Square meant it was wholesome enough for – gasp -- a Disney store.
Manhattanites like to think of themselves as living in the cultural and financial center of the universe, but many have a blind spot as big as the Empire State building when it comes to their so-famous-he-only-needs-one-name ex-mayor.

They think of him as the combative my-way-or-the-highway leader who took on porno shops and bus placards that gently criticized him with equal vigor, turned his cops loose on petty offenses and tried to sanitize and suburbanize a great American city.

But what they often don’t realize is that some of the same traits that bothered them about Giuliani in the waning years of his time in City Hall are some of the very things that many Republicans like. And it’s not just 9/11, though that helps – making him a man many Republicans see as hard-nosed on crime, welfare AND terrorists in equal measure.

Stephen DiBrienza, a former New York City Councilman, captured it best in a New Yorker magazine piece this summer about Giuliani: "All the things that a lot of New Yorkers, myself included, hate about this guy are the things that are actually fueling his campaign."

Some of it goes to the disconnect between urban dwellers in New York (most of whom are Democrats) and the rest of the country, which has never heard of Cortines and actually likes taking the kids to the Disney store.

But the explanation is deeper than that, and it helps explain why the Giuliani campaign has latched onto this theme as well, in a series of new television ads that barely mention 9/11 but portray Giuliani as the man who tamed the untamable New York.

Imagine the mayor of Boston or Denver running such ads – it’s hard to think they would have the same punch. But Giuliani believes he can score points precisely because they’re about New York City – a mythic place in American life, where most voters either have visited themselves or feel like they know from movies and TV.

When Giuliani says the place got better under his leadership, many voters feel like they know what he means – and they don’t much worry about the fine print, like questions about how much credit goes to Giuliani’s policies, or to national trends. Giuliani also glosses over the fact that many New Yorkers had soured on him before 9/11, particularly black New Yorkers angered by police violence and by his decision to snub many key African-American leaders.

Of course, Giuliani’s very New York-iness also works against him in the campaign as well. Some of his big-city behavior shrugged off as tabloid fodder -- the messy split from Donna Hanover and the romancing of third wife Judith Nathan – isn’t shrugged off so lightly by family-values voters.

And maybe there’s just something that galls New Yorkers about Giuliani simultaneously running down the hometown they love, and then taking the credit for building it up. That was particularly striking at one April campaign appearance, where Giuliani beamed as a South Carolina official called pre-Rudy New York a crime-ridden "cesspool." Giuliani stepped to the mike and called it one of the best introductions he’d ever received.

Craig Gordon is Newsday's Washington bureau chief, with a 22-year career that has taken him from Baghdad to the White House. He is covering his third presidential campaign. A former White House correspondent, Gordon covered the Pentagon after the 9/11 attacks, traveling to Afghanistan and Iraq. He was part of Newsday’s Pulitzer Prize winning team on the crash of TWA Flight 800.

Posted by Rhonda Stewart at 9:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (34)

by Frank James

A quick guided tour of some of the morning's most important, most interesting, or both, Washington-related stories.

Israel and Palestinian leaders agreed to hold peace talks in the coming year in an attempt to reach a comprehensive settlement next year but large challenges lay ahead as it was expected that extremists on both sides would try to derail any progress.

While it didn't attend the meeting, Iran's growing importance in the Middle East, and the Islamic radicals it supports, was a major concern for Israel and the Arab state participants in Annapolis.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf officially relinquished his post as military chief but retained ultimate power in the nation as its civilian head of government.

The Federal Reserve Board's vice chairman said monetary policy needed to remain "nimble" to deal with setbacks in financial markets in recent weeks, leaving the clear impression that more interest-rate cuts were possible.

The controversial head of the White House's Office of Special Counsel who investigated Karl Rove political activities there is himself being probed for deleting computer files connected with a probe unassociated with Rove.

A study led by a researcher at the National Cancer Institute found that the breast cancer risk has been underestimated for black women.

The president of the Red Cross, Mark Everson, was forced to resign after admitting to an affair with a subordinate, ending what had been a successful six months for the former Bush Administration Internal Revenue Commissioner in fundraising and other efforts to turn around the organization.

Compromise of the sort that the soon-to-be-retired Sen. Trent Lott was capable of appears to be less possible in the Senate as it evolves into a much more divided body like the House.

The Transportation Security Agency said it will subject millions of aviation workers including pilots and flight attendants to greater scrutiny in its quest to fend off terrorist attacks by insiders.

The Veterans Administration is falling behind in its target timeframe for delivering benefit information to veterans.

Posted by Frank James at 8:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Don Frederick

Ron Paul opened a campaign office this week in Charleston, S.C. -- his third in a state that traditionally has been crucial to deciding who Republicans nominate for president.

According to Brian Gentry, the South Carolina field coordinator for Paul, more than 150 people attended the event, where the Republican candidate for president and congressman from Texas spoke for about 15 minutes, then answered questions for another 20.

The new digs join offices already operating in Greenville, S.C., and Columbia, S.C.

In Iowa, meanwhile, campaign aide John Zambenini reports that a couple of satellite operations soon will open, supplementing the work performed at the main headquarters in Des Moines. In New Hampshire (a much smaller state) the one office in Concord probably will suffice. But state campaign coordinator Jared Chicoine says it's spacious -- 2,400 square feet -- and now includes telephone banks.

The point? Inexorably, Paul is establishing the type of infrastructure that not so many months ago would have been hard to imagine for such a renegade politician. Presumably, the nuts and bolts being put in place gives the campaign a chance to channel the obvious ardor that he has generated.

What it all will add to on caucus day in Iowa and in the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries, if -- and how -- support for Paul will skew the Republican race, have become a matter of growing conjecture (which is something few would have once anticipated).

Count Stuart Rothenberg, a long-established expert in the rudiments of U.S. politics, as a hardcore skeptic.

In a provocative column, Rothenberg dismisses the Paul campaign as sound and fury that will amount to little. He writes: "Single-handedly, the quirky libertarian Republican from Texas has unintentionally exposed the over-hype that accompanies much of the talk about politics and the Internet."

Rothenberg asks: "How can we explain" the interest Paul has sparked, especially in cyberspace?

His answer: "This is a big country with hundreds of millions of people, some of whom are attracted to quirky, anti-establishment candidates. And some of those people are angry, looking for an outspoken leader and searching for an easy answer to the nation's problems.

"But there simply are not all that many of them."

Rothenberg anticipates that his critique will unleash a barrage of bashing from Paulites. But, as one of the candidate's aides commented to us, it may serve mainly to motivate them even more.

Don Frederick is a political editor in the Washington bureau of the Los Angeles Times. He wrote this for Top of the Ticket, the L.A. Times' political blog.

Posted by Mark Silva at 7:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

by Mike Dorning

PORTSMOUTH, N.H.-Barack Obama surrounded himself with blue bunting, American flags and foreign affairs luminaries at a public forum Tuesday that brought the atmosphere of a Washington policy seminar to the early-primary state of New Hampshire.

With panels of foreign policy heavyweights preceding Obama's appearance with praise for his foreign policy abilities, the event allowed the freshman senator to showcase his veteran policy team and demonstrate he had gained the confidence of seasoned professionals in the area. It clearly was convened with an eye toward countering rival Hillary Clinton's criticism that he lacks the experience to guide the nation in an age of terrorism.

At the same time, Obama and his advisers emphasized foreign policy themes that draw contrasts with Clinton, arguing that the times call for a fresh approach to international relations and Obama would be the better global messenger for a break with the past not only because of his life experience but also his early opposition to the war in Iraq.

Obama, who has recently been criticizing Clinton on the campaign trail for artful political stands that lack sufficient clarity, also called for "open and candid" stands on international issues from presidential candidates.

" We've seen what it is like when the door is shut on the American people. We know what it is like to have old Washington hands like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld say 'Trust us. We know what we're doing,'" Obama said, in a thinly veiled swipe at Clinton's claims of greater experience in Washington..

The three-hour program included Anthony Lake, Bill Clinton's first national security adviser, opining that Obama probably is better prepared in foreign policy than was his former boss or presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were when they were first elected.

"I cannot understand why he is attacked for a lack of experience," Lake said.

Clinton Administration alumni Susan Rice, former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, and Richard Danzig, who was Secretary of the Navy, also vouched for the candidate as they discussed his policy views.

Harvard Kennedy School professor and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Samantha Power lauded Obama as "someone who can look at the world as it is, not as it was" even as she criticized a Washington foreign policy establishment that "is not tailoring policies sufficiently to 21st century threats."

Speaking after the event, Power acknowledged that the Obama campaign had organized the event in part to demonstrate "the breadth of his foreign policy expertise." That, she said, "I don't think has penetrated in New Hampshire and Iowa.

Within hours of the event, the Clinton campaign had e-mailed out a statement to reporters reprising the former first lady's criticism of his credentials.

"With the critical foreign policy challenges America faces in the world today, voters will decide whether Senator Obama, who served in the Illinois State Senate just three years ago and would have less experience than any president since World War II, has the strength and experience to be the next president," said the statement, issued under the name of campaign spokesman Phil Singer.

Posted by Mike Dorning at 7:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (18)

by Mark Silva

Here’s something worth remembering – five weeks from the Iowa caucuses, but nearly one year from Election Day 2008:

In Florida, scene of tonight’s televised debate of the Republican candidates for president, Rudy Giuliani holds a comfortable advantage over any of his party’s rivals, but Hillary Clinton, front-running Democrat, holds a comfortable advantage over Giuliani in a general election-matchup.

This is the nation’s fourth-largest state, a place that hasn’t sided with many Democrats since World War II – Southerners mainly: Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, but only in his reelection bid. And, well, Al Gore, if you listen to his lawyers.

But for whatever advantage the former mayor of New York holds in the state that will hold its primary elections on Jan. 29 – over the objections of national parties which vow to penalize the state in its seating of delegates at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions -- the candidate who may rule the stage of Republicans debating in St. Petersburg tonight could face one tough fight for the Sunshine State if he becomes the GOP’s nominee and Clinton is the Democrat.

The possible margin of error in this survey is 5.5 percent among Republicans surveyed, but 3 percent among all likely voters surveyed for a potential general election match:

These are the preferences found among Republicans surveyed:

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani : 38 percent

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney :17 percent

Arizona Sen.. John McCain: 11 percent

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson : 11 percent

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: 9 percent

Texas Rep. Ron Paul: 5 percent

California Rep. Duncan Hunter: 1 percent

No opinion: 9 percent

Now, asking all 945 voters surveyed: If Hillary Clinton were the Democratic Party's candidate and Rudy Giuliani were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for -- Clinton, the Democrat, or Giuliani, the Republican?

The answer:

Clinton : 51 percent

Giuliani: 42 percent

Neither: 5 percent

Posted by Mark Silva at 7:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

by Mark Silva

The folks at CNN and YouTube have sifted through some 5,000 suggested questions for the Republican candidates for president, in preparation for tonight's televised debate in Florida.

"The questions are funny,' reports Sam Feist, CNN's political director. "Some of them are striking. Some of them are sad. They are incredibly meaningful... You watch hundreds of these questions and you really get a sense of what's on people's minds."

The candidates will get a sense of that tonight in St. Petersburg, with a two-hour debate at a downtown performing arts theater aired nationally and starting at 8 pm EST.

If it's anything like the debate that CNN and YouTube staged for the Democratic presidential candidates on July 23, there will be plenty to chew on.

Questions like this one that Zach Kempft of Provo, Utah, asked tthe Democrats:

"My question is: We have a bunch of leaders who can't seem to do their job. And we pick people based on the issues they that they represent, but then they get in power and they don't do anything aboutit anyway.

"You're going to spend this whole night talking about your views on issues, but the issues don't matter if when you get in power nothing's going to get done.''

Or Rob Porter, from Irvine, Calif., who posed this question for Sen. Hillary Clinton:

"Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word 'liberal?' And would you use this word to describe yourself?''

"You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the
individual,'' Clinton replied. "Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on
its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in he 19th and early 20th century.

"I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th Century,'' she said. "I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that
we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.''

Sometime tonight may well be asking the question: What do you mean by Republican?

There are a lot of candidates ready to chomp on that one.

Posted by Mark Silva at 6:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (16)

Good morning.

Here are a few Washington events of note for Wednesday, November 28.

President Bush is meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at the White House.

The Nixon Presidential Library is releasing about 123,000 pages of materials from the Nixon presidency.

The School of Advanced International Studies is holding a discussion on the Mideast with National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.

Posted by Ken Bredemeier at 6:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The entrance to the hall at the U.S. Naval Academy where the Middle East peace conference was convened today. Photo by Mark Silva

by Mark Silva

ANNAPOLIS -- "Thanks for coming,'' President Bush told the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, representatives of Saudi Arabia, Syria, the Sudan and some three-dozen other nations represented at today's Annapolis Conference.

And then Bush was gone.

The president, who has maintained that the United States will foster but not attempt to steer any of the peace-talks to which the Israelis and Palestinians have committed themselves today, did not even stay for lunch at the Naval Academy officer's club.

Bush shook hands and clasped Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as the three delivered promising speeches here -- all sounding a common refrain, that "the time is right'' for peace talks. See Bush's speech here.

But 10 minutes after Olmert finished speaking, just after noon, Bush lifted off from the grounds of the U.S. Naval Academy in Marine One for a return helicopter ride to the White House. Abbas and Olmert, who met with Bush in the Oval Office on Monday, will return Wednesday for a followup before departing and opening talks which they have pledged to start next month.

"Thanks for coming'' -- Bush told the audience around the square table of Memorial Hall. He had met here with the two leaders beforehand, strode into the hall with them, and then he was gone. He returned to the White House for a meeting with Iraqi representatives and an interview with the Associated Press, in which he was certain to speak of today's achievements.

It was "a big event,'' White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said later in Washington. Tomorrow morning "is like the after-party.''

"What you saw today is that the president is fully engaged,'' said Perino, asked if Bush, who has never traveled to Israel as president, but had as governor of Texas, plans a trip next year.

""He made no announcement in terms of travel today -- you don't have to be in the region to facilitate,'' she said. "If there are plans and news of a future trip, he will let us know.

"They all came together today, and they had a moment that the president considers a significant moment,'' Perino said back at the White House in her afternoon briefing. "What he also said is that the Americans cannot impose peace, and this is going to take the Israelis and Palestinians having a genuine commitment in working together.

"Today was important, but what's really important is what happens in the days after and the weeks that follow,'' Perino said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "will be doing a lot of the heavy lifting, as she has been.''

"The president... is only a phone call away.''

Posted by Mark Silva at 3:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (17)

by Mark Silva

"For the first time in a long time,'' the Pew Research Center's Andrew Kohut reports, "nearly half of Americans express positive opinions about the situation in Iraq.''

That may not sound like a groundswell. But it's a more positive sounding of American opinion about the state of affairs in Iraq than Pew has found in some time.

Still, most say it's time to bring the troops home.

"A growing number says the U.S. war effort is going well, while greater percentages also believe the United States is making progress in reducing the number of Iraqi casualties, defeating the insurgents and preventing a civil war in Iraq,'' Pew President Kohut reports.

Roughly half of those surveyed -- 48 percent -- have told Pew the U.S. military effort in Iraq is going very or fairly well. As recently as June, only about one third -- 34 percent - had said so.

The number of those surveyed saying the U.S. is making progress in reducing civilian casualties in Iraq has doubled from 21 to 43 percent since June. The proportion saying progress has been achieved in preventing terrorists from establishing bases is also up substantially, as is the number saying the U.S. is making progress in defeating the insurgents militarily.

"However, a rosier view of the military situation in Iraq has not translated into increased support for maintaining U.S. forces in Iraq, greater optimism that the United States will achieve its goals there, or an improvement in President Bush’s approval ratings,'' Kohut notes. "By 54 to 41 percent, Americans favor bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq as soon as possible rather than keeping troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized.''

That balance has not changed "significantly'' all year.

The latest survey was run Nov. 20-26, with interviews of 1,399 adults. See it here.

Posted by Mark Silva at 3:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (26)

by Mark Silva

ANNAPOLIS -- The presence of Arab leaders at The Annapolis Conference is taken by some as one of the more hopeful signs of this conference where the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority have pledged to begin negotiations toward a lasting peace.

"It is time to bring this conflict to an end,'' the Saudi Arabian foreign minister said here today, following public pronouncements of a commitment to Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Samuel Lewis, who served as U.S. Ambassador to Israel under Presidents Carter and Reagan and director of policy planning at the State Department during President Clinton's first term, calls the Arab participation at this summit "not insignificant, because without a lot of support from a lot of the Arab players, it is extremely difficult for (Palestinian President Mahmoud) Abbas to make any of the concessions that are going to be necessary to come out of these negotiations…

"The fact that the Arab League agreed to support the conference is a significant achievement… including the Saudi foreign minister,'' Lewis says. "Al of that is good, and it hasn’t happened before.''

Saud Al-Faisal, the Saudi Arabian minister of foreign affairs, delivered this message in his address here: "A great deal is riding on the success or failure of this undertaking. The Arab-Israeli conflict has caused too much pain and suffering and too many lives have been lost.

"Stagnation in the peace process has increased the appeal for extremist ideologies. Feelings of despair and frustration have reached a dangerously high level.

"It is time to bring this conflict to an end, and to enable the people of the region to divert their energies from war and destruction to peace and development.

"This is the fundamental reason behind this important gathering, and the ultimate benchmark for its success. We have come to support the launching of serious and continuing talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis that will address all the core and final status issues. These talks must be followed by the launching of the Syrian and Lebanese tracks at the earliest.

"The United States and the Quartet have expressed their commitment to working towards achieving a final settlement of the Arab Israeli conflict within a specific time frame, and we shall hold them to that. The terms of reference for negotiations on all tracks are UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 338, 1397 and 1515, the Road Map and the Arab Peace Initiative.

"It is absolutely necessary to establish an international follow-up mechanism that monitors progress in the negotiations among the parties, as well as the implementation of commitments made. It is also essential that Israel implement such steps as the freezing of all settlement activities, the dismantling of settlement outposts, the releasing of prisoners, the halting of the construction of the wall, the removal of Israeli checkpoints in the occupied Palestinian territories, and the lifting of the siege imposed on the Palestinian people. These steps must be seriously implemented on the ground if the final status negotiations are to succeed..

"In Arabic we usually end by saying 'May peace be upon you,' and this time let me say in addition, 'May peace be achieved by you.'''

Posted by Mark Silva at 2:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

by Rick Pearson

DES MOINES—While Barack Obama has been getting a lot of hype for announcing that Oprah Winfrey will be joining him on the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton's campaign fought back in classic style by announcing the New York senator had been endorsed by Barbra Streisand.

Streisand, an actor, singer and filmmaker, has long been a liberal Democratic activist. In a statement provided by the Clinton campaign, she called the concept of "Madame President of the United States…an extraordinary thought."

"Hillary Clinton has already proven to a generation of women that there are no limits for success," Streisand said. Citing Eleanor Roosevelt's contention that "there may be a day when women will be looked upon as persons" in government and business, Streisand said, "More than 50 years later 'that day' is now upon us…and Hillary Clinton is ready to shatter through that glass ceiling for all women."

For her part, Clinton said Streisand "has used her immense talent to be an advocate for truth, justice, and fairness and I deeply appreciate her confidence in my candidacy as we work together to change the direction of our nation."

While it is debatable what practical effect the Chicago-based media-megastar Winfrey will have in influencing voters on behalf of Obama, an Illinois senator, the comments by Streisand provided by Clinton's campaign are clearly aimed at trying to prevent any potential slippage among women voters.

Posted by Mark Silva at 2:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (41)

by John McCormick

DES MOINES – Sen. Hillary Clinton defended her increasingly aggressive approach on the campaign trail, saying in a Tribune interview today that she was not the first to throw a stone in the Democratic presidential race.

"I have for months tried to stay positively on the issues, to talk about what I will do as president, to set forth my credentials and experience, the strengths that I think I bring to the position," she said in a phone interview while traveling in South Carolina. "But I have been attacked pretty regularly by my two leading opponents, and it's gone on for months. So, at some point, as we get toward the end of these campaigns, you have to stand up and rebut what people are saying and put out the contrasts and that is what I intend to do."

"Voters are going to decide who has the qualifications and experience to be president and lead our country through these challenging times. I'm very proud of my record of accomplishment, going back 35 years, and certainly of the opportunity I had to represent our country in more than 82 countries, to be the voice and face of America in so many places, to stand up for women's rights and human rights in China, to pursue religious tolerance by meeting regularly with leaders of Islamic countries that I was privileged to visit," she said. "If he wants he wants to argue about our relative experience, that's a discussion that I welcome."

Comparing Clinton with his wife, Obama had told ABC's "Nightline" that he didn't think "Michelle would claim that she is the best qualified person to be a United States senator by virtue of me talking to her on occasion about the work I've done."

Asked whether she took any offense at the remark, Clinton said she would "let voters make that assessment."

Clinton also amplified her criticism of Obama's lack of a mandate for coverage in his health care reform proposal.

"Sen. Obama chose a different approach and leaves out at least 15 million people from that coverage. I think that's a mistake and there are a number of ways of ensuring people are covered. Actually, Sen. Obama has a mandate in his policy proposal for children to mandate their parents to make sure children are covered. So, it's not that he's against mandates and doesn't understand that there are a number of ways of implementing them. But that he got up to the edge of whether or not to support universal coverage and backed down because it is a more difficult goal to achieve. But I don’t see any choice. We have to go after universal coverage. In fact, you know, one of the things Sen. Obama takes credit for as a state senator is a health care task force that looked into the question of how do you provide universal health care in Illinois. And they came back, their report earlier this year, and it was clear, if you want universal health care you have to have a mandate. The Illinois task force looked into a bunch of proposals that didn’t include a mandate and found that none of them came even close to providing universal coverage. So, I think, the puzzling thing to me is Sen. Obama now criticizing a mandate, when he has one in his own plan, when he helped to set up a task force that says there has to be a mandate. And there are lots of ways to do it, through default enrollment, through going to schools, workplaces to enroll people. And I know members of Congress have a lot of ideas about this, so we're going to work through the details to figure out the best combination of approaches. But if you don't start from universal coverage, you will never get there."

Clinton said she does not believe she is now campaigning as an underdog, a title some news organizations have suggested in recent days.

"I never take any of those titles serious. I get up every day and try to run as effective a campaign as I can, reaching out to as many voters as possible," she said. "I'm just going to keep working as hard as I can to earn the votes of as many people as I possibly can. And I don't think any of this really counts until folks start showing up at the caucuses or turning up at the primaries. That's when it really matters."

Clinton said she was "thrilled" by her recent win of an endorsement from the Democratic Committee of Maine Township, which includes her native Park Ridge outside Chicago. Her campaign says she won with 85 percent of the vote in an area that also includes suburban Des Plaines, Niles, Glenview, Morton Grove and Rosemont.

"That was huge," she said. "I really credit all my friends who obviously did a great job of organizing for me."

Clinton said she is not writing off the Feb. 5 primary state of Illinois to Obama.

"I'm excited by the support that I do have throughout the state. There's obviously a tremendous base of support for Sen. Obama, which is to be expected. But the polling that's been done shows a relatively modest margin and we're going to compete hard in Illinois. Obviously, I'm thrilled by the support I'm receiving from those who are contributing financially, but also, you know, people who petitioned for me, are organizing for me, are helping me to get my message out. There is an increasing level of commitment that I feel from what I am hearing and seeing, either when I'm in the state or getting reports about it."

Her campaign is also planning two major fundraisers in Chicago on Dec. 18. One will be a low-dollar affair that is expected to draw more than 1,000 people to the Hyatt Regency, a hotel that is part of the empire of billionaire Penny Pritzker, Obama's national finance chairman, and a place that has hosted many Obama events in recent months.

The second fundraiser will be at the Drake Hotel. Combined, the events are expected to bring in as much as $1 million.

Clinton became coy when asked what she thinks her biggest liability is as a candidate.

"Well, I'm not going to tell you," she said. "I think that we are in a competitive exciting campaign and people are going to evaluate what each of us brings to the table, and I think I will leave it at that."

So, there's nothing you wish you were a little better at?

"There are a lot of things, but I think I will keep that to myself," she said, chuckling.

Posted by John McCormick at 1:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (26)

by Mark Silva

Tony Perkins is president of the Family Research Council, one of the leading political organizations pursuing a Christian conservative agenda.

Rudy Giuliani is the front-running Republican candidate for president. He addressed the Family Research Council's recent "Values-Voter Summit'' in Washington and promisied, if he is elected president, to appoint strict judges who will interpret the law, not attempt to write it.

"As the Republican presidential primaries approach early next year, a chorus of voices for former Mayor Rudy Giuliani is consistently telling the public that he would appoint "strict constructionist" judges to the federal bench,'' Perkins writes. "Media pundits like Sean Hannity brandish the phrase as if it were a conclusive argument for the acceptability of Giuliani's campaign to "pro-life" Americans.

"The Rev. Pat Robertson apparently agrees,'' he writes, noting Giuliani's endorsement by the founder of the Christian Coalition. "But the most important man in the room - Giuliani himself - doesn't,'' Perkins writes, citing his own personal information on the subject and calling it "appalling to see social conservatives embrace Giuliani's camapign:"

"I know this because I asked him in person on Oct. 20, when he affirmed his view that a strict constructionist judge could uphold Roe v. Wade because of legal precedent,'' Perkins writes.

"To his credit (he is more consistent than some of his proponents are), he stood by the remarks he made last May at the GOP presidential debate at the Reagan library.

"Those remarks were very clear.

"Giuliani said that it would be "OK" with him if a Supreme Court judge upheld Roe on strict constructionist grounds.

"It would be OK to repeal it," he said, adding: "It would be OK also if a strict constructionist viewed it as precedent."

"This quotation has been cited, with good reason, by many Giuliani critics who are rightly concerned that, as president, it licenses him to appoint any number of judicial candidates who will leave Roe v. Wade exactly as it is.

I"n other contexts since the May debate, he has stood by the view that strict constructionism can coexist with Roe.

"Strict constructionists," he has said, "can look at it [Roe] and say, it has been the law for this period of time, therefore we can respect the precedent."

"The argument that Roe has been the law for a period of 35 years this coming January is of dubious value in determining whether it should stand.

"The Supreme Court of the United States does not routinely make massive constitutional errors, but when it has done so, the result has occasionally stood for decades because of the sheer difficulty of correcting even enormous judicial mistakes.

"The Supreme Court held that Dred Scott was not a "person" for constitutional purposes in 1857, that the states were free to impose segregation in public accommodations in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 and that the states were not free to pass regulations on industry in Lochner v. New York in 1905.

"None of these errors was reversed easily.

"Plessy survived for 58 years, and the practices it ratified and reinforced in school segregation and marriage law stood even longer.

"The point, however, is not just to argue that Giuliani is making a weak case in defense of Roe v. Wade or its successors.

"Rather, the point is that he is adamant that his public and oft-repeated language on judicial restraint is consistent with the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court who will uphold Roe and its progeny.

"That is why it is all the more appalling to see social conservative leaders embrace Giuliani's campaign.

"He is the only one of the current contenders to view Roe v. Wade in this way.

"Many of his supporters are using the language of "strict constructionism" to defend their dubious decision and to urge "pro-life" Americans to join them.

"They are making the spurious argument that only judicial appointments matter.

'If that were true, they should at least ask themselves the question, "What would an avowedly 'pro-choice' Republican president do if the Congress of the United States were to present him with the Freedom of Choice Act?"

"FOCA has been repeatedly introduced in Congress, and it would wipe out even existing state laws, few as they are, on abortion.

"If nothing else, voters should hold the pundits and the endorsers to account when they make more of a candidate's stance than the substance warrants.

"During his appearance on the "Hannity & Colmes" program last week, Robertson explained his endorsement of the "pro-choice" Rudy by saying, "Well, there are various ways to protect life, ... and I think the most important one is to see that the appropriate judges are in the Supreme Court and in the circuit courts and the district courts."

"Picking up on that thread, Hannity told Robertson: "The biggest area where a president can have an impact on the issue of abortion is in the type of justices that they will appoint to the court and the strict constructionists."

"We agree.

"The most important thing a president can do is pick judges who are "strict constructionists."

"For us and for most Americans, those words mean that decisions like Roe cannot stand.

"It is precisely on this point that Rudy Giuliani dissents, and it's a fact that every "pro-life" American should know and that every "pro-life" commentator should frankly admit.''

Posted by Mark Silva at 1:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (15)

by Frank James

Former Clinton Administration Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers had a recent column in the Financial Times that has gotten much attention. The New York Times' David Brooks, for instance, cited it in his column today.

Summers's essential point is that the downside risk to the economy is so great, the likelihood of a recession so large, that the Federal Reserve needs to cut short-term interest rates and Congress and President Bush need to engage in some good old-fashioned pump priming by engaging in deficit spending. But even that may not stop the economy from going to hell in a handbasket, he says.

Summers clearly is sounding Keynesian notes here, embracing the notion that the federal government at times when the economic engine shows signs of seizing up, can give the economy a boost through its spending, deficits be damned.

In this regard, Summers would agree with Vice President Cheney who once told a Bush Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, "You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Of course, Cheney and Summers were coming to the same conclusion for different macroeconomic reasons, but that's another story.

In any event, Summers' column is well worth reading because it is an alarm from someone with a unique perspective of being one of the premier economists of his generation and a senior Treasury official during the Clinton Administration when there were financial crises in Asia and Mexico.

Summers issues such hair-raising warnings as:

Even if necessary changes in policy are implemented, the odds now favour (British spelling since this appeared in a British newspaper) a US recession that slows growth significantly on a global basis. Without stronger policy responses than have been observed to date, moreover, there is the risk that the adverse impacts will be felt for the rest of this decade and beyond.

Several streams of data indicate how much more serious the situation is than was clear a few months ago. First, forward-looking indicators suggest that the housing sector may be in free-fall from what felt like the basement levels of a few months ago. Single family home construction may be down over the next year by as much as half from previous peak levels. There are forecasts implied by at least one property derivatives market indicating that nationwide house prices could fall from their previous peaks by as much as 25 per cent over the next several years.

That's a scary forecast; econonomic damage that lasts for years with a crash in housing prices to boot.

Some might be inclined to dismiss Summers as being too alarmist. They probably wouldn't hold jobs in the real estate industry which got some fairy devastating news today.

According to the Associated Press story, housing prices sustained drops in the third quarter that haven't been seen in the two decades since these data have been kept, a period which included at least two recessions.

NEW YORK -- U.S. home prices fell 4.5% in the third quarter from a year earlier, the sharpest drop since Standard & Poor's began its nationwide Case-Shiller housing index in 1987, the research group said Tuesday.

S&P also reported that prices fell 1.7% from the previous quarter, the largest consecutive quarterly decline in the index's history.

The S&P/Case-Shiller quarterly index tracks prices of existing single-family homes across the nation compared with a year earlier.

A separate index that covers 20 U.S. metropolitan areas dropped 4.9% in September from a year earlier. A 10-area index decreased 5.5% from the previous year.
S&P said there is no real positive news in the home price data.

Here's what Summers says should be done:

What concrete steps are necessary? First, maintaining demand must be the over-arching macro-economic priority. That means the Fed has to get ahead of the curve and recognise – as the market already has – that levels of the Fed Funds rate that were neutral when the financial system was working normally are quite contractionary today. As important as long-run deficit reduction is, fiscal policy needs to be on stand-by to provide immediate temporary stimulus through spending or tax benefits for low- and middle-income families if the situation worsens.

Second, policymakers need to articulate a clear strategy addressing the various pressures leading to contractions in credit. Very likely this will involve measures that are non-traditional, given how much of the problem lies outside bank balance sheets. The time for worrying about imprudent lending is past. The priority now has to be maintaining the flow of credit. The current main policy thrust – the so-called “super conduit”, in which banks co-operate to take on the assets of troubled investment vehicles – has never been publicly explained in any detail by the US Treasury. On the information available, the “super conduit” has worrying similarities with Japanese banking practices of the 1990s that aroused criticism from American authorities for their lack of transparency, suppression of genuine market pricing of bad credits, and inhibiting effect on new lending. Perhaps there is a strong case for it, but that case has yet to be made.

Third, there needs to be a comprehensive approach taken to maintaining demand in the housing market to the maximum extent possible. The government operating through the Federal Housing Administration, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or through some kind of direct lending, needs to assure that there is a continuing flow of reasonably priced loans to credit worthy home purchasers. At the same time there need to be templates established for the restructuring of mortgages to homeowners who cannot afford their resets, so every case does not have to be managed individually.

All of this may not be enough to avert a recession. But it is much more than is under way right now.

Summers analysis of the current economic problems as well as his recommendations for addressing them could open up an interesting new debate for the presidential candidates, both Republicans and Democrats.

First, what do they think of his assessment? Second, if they agree that he is right and that the measures taken so far are too little and too late, what do they think of his advice, especially regarding deficit-spending to get the economy through what, according to Summers is likely to be a long and hard rut?

Posted by Frank James at 12:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (21)

by Gabrielle Russon

If the Democratic presidential primaries are like an enormous feast, black voters are choosing between filet mignon and lobster tails as they decide between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, one expert said today.

According to a new survey released today, African-Americans slightly favor Clinton over Obama, but both are viewed in a favorable light.

“It’s not a choice between filet mignon and bologna,” said David Bositis, a senior policy analyst at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. “It’s not like it’s a bad choice.”

Clinton was seen favorably by 83 percent of black voters, compared to Obama’s 74 percent. About 10 percent of those surveyed rated saw Clinton and Obama unfavorably.

The national survey, conducted between Oct. 5 and Nov. 2 by the Joint Center, asked 750 African-Americans who were likely to vote in primaries or caucuses about the presidential candidates and various issues.

One reason for Clinton’s edge may come from her household name, Bositis said, pointing to the publicity she has received as first lady and a New York senator during the last 15 years. Another might be the economic success African-Americans experienced during her husband’s time in the White House.

Or, Clinton’s high ratings are because of electability issues; some people may doubt an African-American can win the presidency.

“There are many blacks in the South who really as of yet do not believe an African-American is going to be elected president,” Bositis said. “They’re basing this thought and this feeling on their own experience. If you’re from South Carolina, you can’t point to any black candidate who was ever elected to statewide office.”

But the upcoming Iowa Caucuses, almost six weeks away, could start a “real race” between the two leading Democratic contenders, he said.

“If Obama wins the Iowa caucuses, I think there will be a lot of people who will reconsider Obama as a candidate,” Bositis said

Posted by Naftali Bendavid at 12:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (20)

by Matthew Hay Brown
Video by Sabrina Fang

Following is the statement agreed to by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and President Bush, as read by Bush this morning at the Annapolis Conference and released by the White House:

The representatives of the government of the state of Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, represented respective [sic] by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and President Mahmoud Abbas in his capacity as Chairman of the PLO Executive Committee and President of the Palestinian Authority, have convened in Annapolis, Maryland, under the auspices of President George W. Bush of the United States of America, and with the support of the participants of this international conference, having concluded the following joint understanding.

We express our determination to bring an end to bloodshed, suffering and decades of conflict between our peoples; to usher in a new era of peace, based on freedom, security, justice, dignity, respect and mutual recognition; to propagate a culture of peace and nonviolence; to confront terrorism and incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis. In furtherance of the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, we agree to immediately launch good-faith bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty, resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception, as specified in previous agreements.

We agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations, and shall make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008. For this purpose, a steering committee, led jointly by the head of the delegation of each party, will meet continuously, as agreed. The steering committee will develop a joint work plan and establish and oversee the work of negotiations teams to address all issues, to be headed by one lead representative from each party. The first session of the steering committee will be held on 12 December 2007.

President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert will continue to meet on a bi-weekly basis to follow up the negotiations in order to offer all necessary assistance for their advancement.

The parties also commit to immediately implement their respective obligations under the performance-based road map to a permanent two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, issued by the Quartet on 30 April 2003 -- this is called the road map -- and agree to form an American, Palestinian and Israeli mechanism, led by the United States, to follow up on the implementation of the road map.

The parties further commit to continue the implementation of the ongoing obligations of the road map until they reach a peace treaty. The United States will monitor and judge the fulfillment of the commitment of both sides of the road map. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, implementation of the future peace treaty will be subject to the implementation of the road map, as judged by the United States.

Posted by Matthew Hay Brown at 12:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

President Bush, center, with Palestinian Mahmoud Abbas, right, and Israeli Ehud Olmert, in the U.S. Naval Academy's Memorial Hall heralding the promised start of Middle East peace talks. Photo by Mark Silva

by Mark Silva

ANNAPOLIS -- The time is “precisely… right’’ for negotiations which Israeli and Palestinian leaders will start after leaving the Annapolis Conference, President Bush said today, outlining a framework for Middle East talks that will start in December and lead to biweekly meetings of the Israeli prime minister and Palestinian president.

"The time has come,'' both Israel's Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Mahmoud Abbas said in their own addresses to 42 nations and international organizations attending the conference.

Their work, Bush said will be aimed at achieving a peace agreement before the end of 2008.

“I give you my personal commitment to support your work,’’ Bush told the leaders, promising his own personal involvement in his final year as president.

“I believe now is precisely the right time to begin these negotiations,’’ Bush said. “Israelis and Palestinians have leaders who are determined to achieve peace.’’

A steering group will hold its first session on Dec. 12, Bush said, emerging from a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to address a conference of 40 nations assembled at the U.S. Naval Academy.

Calling this “an extraordinary opportunity’’ for the creation of a Palestinian state that will exist side by side with Israel, Bush said: “We’re off to a strong start.’’

"Together we shall start,'' Olmert said. "Together we shall arrrive.''

With Olmert standing to his right, Abbas to his left, Bush joined the leaders in a three-way handshake at the opening of the Annapolis parley.

“The Palestinian people are blessed with many gifts and talents,’’ Bush said. “They want the dignity that comes with sovereignty… They want justice, equality and the rule of law.

“The people of Israel have just aspirations as well,’’ he said. “They want to end the rocket attacks and constant threats.’’

Achieving the aspirations of each, he said, is dependent on achieving the aspirations of the other.

Abbas spoke of his faith in achieving "conprehensive and normal'' peaceful relations with Israel. He, like Bush, spoke of "the need to reach a solution of two states... and the resolution of all issues relating to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.'' This includes "ending the occupation'' of all Palestinian territories, he said, including East Jerusaleum.

"This extraordinary opportunity'' provides "a need to exploit this conference... and not do away with the potential it carries,'' Abbas said, suggesting that "this opportunity might not be repeated..''

“The time has come for the cycle of blood, violence and occupation to come to an end,'' Abbas said.

Israel’s Olmert said he had come “to extend a hand in peace… a hand which marks the beginning of historic reconciliation between us and you, the Palestinians, and all the Arab nations.

“I had many good reasons not to come here to this meeting,’’ Olmert said, citing the violence that has divided his people and the Palestinians. “Memories of failures in the near and distant past weighs heavily on all of us.’’

Palestinian terrorism has affected thousands of Israelis, he said – he had witnessed it as mayor of Jerusalem.

“I am not overlooking any of these obstacles which are liable to emerge along the way. I see them,’’ Olmert added, but, he said, he had come here to say to Abbas, “and through you, to your people, and the entire Arab world, the time has come.’’

Posted by Mark Silva at 11:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (17)

Memorial Hall, where the Annapolis Conference on Middle East peace will get underway today. Photo by Mark Silva

by Mark Silva

ANNAPOLIS -- "Don't Give Up the Ship,'' reads the motto on the flag hanging in a glass case above the main hallway of Bancroft Hall at the U.S. Naval Academy which leads to Memorial Hall, an ornate space surrounded by pillars, topped with a vaulted skylight and adorned with chandeliers.

The same flag hangs in a glass case on a side wall of the conference's Memorial Hall as well -- hanging above the side of the table where President Bush will be seated.

This is where Bush will join Israeli and Palestinian leaders and representatives from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria and others -- a total of 40 nations, plus the Arab League and Portugal as the representative of the European Union -- around a square table set up for "The Annapolis Conference.'' No negotiations will take place here, the White House says. But instead, Israeli and Palestinian leaders will commit themselves to negotiations aimed at securing a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

The goal has eluded them for decades. And for three decades, American presidents have attempted, in varying measures, to secure an accord that not only confirms Israel's place in the world, but also provides Palestinians a place. President Bush, the first U.S. president to endorse the creation of a Palestinian state, has convened this conference -- some five years after first voicing his goal of Israelis and Palestinians living side-by-side in peace.

For leaders filling Memorial Hall, it is a question of saving ships of state.

Bancroft Hall, on the campus of the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis. This houses Memorial Hall, setting for the Annapolis Conference. Photo by Silva

This is the seating chart in Memorial Hall today:

Looking at the conference table as a square, with the top in front of the pillars and a mural of The Annapolis Conference that frames the setting:

It would appear that chairs are reserved at the top of the square for Olmert and Abbas.

Seated down the left side of the square:

Arab League, Algeria, Austria, Bahrain, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Italy

At the bottom of the square:

Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morroco, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland and Qatar

Up the right side of the square:

Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United States, Yemen, Portugal.

Posted by Mark Silva at 9:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)

by Frank James

A quick guided tour of some of the morning's most important, most interesting, or both, Washington-related stories.

President Bush was making a late-term bid for Middle East peace between Israel, the Palestinians and the Jewish state's Arab neighbors but doubts abounded over any there being any significant results from the discussions in Annapolis, Md.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates called for more spending by the nation on the State Department to further diplomacy and the use of the U.S.' "soft power."

Sharply lower interest rates on bonds indicated that investors expected the Federal Reserve Board to further cut short-term interest rates next year in response to concerns the economy could be sliding into recession.

The fragility of the current period of lowered violence in Iraq could be seen in the neighborhoods of Baghdad where sectarian suspicions still run high and some questioned if the present moment is just a temporary ceasefire to allow the armed sides to regroup.

Worsening housing woes will reduce growth in 2008 by more than 25 percent in 143 metropolitan areas, mayors said.

Gov. Ted Strickland, the first Democrat to lead Ohio since 1989, has connected with normally Republican voters in rural parts of his state, leading national Democrats to hope that his popularity might help them win Ohio in next year's general election.

A Federal Communications Commission proposal to increase regulations on the cable TV industry appeared in trouble because of disagreement among the commissioners and pressure from Congress.

U.S. officials were encouraged by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's plan to relinquish his post as military chief but they were alarmed by the return of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif whose ties to Islamist parties could hurt the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The Homeland Security Department is working to develop better technology to detect bombs to deal with what officials view as a growing domestic threat, the use of improvised explosive devices in large American cities.

Sen. Hillary Clinton's proposed domestic policy agenda is at odds with her pledge to be fiscally responsible, say her critics who are also federal-budget experts and say her plans would do little to reduce federal deficits.

Posted by Frank James at 8:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Mark Silva

ANNAPOLIS -- At the riverside U.S. Naval Academy, President Bush is meeting this morning with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas before addressing a conference on Middle East peace that is expected to lead the way toward negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.

"Today, Palestinians and Israelis each understand that helping the other to realize their aspirations is the key to realizing their own – and both require an independent, democratic, viable Palestinian state,'' Bush plans to say, in an address to the conference.

"Such a state will provide Palestinians with the chance to lead lives of freedom, purpose and dignity,'' the president will say. "And such a state will help provide Israelis with something they have been seeking for generations: to live in peace with their neighbors.

"Achieving this goal will not be easy,'' the president plans to add. "If it were easy, it would have happened a long time ago.''

Read more of his planned remarks here, and see the Tribune's story today:

"Our purpose here in Annapolis is not to conclude an agreement,'' Bush plans to say, according to excerpts of his remarks released by the White House. "Rather, it is to launch negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. For the rest of us, our job is to encourage the parties in this effort – and to give them the support they need to succeed.

"In light of recent developments, some have suggested that now is not the right time to pursue peace. I disagree. I believe that now is precisely the right time to begin these negotiations – for a number of reasons:

"First, the time is right because Palestinians and Israelis have leaders who are determined to achieve peace…Second, the time is right because a battle is underway for the future of the Middle East – and we must not cede victory to the extremists…Third, the time is right because the world understands the urgency of supporting these negotiations.

"The task begun here at Annapolis will be difficult,'' Bush plans to say. "This is the beginning of the process, not the end of it – and much work remains to be done. Yet the parties can approach this work with confidence. The time is right. The cause is just. And with hard effort, I know they can succeed.''

Posted by Mark Silva at 8:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (15)

Updated

by Mike Dorning

LITTLETON, N.H.-Barack Obama is challenging Hillary Clinton's health care plan, arguing that her promises of universal coverage depend on key details on which she has been unwilling to take a clear position.

The two Democratic candidates recently have been sparring over health care, with Clinton charging that Obama's plan isn't really universal health care because he would not require all Americans to purchase health insurance as she does. Obama has countered that his plan offers guaranteed access to health insurance and lower costs.

But after an event Monday in Littleton, N.H., Obama said her promise of universal coverage will be no more than a hollow "political talking point" unless she can come up with a way of enforcing the requirement to buy health insurance that she proposes.

"Sen. Clinton still hasn't explained what this mandate is: What's she going to do if somebody doesn't purchase health care? Is she going to fine them? Is she going to garnish their wages?" Obama said.

"One of the problems with her approach is that she hasn't been straight with the American people about how she's going to impose this mandate. And without an enforcement mechanism, there is no mandate. It's just a political talking point," he continued.

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer responded that the former first lady "has said she is going to work with Congress on those details."

"The fact remains that Sen. Obama is going around saying he has a universal health care plan that in fact excludes 15 million Americans," Singer added, citing an estimate the Clinton campaign uses for the number of people who would not purchase health insurance without a requirement.

Shortly after Obama spoke, his campaign sent out a memo noting that in Massachusetts, the only state so far to require residents to buy health insurance, hundreds of thousands of people have not purchased insurance despite a fine levied on those who fail to do so through their tax returns.

Obama's own health care plan does include a requirement that families purchase insurance for their children.

An Obama aide who declined to be identified said the senator plans to enforce that mandate through schools in a way similar to current rules that require children to show proof of immunization in order to enroll.

Posted by Mike Dorning at 8:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (20)

by Mike Dorning

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama sharpened criticism of rival Hillary Clinton's frequent use of Bill Clinton's term in office as a qualification for the presidency, comparing the argument to his wife Michelle hypothetically claiming to be "best-qualified" for the U.S. Senate because she confers with him "on occasion."

In an interview aired Monday night on ABC's Nightline, Obama also accused Clinton of "cherry-picking" her husband's record to her best advantage.

"There's no doubt that Bill Clinton had faith in her and consulted with her on issues, the same way that I would consult with Michelle if there were issues," Obama added. "On the other hand, I don't think Michelle would claim that she is the best-qualified person to be a United States senator by virtue of me talking to her on occasion about work that I've done."

Obama also sharpened his tone while reiterating past criticism that Clinton has simultaneously sought to distance herself on politically disadvantageous parts of the Clinton White House record such as passage of NAFTA while embracing popular achievements.

"Sen. Clinton is claiming basically the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn't work out, in which case she says she has nothing to do with it," Obama said in the television interview.

"I have no problem with her making claims on behalf of her work as first lady being relevant to the presidency. That's her prerogative," he said later in the interview. "What she can't be is selective in terms of, you know, cherry-picking and making determinations that she's now suddenly the face of foreign policy, that she shaped economic policy, except for the stuff that didn't work out, in which that was somebody else's problem or that was somebody else's fault."

The Clinton campaign returned fire with a statement read on the air at the end of the pre-taped interview.

"Considering that Sen. Obama was just a state senator three years ago, he is the last person to be questioning anyone's experience. If he is elected, he would have less experience than any American president of the 20th century," the Clinton campaign statement said.

Posted by Mike Dorning at 7:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (22)

by Mark Silva

After years of relative inaction, President Bush is stepping personally into the Middle East peace process today as he hosts a conference of regional leaders in Annapolis, Md., with ambitious talk of a peace accord before the end of his term colliding with widespread skepticism that an agreement is possible.

For the Bush administration, which ridiculed Bill Clinton's frenetic push for Mideast peace at the end of his presidency, the sudden turnaround appears to be a bid for a legacy-level contribution to world events at a time when Bush's domestic political capital is at a low. It is also an attempt to reshape the Middle East while the long-term impact of the Iraq war remains in doubt.

"We want there to be peace," Bush said Monday, at the start of a preliminary White House session with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. At a separate meeting, Bush told Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, "I'm optimistic. I know you're optimistic."

For many veterans of the Middle East, the prospects for securing a long-sought accord between Israelis and Palestinians in the year ahead seem as unrealistic as the newly fashioned peace-broker's role that Bush hopes to play near the conclusion of a tumultuous two terms occupied by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush was the first American president to call for an independent Palestinian state, in 2002, when he announced his support of a "two-state solution" involving Israelis and Palestinians living side-by-side in peace. But many analysts say he invested too little in achieving that goal during the past five years to make success likely in his remaining year.

The White House, attempting to set expectations as low as possible for a conference of more than 40 nations and organizations at the U.S. Naval Academy on Tuesday, has cautioned that it is not Bush—but Israeli and Palestinian leaders—who hope to proceed quickly with formal negotiations following this conference. Aides say the presence of many Arab leaders in Annapolis is a hopeful sign that Israelis and Palestinians may find the support they need.

"If you put all those things together, it seems to be that the time is right," said Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser. "The notion of trying to do it in the next year, by the end of 2008, is an idea that the parties have articulated.''

See the rest of the story in today's Tribune:

"The president's view has always been that we are not going to impose a negotiation on the parties and we're not going to impose a timetable on the parties just to reflect American politics or anything else," Hadley said in a weekend conference call with reporters.

The Israeli and Palestinian leaders have told the White House they want to complete a peace agreement before the end of the president's term, U.S. officials say. But the mere mention of any timetable in talks leading toward a Middle East peace—a goal that has eluded American presidents attempting to play varying roles for three decades—may be overly ambitious.

As a prelude, Bush played host to Olmert and Abbas in separate sessions at the White House on Monday. Bush plans to meet with both together Tuesday before they join delegations from other nations assembled in Maryland. The president also plans a follow-up with Olmert and Abbas at the White House on Wednesday.

Olmert, praising U.S. and international support as "very important," called the conference a chance to "launch a serious process of negotiations between us and the Palestinians."

Abbas, saying at the start of his meeting with Bush in the Oval Office that "we have a great deal of hope," suggested that "this conference will produce permanent-status negotiations … [and] an agreement to secure security and stability."

But the broader political environment in the Middle East—in particular, practical steps such as a truce that would halt rocket attacks on Israel by Palestinian militants, or Israel ending the expansion of settlements on Palestinian land—will have more to do with the success of any negotiations than any personal suasion that Bush might lend, analysts say.

Bush has made his preferences for peace in the region known since 2002, when he laid out a "road map" for peace among Israelis and Palestinians.

"He gave a very good speech, but he didn't follow up on it in any effective way," said Samuel Lewis, ambassador to Israel for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan and director of policy planning at the State Department during Clinton's first term. "There were some great missed opportunities in 2002 and 2003, and of course the Bush administration was busy with other things."

Bush has refrained from the sort of full-court press that Carter made with the 1978 Camp David accords, which led to peace between Israel and Egypt. And he has not indicated a willingness to wage the sort of personal campaign that Clinton attempted in the Mideast at the end of his term, when the breakdown of talks was followed by the eruption of the second Palestinian intifada, or uprising.

Some in Bush's circle expressed contempt for Clinton's approach. In February 2002, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said Clinton tried to "shoot the moon and get nothing." He also said violence only increased after Clinton's attempts.

When those comments were criticized for seeming to blame Clinton, Fleischer said, "The president's approach is to learn the lessons of all previous presidents. ... All previous presidents, including President Clinton, tried valiantly to achieve peace in the Middle East. No United States president is to blame for violence in the Middle East. The only people who are to blame are the terrorists who carry out the violence."

Now, said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, Bush is "personally committed" to helping Olmert and Abbas secure a lasting peace.

Both White House and outside analysts say the Annapolis conference holds the real prospect of renewing peace talks suspended for the last seven years. Still, veterans question the likely outcome.

Arab support is essential
"I think that the most you can expect to come out of it is an endorsement by a large bulk of countries, including a lot of the Arab countries, of the effort to start a new negotiating process," Lewis said. "That is not insignificant, because without a lot of support from a lot of the Arab players it is extremely difficult.

"Just how active the U.S. will be in maybe prodding and poking that process will have a lot to do with that process," Lewis said. "I don't overrate the American baby-sitting, because it is necessary… but the chances of reaching a final agreement on the major issues are not that great."

Only in the days leading up to the conference did the White House indicate that it expects a commitment from the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to enter formal negotiations.

"I think the White House has scaled down its expectation for this meeting, and what they are looking for is really an opening curtain for a longer process," said Edward Walker, who served as assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs in the first Bush and Clinton administrations and as ambassador to Israel.

"I am certainly not optimistic," Walker said. "But it is better to have tried and failed than to have dropped the ball entirely."

Posted by Mark Silva at 6:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Good morning.

Here are a few Washington events of note for Tuesday, November 27.

The Mideast peace conference is being held in Annapolis, Md. and President Bush is making introductory remarks.

NASA is unveiling a new, more detailed map of Antarctica.

The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies and AARP, the seniors' lobby, are releasing the results of a national poll of African Americans likely to vote in the 2008 primaries and caucuses.

Posted by Ken Bredemeier at 6:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Mike Dorning

LITTLETON, N.H.—Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continued sparring over the details of their health care plans today, with Obama casting doubt on Clinton's ability to enforce a requirement in her plan that every American buy health insurance.

Clinton has been criticizing Obama's health care plan for falling short of universal health coverage because unlike her plan his would not require every American to buy insurance. He has argued that his plan would lower the cost of insurance and guarantee access, removing the obstacles most often faced by people without insurance.

But when asked by reporters about Clinton's criticism after an event in Littleton, N.H., Obama counter-attacked, arguing that his rival has been unwilling to say how she would enforce the mandate to buy health insurance. Without enforcement, he said, it is nothing more than an empty "political talking point."

"Sen. Clinton still hasn't explained what this mandate is: What's she going to do if somebody doesn't purchase health care? Is she going to fine them? Is she going to garnish their wages?" Obama said.

"One of the problems with her approach is that she hasn't been straight with the American people about how she's going to impose this mandate. And without an enforcement mechanism, there is no mandate. It's just a political talking point," he continued.

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer responded that the former first lady "has said she is going to work with Congress on those details."

"The fact remains that Sen. Obama is going around saying he has a universal health care plan that in fact excludes 15 million Americans," Singer added, citing an estimate the Clinton campaign uses for the number of people who would not purchase health insurance without a requirement.

Shortly after Obama spoke, his campaign sent out a memo noting that in Massachusetts, the only state so far to require residents to buy health insurance, hundreds of thousands of people have not purchased insurance despite a fine levied on those who fail to do so through their tax returns.

Obama's own health care plan does include a requirement that families purchase insurance for their children.

An Obama aide who declined to be identified said the senator plans to enforce that mandate through schools in a way similar to current rules that require children to show proof of immunization in order to enroll.

Posted by Mike Dorning at 8:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (12)

by Rick Pearson

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert is formally resigning from Congress today.

Hastert said he did so on the advice of attorneys with the aim that a special primary election to replace him could be held on Feb. 5---the same day as the state's regular primary election, which will decide nominees for Hastert's long-term replacement as well.

Hastert said he wanted to avoid the extra costs of a special primary election by county election officials in the 14th Congressional District, which runs from western DuPage County to nearly the Iowa border. Still, those counties are likely to face extra costs for holding a special general election in late spring to fill the remainder of Hastert's term.

The former speaker said he also decided to step down now because his interests in developing new national energy policies was being sidetracked in the Democratic-controlled Congress, which is focused on the presidential election campaign.

"I wanted to get some energy policy done, but everything is being done behind closed doors on a partisan basis," Hastert told the Tribune. "You know, it seems to get tougher as we move into a presidential election year, and so I figured it was time for me to go out and live the rest of my life."

See Hastert's letter of resignation, effective at 10:59 pm CDT: Download file

And read on:

It's up to Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich to set the date of the special primary and general elections.

Dan White, executive director of the State Board of Elections, said he had yet to receive notice of Hastert's resignation.

White did, however, outline the process for replacing a congressman who resigns mid-term: the governor calls for an election within 120 days of the vacancy. White said his reading of the law is that a primary and general election would have to take place within the 120-day period.

Local officials would need to see how quickly that could be done given they would have to given proper notice of elections, White said.

The board acts mostly in a ministerial role, receiving the filing, but the duty and responsibility of running the elections would fall to the various local officials in his district, White said.

In his farewell speech, Hastert told his House colleagues earlier this month that he would step down from his seat before year's end.

Hastert said he had no immediate career plans, but said he expects to devote time to the creation of the Hastert Center for Economics, Government and Public Policy at Wheaton College, his alma mater. The school also will house a special library collection of his congressional papers.

Hastert, the longest serving GOP House speaker, said he had not explored job opportunities because of the potential for conflicts of interest while still a member of Congress.

"I'm going to talk to some folks. I may serve on some boards. I really don't know," Hastert said. But, he said, he had no plans to eventually lobby his former colleagues after what he said was a two-year ban on such activities by ex-House members.

Hastert also said he has not made a decision on whether to make an endorsement of a potential successor among the Republican field. The former speaker has not been on good terms with one contender, state Sen. Chris Lauzen of Aurora, who earned Hastert's enmity by polling a potential congressional run in 2005 while Hastert was still speaker.

"If I do, it will be later on in December," said Hastert, who previously backed another of his potential successors, Jim Oberweis, in a failed U.S. Senate bid.

Posted by Mark Silva at 6:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (14)

by Mark Silva

Al Gore slipped out the side door of the West Wing.

In his private Oval Office meeting with President Bush, the former vice president insisted that they had spoken about global warming "the whole time.'' It wasn't clear if the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, who shared the honor for his work on climtate change, was serious.

"Of course,'' they had spoken about global warming, Gore said, strolling down a rain-slick Pennsylvania Avenue with wife Tipper Gore after a private session with the president. For Gore, who had gone into the White House for a reception for the American winners of the 2007 Nobel Prizes, this was his first return to the Oval Office since leaving office.

But Gore, calling the meeting with Bush "very cordial'' and "substantive,'' declined to elaborate on their meeting. "I'm not going to do an interview here,'' Gore said in his walk down the streets outside the White House. "I don't want to comment more.''

This was the first private meeting of Gore and Bush since the Tennessee Democrat won more of the popular vote than Bush in the presidential election of 2000 but lost in the Electoral College – following a 36-day court fight over Bush’s disputed 537-vote margin in Florida.

This may have been a cordial reunion of erstwhile adversaries from a contested election, but it was kept discreetly private, within the confines of the Oval Office – where photographers and pool reporters arrived near the end for “a photo-opportunity.’’ The two appeared relaxed, smiling and in good moods, the pool reported.

Gore had come, along with the other American winners of the 2007 Nobel Prize, for an official reception by the president.

The president, who had personally telephoned Gore to invite him and arranged the date of the Nobel recognitions to fit Gore’s own travel schedule, also received the Democrat and wife Tipper Gore for a private session before the “photo-op’’ with Gore’s fellow Nobel laureates.

Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize this year for his work fighting global warming, a cause that Bush has only reluctantly embraced – with the Bush administration lately acknowledging the role that humans play in global warming, but still opposing mandatory caps on polluting emissions.

Gore also has been outspoken in his criticism for other administration policies, most notably the war in Iraq.

The White House insists the president holds no ill will toward Gore, who carried his challenge of the outcome of the 2000 election to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t believe so,’’ Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino said of any “bad blood’’ between the two. “I know this president does not harbor any resentments. He never has.’’

The two had met one another publicly at the dedication of the Clinton presidential library in Arkansas, and both had attended the funeral of President Gerald Ford, but the White House said Monday’s meeting was the first opportunity they had to meet privately.

“The president didn’t make a calculated decision to invite Al Gore to the White House... He invited him because he’s one of the Nobel winners,’’ said Perino, pressed about the purpose of the additional private meeting. “I didn’t psychoanalyze the president to find out why… It was a presidential, gentlemanly thing to do.’’

Posted by Mark Silva at 3:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (135)

Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as she campaigned for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in Davenport, Iowa, Thursday Sept. 13, 2007. (AP Photo/Quad-City Times, Jeff Cook)

by Mike Dorning

LITTLETON, N.H.—Barack Obama has often questioned Hillary Clinton's use of her husband's presidency to assert to policy experience.

So he was ready this morning when a reporter asked him about comments that Clinton made in Iowa a day earlier offering her trips abroad as first lady as evidence of her foreign policy qualifications and asserting she was "the face of America" abroad during the Clinton presidency.

Clinton was echoing a comment her most prominent Iowa supporter, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, made a few days earlier that she was " the face of the administration in foreign affairs” during the Clinton years.

Well, Obama wasn't buying either line.

"If she wants to tout her experience of having visited countries, that's fine," Obama said. But, he added, "I don't think that Madeleine Albright would think Hillary Clinton was the face of foreign policy during the Clinton Administration. But maybe she'll disagree with that."

Albright, United Nations Ambassador and then Secretary of State for the Clinton Administration, is supporting Hillary Clinton's bid as a foreign policy adviser.

Later in the day, Albright released a statement through the Clinton campaign saying the former first lady "had represented American interests and values during her visits to more than 80 countries" and would "be ready from the very first day to lead our nation in a dangerous and complicated world, which is why I am supporting her candidacy."

Posted by Mike Dorning at 3:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (60)

By Mike Dorning

LITTLETON, N.H.—Barack Obama said Monday that he expects Oprah Winfrey's campaign appearances on his behalf to inspire more voters to take a look at his campaign and add a bit of "fun" to campaign events.

But he said he does not expect her endorsement to translate into automatic support in the same way her "book club" recommendations generate sales for authors.

"People are going to make the decision (on how to vote) not based on who's endorsing," Obama told reporters after a rally in rural Littleton, N.H. "Ultimately I'm going to have to make the sale."

Still, the celebrity talk show host's draw is clear to the campaign. At the rally this morning, a local veteran who gave introductory remarks for the senator boasted that Oprah would be coming to the state with Obama.

" It's fun," Obama told reporters. "Campaigns are not just about issues and policy but it's also about bringing people together and this creates excitement and an event."

Hopefully, we can attract some people who might not otherwise be interested in politics, who aren't regular viewers of C-SPAN," he continued. "But on the other hand once they're there I'm able to talk to them about critical issues like the health care crisis and home foreclosures, and things that affect their lives on a day-to-day basis."

Asked how he thought Oprah compared to former president Bill Clinton as a campaign surrogate, he demurred.

"Bill Clinton is a great surrogate for Hillary as well. So if he wanted to endorse me, I'd take it," he chuckled. "I don't think he will."

(AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)

Posted by Mike Dorning at 2:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (22)

Sen. Trent Lott, the Senate's No. 2 Republican, announcing his planned retirement from Congress by January. He made his announcement Monday, Nov. 26, 2007 in Pascagoula, Miss. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

by Jill Zuckman

Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), one of the most influential Republicans to help lead the Senate, is announcing today that he will retire at the end of this year after more than three decades in Congress.

In the Senate, Lott served as both majority leader and minority leader before being forced from his leadership role in a firestorm of criticism at the end of 2002. Lott had praised then-Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) at his 100th birthday party, but his words struck some as racially insensitive and supportive of Thurmond’s segregationist past.

“I want to say this about my state,” Lott said at the time. “When Strom Thurmond ran for president we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years either.”

Lott apologized repeatedly, but he received a high-profile scolding from President Bush, which further eroded support for Lott among his Senate colleagues. Eventually, he relinquished his post, paving the way for then-Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) to take the helm as majority leader.

Still, Lott remained in the Senate, and rebuilt his reputation as he helped Republicans navigate the legislative process with complicated and contentious bills. After Hurricane Katrina struck, destroying Lott’s Pascagoula home, Lott announced he would run for reelection in order to help Mississippi rebuild.

“He unquestionably is probably one of the best floor tacticians I have encountered in my 28 years here,’’ said then-Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) in a 2006 Tribune profile of Lott. “Like E.F. Hutton, when he speaks, people listen.”

During his tenure as Republican leader, Lott’s colleagues frequently grumbled that he too often caved in to Democrats because he was eager to strike a deal, check something off a list, and get home in time for dinner. In fact, it is a criticism leveled against most Senate majority leaders.

“My motto has always been ‘Act, act,” he said in an earlier interview with the Tribune. “It doesn’t matter if it’s wrong. Step up to the plate.”

But in the ultimate sign of redemption, Lott was elected Republican whip this year, edging out Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.).

Despite his efforts to aid Mississippi and fight the Senate Democrats’ agenda, Lott said he knows that the words he spoke at Thurmond’s birthday party will never be completely erased.

“It’s still a paragraph in every news story,” he said. “I don’t know how long it will take to get out of LexisNexis. Maybe never. That will be in my final obituary.”

Still, he hoped that his decision to run for a fourth Senate term would help push the incident off to the corner.

“That obituary will be a lot longer than it would have been if I had just said, ‘adios,’ ” he said, shortly before winning 64 percent of the vote in the 2006 election.

The retirement will make Lott the sixth Senate Republican not seeking reelection next year.

His seat in solidly red Mississippi may be the likeliest to remain in the GOP column. Republican Gov. Haley Barbour will appoint a replacement to serve through next year, when Mississippi voters will choose a successor to complete a term that runs through 2012.

Rep. Chip Pickering, a Lott protégé, has long been seen as a potential successor. Rep. Roger Wicker, also from Mississippi, is another former Lott aide in the House.

A smooth-talking Southerner popular among Senate Democrats as well as Republicans, Lott was on the verge of a third run as majority leader when his comments at the birthday party for Thurmond provoked an outcry.

Matthew Hay Brown of the Baltimore Sun contributed to this report.

Posted by Mark Silva at 11:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (38)

by John McCormick

DES MOINES -- Just hours after announcing that Oprah Winfrey will appear on the campaign trail with him, Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign announced that it has formed "Women for Obama" leadership committees in more early primary and caucus states.

On Wednesday, the campaign said, hundreds of women in several Feb. 5 states will gather for events to kick off their organizing efforts. Michelle Obama will also lead a conference call and give a campaign update on the state of the national race for participating women.

Since the launch of Women for Obama in April, the group has focused on fundraising and grassroots/online organizing.

"The state-by-state committees in key February 5th states will join similar structures in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina set up to lead a national grassroots network of 20,000 women who are organizing on behalf of Barack Obama," the campaign said. "February 5th state WFO launches and organizing events will include: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Missouri, Minnesota and New Jersey."

The Tribune looked at the efforts of the Obama and other candidates in Feb. 5 states in Monday's edition. The story is linked here.

Posted by John McCormick at 11:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)

President Bush is joined by Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, center, via video teleconference Monday, Nov. 26, 2007, in signing the U.S.-Iraq Declaration of Principles for Friendship and Cooperation. White House photo by Eric Draper.

by Mark Silva

President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed an agreement today to begin formal negotiations for an American commitment to Iraqi security in a long-term bilateral relationship between the United States and Iraq.

This is not a treaty, the White House says – nor will negotiations leading to an expected formal agreement by next summer produce any treaty that requires U.S. congressional ratification. Rather, the Bush administration’s “war czar’’ said today, this will serve as a common “music sheet’’ which Bush and Maliki follow as they negotiate the framework of a formal strategic agreement.

Today’s agreement, signed in a secure video-conference between Bush and Maliki, “frames our emerging strategic relationship with Iraq,’’ according to Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, the administration’s deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan.

“It signals a commitment’’ by the U.S. to “an enduring relationship based on mutual interests,’’ Lute said. “The message here is clear. Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own… But it won’t have to stand alone.

“What we expect this to do is provide a bilateral mandate… for the continued presence and mission of U.S., troops…’’ Lute said. “What U.S. troops are doing, how many troops are required to do that… bases… all of these things are on the negotiating table.

Negotiations for that agreement are expected to start early in 2008 and conclude by July – at a time when the Bush administration has announced its intentions of withdrawing about 21,500 combat troops. But the U.S. force in Iraq beyond that remains an open question, Lute says.

“The shape and size of any long term, or longer than 2008, (U.S. military) presence… will be a key part of any negotiations,’’ Lute said today. “You can be sure that will be a key… part of the negotiations that are framed in today’s document.’’

That will include the question of any permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.

The agreement signals a turning point from U.S. operations under a United Nations mandate – which both the U.S. and Iraq today also agreed to seek for another year – to a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Iraq. The U.S. already has such a security agreement with Korea and some 100 other nations, Lute says, and most of those fall short of a formal treaty between the two nations.

“We’re going from a multilateral, UN-based mandate if you will… we want to move that to a bilateral setting,’’ he said.

“Today’s agreement is not binding, but rather it is a mutual statement of intent,’’ Lute said. “It’s not a treaty, but rather a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations…. Think of today’s agreement as setting the agenda.

Lute called it “a common sheet of music with which to begin the negotiations.’’

From the White House, these are the highlights of the agreement between Bush and Maliki:

U.S.-Iraq Declaration Of Principles For Friendship And Cooperation

The U.S. and Iraqi "Declaration of Principles" is a shared statement of intent that establishes common principles to frame our future relationship. This moves us closer to normalized, bilateral relations between our two countries. With this declaration, leaders of Iraq and the United States commit to begin negotiating the formal arrangements that will govern such a relationship.

 Iraq's leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America, and we seek an enduring relationship with a democratic Iraq. We are ready to build that relationship in a sustainable way that protects our mutual interests, promotes regional stability, and requires fewer Coalition forces.

 In response, this Declaration is the first step in a three-step process that will normalize U.S.-Iraqi relations in a way which is consistent with Iraq's sovereignty and will help Iraq regain its rightful status in the international community – something both we and the Iraqis seek. The second step is the renewal of the Multinational Force-Iraq's Chapter VII United Nations mandate for a final year, followed by the third step, the negotiation of the detailed arrangements that will codify our bilateral relationship after the Chapter VII mandate expires.

• The UN Chapter VII resolution that is binding under international law gives the MNFI legal authorization to “take all necessary measures to preserve peace and security”. Both the U.S. and Iraq are committed to Iraq moving beyond an international presence based on a UN Security Council Chapter VII mandate.

• Iraqis have expressed a desire to move past a Chapter VII MNFI mandate and we are committed to helping them achieve this objective.

• After the Chapter VII mandate is renewed for one year, we will begin negotiation of a framework that will govern the future of our bilateral relationship.

The Declaration Is A Continuation Of A Commitment That Began This August

The governments of Iraq and the United States are committed to developing a long-term relationship as two fully sovereign and independent states with common interests.

 The August 26 Communiqué signed by the five political leaders – Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, the three members of the Presidency Council, and Kurdish leader Ma'sud Barzani – on August 26, 2007, and endorsed by President Bush states: "The leaders considered it important to link the renewal of UN Resolution 1723 for another year with a reference to the ending of Iraq's Chapter VII status under the UN Charter and the concomitant resumption of Iraq's normal status as a state with full sovereignty and authorities and the restoration of Iraq's legal international status, namely the status that it had before UN Resolution 661 of 1990. In this context, the leaders affirmed the necessity of reaching a long term relationship with the American side … that is built on common interests and covers the various areas between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America. This goal should be realized in the near future."

 President Bush endorsed the August 26th communiqué:

• President Bush: "I welcome and accept the expressed desire of the Iraqi leadership to develop a long-term relationship with the United States based on common interests. The United States is committed to developing this relationship and to strengthening diplomatic, economic, and security ties with the Iraqi government and its people." (President George W. Bush, Remarks, Kirtland AFB, NM, 8/27/07)

• President Bush: Iraq's leaders "understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship – in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops." (President George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, The White House, 9/13/07)

The Declaration Sets The U.S. And Iraq On A Path Toward Negotiating Agreements That Are Common Throughout The World

The U.S. has security relationships with over 100 countries around the world, including recent agreements with nations such as Afghanistan and former Soviet bloc countries.

The relationship envisioned will include U.S.-Iraqi cooperation in the political, diplomatic, economic and security arenas. The United States and Iraq intend to negotiate arrangements based upon a range of principles:

 Political and Diplomatic: The U.S. and Iraq have committed to strengthening Iraq's democratic institutions, upholding the Iraqi Constitution, supporting Iraqi national reconciliation, and enhancing Iraq's position in regional and international organizations, so that it may play a constructive role in the region.

 Economic: Both countries have agreed to support the development of Iraqi economic institutions and further integration into international financial institutions, to encourage all parties to abide by their commitments made in the International Compact with Iraq, to assist Iraq in its efforts to recover illegally exported funds and properties and to secure debt relief, and to encourage the flow of foreign investments to Iraq.

 Security: To support the Iraqi government in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces so they can provide security and stability to all Iraqis; support the Iraqi government in contributing to the international fight against terrorism by confronting terrorists such as Al-Qaeda, its affiliates, other terrorist groups, as well as all other outlaw groups, such as criminal remnants of the former regime; and to provide security assurances to the Iraqi Government to deter any external aggression and to ensure the integrity of Iraq's territory.

Posted by Mark Silva at 10:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (22)

by Frank James

A quick guided tour of some of the morning's most important, most interesting, or both, Washington-related stories.

Syria's decision to attend the Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, Md. raised hopes for progress in soothing tensions in the region between Arab nations and Israel.

Recession fears are rising, hitting the financial markets hard, even as the nation's leading economists say they don't see economic conditions getting that bad.

The back and forth between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney in New Hampshire is getting more nasty as the presidential campaigns of both Republican candidates see winning that early state as increasingly important.

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, returned to his homeland where he was greeted by huge crowds much as Benazir Bhutto, a previous holder of the post, was.

Top Pentagon officials believe that for its credibility and to relieve the burden on one man, it's better for the military establishment's views on Iraq to come from a number of people instead of one general, David Petraeus, as was the case last September.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin is seeking to impose stiffer regulations on cable companies which he believes have grown to powerful but it's unclear whether he has enough support on the five-member commission.

Congressional Republicans, losing in the money war against Democrats, have recruited wealthy candidates who can finance their own campaigns, to run for seats in Congress.

Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) is said to be set to announce that he will retire by the end of the year.

Michelle Obama is trying to draw black voters in South Carolina, particularly women, with a finely calibrated message that if they don't vote for her husband because they don't think America's ready for a black president, it might be because they have fallen prey to racism themselves.

A physician believes President Abraham Lincoln had a rare inherited form of cancer which, had he not been assassinated, would have killed him within a year of the Civil War's end and that the condition may explain Lincoln's height and well-known mood swings.

Posted by Frank James at 8:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Oprah Winfrey in Chicago, Wednesday Sept. 27, 2006. (Chicago Tribune photo by Jose More.)

by John McCormick

DES MOINES -- The presidential campaign for Sen. Barack Obama confirmed this morning what has long been expected: Oprah Winfrey is going to hit the campaign trail with her favorite politician.

The talk show star will join the Illinois Democrat for stops in Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire on Dec. 8 and Dec. 9. She will attend two events with him in Iowa and one in each of the other states.

The Dec. 8 Iowa stops will be in Des Moines and Cedar Rapids, the state's largest cities and media markets, while those on Dec. 9 will be in Columbia, S.C., and Manchester, N.H.

There is great debate about how much celebrity endorsements help presidential candidates, but Winfrey's presence is certain to generate a significant buzz in the early voting states. She could also help Obama with women, a key electoral demographic.

Tickets for the events, likely to draw large crowds, will become available on Dec. 3. In Iowa, the campaign plans to offer training for how to participate in the state's rapidly approaching Jan. 3 caucuses.

The tickets will be free, but the campaign is asking for some political help in return. To secure "preferred seating" in Iowa, for example, the campaign says people must either "commit four hours to volunteering for Barack's campaign" or "attend a caucus training with your local organizer or precinct captain."

In September, Winfrey hosted a fundraiser at her estate in California where she helped raise $3 million for Obama.

Posted by John McCormick at 7:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (18)

by Mark Silva, and updated

George W. Bush won the White House.

Albert A. Gore Jr. won the Nobel Prize.

The two will meet today in the Oval Office, where President Bush will honor the American winners of this year's Nobels, including Gore, the former vice president who claimed his share of the Peace Prize this year for his work on global warming and also claimed a majority of the popular vote in the presidential election of 2000 but lost to Bush in the Electoral College -- following a 36-day court fight over a disputed 537-vote margin for Bush in Florida.

They have met before -- at the Clinton presidential library opening in Arkansas, for instance. But not privately, and not in this environment: The office which Gore once hoped to claim.

"The president is very pleased that both Vice President Gore and Mrs. Gore will attend today,'' said Dana Perino, the White House press secretary. "President Bush personally called Vice President Gore and asked him to attend… They will meet privately… in the Oval… prior to the visit with the other Nobel laureates.

"This president is looking forward to having a private meeting with him,'' she said.

Yet the Oval Office ceremony with the Nobel laureates will serve as a "photo opportunity,'' not a public ceremony per se, the White House says today. What's said in the Oval Office may well stay in the Oval Office.

The 3 pm EST session also follows two other higher-profile, and also private, meetings for the president today in the Oval Office: With Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. They are preparing for Bush's Middle East conference in Annapolis tomorrow -- where the White House says Olmert and Abbas will declare intentions to open negotiations toward a peaceful settlement of the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bush also plans to address delegations from the region this evening at a State Department dinner.

Posted by Mark Silva at 7:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (32)

by John McCormick

OAKLAND, Calif -- The date is being called "Tsunami Tuesday" because so many delegates will be up for grabs on Feb. 5 when more than 20 states hold elections and caucuses on the biggest single day of balloting in presidential primary history.

They include three of the nation's most populous states -- California, New York and Illinois -- and the huge stakes have galvanized early attention from candidates who can afford to compete in so many places.

Although a long way from the nation's current political epicenters in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sen. Barack Obama's office here was abuzz with activity on a recent evening as volunteers painted signs, called potential supporters and underwent training.

On most nights, there are 30 or more volunteers in the 2,000-square-foot space in a historic downtown building, all working to remind California voters that they may actually play a major role in nominating the next president.

Since opening the office here in late September, Obama has also set up shop in such places as New York City, Phoenix, Atlanta and Boise, Idaho, part of a network of 14 offices the Illinois Democrat has already opened in 11 of the states.

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, meanwhile, is the only other candidate on the Democratic side with the financial wherewithal to match Obama in bulking up to such an extent in so many states.

In the Republican race, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is also working to build an extensive network in Feb. 5 states, creating a potential firewall, should he fail to meet expectations in the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

His campaign hopes to capitalize on his name recognition by running a more national campaign. Aides call it his "50-state strategy."

See the rest of the story in today's Tribune:As a result, Giuliani has been traveling to states that haven't seen presidential candidates much this season, if at all.

One recent trip took him to suburban St. Louis, where he attracted about 500 people, filling a banquet hall to capacity. Afterward, voters gave Giuliani credit for visiting.

"He made me feel like my vote matters," said Ron Meyer, a freshman at nearby Principia College in Elsah, Ill. "I have no doubt who I am going to vote for now."

Matt Chase, a St. Louis lawyer, said he also welcomes other states getting some attention. He called Iowa and New Hampshire's importance "overbloated" and "irritating."

Although Clinton is rapidly opening offices in Feb. 5 states -- a spokesman said her campaign now has offices in four of the states and is opening locations in five others -- Obama was quicker to jump into many of the states, a move his campaign claims offers advantages.

If it all feels a bit hypothetical, that's because it is.

If Clinton wins decisively in Iowa and New Hampshire, it could all but knock out Obama and the other Democrats.

Still, Obama's campaign is spending increasing resources in states like California, even as it obsesses about Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses. The candidate himself says he is taking the states very seriously.

"We've never seen a calendar like this, so nobody knows exactly how it's going to play out," Obama said in a recent interview. "It's conceivable that people go into Feb. 5 with multiple winners in the first four states and Feb. 5 will be very important."

Obama's campaign is also paying special attention to the six states (Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota and North Dakota) that will hold caucuses on Feb. 5. It was opening an office in North Dakota this weekend and plans to open one soon in Alaska.

"We have a belief that caucuses are low-turnout, and organization matters more than television," said Steve Hildebrand, who is running Obama's early-state strategy.

The attention paid to California is for good reason: a quarter of the delegates awarded Feb. 5 will come from there. Early voting in the state starts just days after the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses.

"It's great that we are going to have a say in this election," said Lisa Dyson, an Oakland graduate student who spends more than 20 hours a week volunteering in Obama's office here.

Although Clinton is expected to win New York, Obama is battling aggressively there because if he can win about 31 percent or more in certain congressional districts, he will be awarded delegates. Clinton also hopes to win some Illinois delegates using the same approach.

Obama becomes animated when asked about his chances in parts of New York.

"We've got hundreds of people who are working regularly in certain congressional districts in New York, where if you win a few delegates, that can really make a difference," he said. "What we've tried to do throughout this campaign is to not only get people signed up, but get them invested and trained as organizers to do outreach and that will help us do well on Feb. 5."

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer, meanwhile, said the former first lady's campaign has held organizational meetings in 46 states and offered large training sessions in eight of the Feb. 5 states.

Mounting such a vast effort for Feb. 5 is an expensive proposition. Even with Obama's resources -- he raised $79 million during the first three quarters of 2007 -- priorities are necessary.

The advertising blitz expected in Feb. 5 states, especially larger ones like California, New York, Georgia and Missouri, could run tens of millions of dollars for each campaign.

That means that whatever money is spent on advertising for Feb. 5 will likely have to be raised in January.

"At $90 to $100 million, whatever we end up raising before Iowa, it still isn't going to be enough," Hildebrand said.

And nowhere is that effort more complex than in California. The state has roughly 15 times as many precincts as Iowa, as well as highly complex and fractured media markets.

Buffy Wicks knows the challenge well. A native of the state, she worked for Howard Dean's presidential campaign in Iowa four years ago and is now Obama's California field director.

She is building a network of volunteers that will put a trained group of organizers in each of the state's 53 congressional districts. "If it's a two-person race, this is going to matter," Wicks said.

Vincent Harris, Obama's deputy state director, said California is a good fit for the multicultural candidate. "He is the California experience for many people," he said.

But Harris already is worrying about the complexity of making get-out-the-vote calls on the Sunday before Feb. 5, which happens to be Super Bowl Sunday.

At least for now, Obama does not expect the battle to go much past Feb. 5, by which time about half of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention will have been picked.

"It's very hard for me to gauge, or game out every scenario," he said. "But I think it's fair to say that we'll know a lot about who is going to be the next nominee after Feb. 5."

Posted by Mark Silva at 6:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Posted by Frank James at 6:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

by Rick Pearson

NEVADA, Iowa—Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton declared herself "by far" the most electable candidate for the White House among those in her party, citing a history of tempestuous dealings with Republican critics.

The New York senator, who has made "experience" a theme of her campaign in challenging the credentials of first-term Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, also said she doesn't take the GOP criticism personally.

"You know people talk about who can be elected and all that. But I believe I am by far the most electable Democrat, because I know exactly what I am getting into. I've got no illusions and there are no surprises and I am 100 percent ready," Clinton told a crowd of about 300 people at a community center in the north-central Iowa community of Nevada.

"I think my political experience of having been on the receiving end of so much incoming fire over the years equips me for understanding you don't take this personally. You can't take it personally," she said.

The former first lady said Republicans are welcome to continue to try to make her a polarizing figure.

"I drive the Republicans crazy because they've spent hundreds of millions of dollars attacking and defaming me," she said. "I don't care. I mean, if that's how they want to spend their time and their money, let them do it. Ultimately, I trust the American people."

Clinton, who had a day full of stops in Iowa, was more than 40 minutes late to the late-afternoon Nevada, Iowa, appearance. She apologized for speaking too long at her previous stop and promised not to do it again.

But about a half-hour through her one-hour visit to Nevada, she began to lose her voice and took some sips from a glass of water. After drinking the water, she had a bit of a coughing fit that gave her a hoarse-sounding throat and teary eyes until an aide handed her a lozenge.

"Anybody want to talk?" she asked the audience as she regained her voice. "Iowans have a lot to say."

Posted by John McCormick at 6:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (38)

by John McCormick

DES MOINES – Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama did something today that he rarely does in heavily white Iowa. He talked at length about race and urban issues.

"On every measure, on income, on health care, on incarceration rates, on the criminal justice system, on housing, on life expectancy, on infant mortality, on almost every single indicator, there is still an enormous gap between black and white," he told a racially mixed audience of about 500 gathered at a high school.

The Illinois Democrat made the remarks on what is likely his last day of campaigning in the first-in-the-nation caucus state of Iowa before next weekend's Brown & Black candidate forum here.

Obama said urban areas and minority communities often suffer first when problems spread across the nation. "There's an old saying that when America gets a cold, black America gets pneumonia," he said.

Iowa's importance in the nomination process is often criticized because it does not have the same level of diversity as the nation. It is 93 percent white, although the state capital where Obama spoke is 81 percent white.

Despite the problems that remain, Obama acknowledged progress has been made on racial issues.

"There is no doubt that the blight of racism and discrimination is less than it was 30 years ago," he said. "I could not be standing here, were it not for the extraordinary efforts that were made on my behalf by a previous generation."

Later, when one woman complained about some young people looking unkempt, with their pants riding low off their waists, Obama stopped her and offered something of a brief lecture to the audience.

"No, it's never OK," he said. "Pull up your pants…Put on a belt."

Obama sounded serious, although he later told the woman he was just "teasing" her.

Posted by John McCormick at 5:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (21)

by Mark Silva

Israeli and Palestinian leaders are expected to announce their intentions to open direct negotiations leading toward the potential creation of an independent Palestinian state and peace with Israel at a Middle East summit that President Bush will host in Annapolis, Md., this week, the White House said today.

“This is not a negotiating session. It is to launch negotiations,’’ Stephen Hadley, the president’s national security adviser, said of the Annapolis conference and meetings planned at the White House. “This is an opportunity… to showcase what is an opportunity to move into a negotiating phase between the Israelis and Palestinians.

“It will be an opportunity for the parties to indicate their intentions… and for the international community to show their support,’’ Hadley said in a conference call with reporters today. “What specifically is liable to come… from this meeting… First, the indication from the Palestinian and Israeli delegations that it is their intent to begin negotiations… These are negotiations that will follow the international meeting.’’

This includes a “parallel’’ commitment of stating their intentions to carry out elements of a “roadmap’’ to peace that includes contributions from both sides: For the Israelis, withdrawing from occupied territories, and for the Palestinians, ensuring greater security for both their own people and Israelis.

As optimistic as the Bush administration appears about the opening of negotiations following the Annapolis conference, however, chances of obtaining a final peace remain elusive. The Israelis and Palestinians remain divided over many issues, not the least of which is control of the Gaza Strip by the militant Hamas organization while the moderate Palestinian Authority controls the West Bank.

Yet both the Israeli and Palestinian leaders are voicing their own goals of reaching some peace agreement by the end of next year, according to Hadley – acknowledging that this is not “a formal timetable.’’ And the president also will state his commitment to focusing on the challenge during his final year as president.

"This conference will signal international support for the Israelis' and Palestinians' intention to commence negotiations on the establishment of a Palestinian state and the realization of peace between these two peoples," Bush said in a statement issued today.

"I remain personally committed to implementing my vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security," the president said. "The Israelis and Palestinians have waited a long time for this vision to be realized, and I call upon all those gathering in Annapolis this week to redouble their efforts to turn dreams of peace into reality."

Hadley calls the conference an opportunity for leaders to commit to negotiations and cooperation that could lead to "a comprehensive peace.''

“I think you will hear from it a commitment by the two parties, the Israelis and Palestinians, to carry out the roadmap, so you will have a situation where negotiations will go forward, but at the same time the parties will be implementing their obligations under the roadmap,’’ Hadley said. “There will be an indication that the parties have asked the United States to be the raconteur for that progress under the roadmap, to be a witness and in some cases to facilitate.’’

Bush, who will provide “a vision’’ of the path to peace in the Middle East at the conference, is not likely to spell out any details at this time. He will play host to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and then Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas at the White House on Monday, in advance of the summit in Annapolis drawing leaders from Arab nations as well.

Syria announced today that it also will send a delegation to Annapolis.

The meeting at the U.S. Naval Academy on Tuesday will open with a three-way session for Bush, Olmert and Abbas before they head into the larger meeting, address it and then conduct an afternoon session of discussions with other nations attending.

Bush is the latest in a line of American presidents to press for peace in the Middle East – albeit late in his term, just as former President Bill Clinton made a late-term attempt at brokering an agreement. But, with the exception of former President Jimmy Carter, who staged talks at Camp David in 1978 that led to a peace treaty the following year between Israel and Egypt, peacemaking has eluded the American presidents who have attempted it.

This week’s conference, which Bush first proposed in July, is aimed at providing a base for the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, which have been suspended for seven years. Bush’s own goal, which he has stated for several years, is “a two-state solution,’’ with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in autonomous states.

The meeting should serve as a prelude to “parallel steps,’’ Hadley said today. The first is the commitment to begin direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The second is the two parties’ implementation of the roadmap to peace.

Bush also will be making it clear that he intends to focus effort in the remaining year of his term on achieving a “comprehensive peace’’ that has long eluded the Middle East.

“I think what you can expect from the president is to convene this issue… he is after all the host,’’ Hadley said. “He will make very clear that this effort has his support and is a top priority for the remaining time in his second term… and he is paying close attention to this process… I think you can expect that he will indicate what it is that Israelis, Palestinians, the international community and the United States need to do, and can do, to bring this to fruition.

“He will offer a bit of a vision of what we have an opportunity to achieve at this time - how it can contribute to a broader stability in the Middle East… and why we think the time is actually right for making this effort.

“The notion of trying to do it by next year, by the end of 2008 is an idea that the parties have’’ articulated, Hadley said today. “While this is not a formal timetable, it is something where both Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas have both talked about an aspiration to try to make this happen before President Bush leaves office. ‘’

Posted by Mark Silva at 3:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (12)

by Christi Parsons

WINDHAM, N.H. — Republican Rudy Giuliani today said that Mitt Romney was “not one of the outstanding governors” and that he failed to lower taxes or do much else of note while he was in the Massachusetts executive office.

In fact, Giuliani said, the only reason Romney is leading some polls in early voting states is because he has been spending a lot more money than the other candidates seeking the GOP nomination for president.

Asked why he was breaking with his declared plan to keep things positive, Giuliani said that Romney and others started it.

“It’s because they criticized me,” Giuliani said. “Notice I haven’t criticized anyone who hasn’t criticized me. Gov. Romney has been criticizing me for weeks and weeks and weeks.”

The comments came during an interview on his campaign bus as Giuliani traveled to a morning coffee-and-bagel party at the home of some local supporters. Giuliani has devoted more of his resources to a nationwide campaign, while his rivals pursue a more conventional campaign aimed at the voters who will go to the primaries and caucuses in January.

Giuliani says he has spent less than $1 million in New Hampshire, which hosts the nation’s very first primary on Jan. 8. Romney, meanwhile, has poured millions into his campaign here.

That’s why Romney is out front, said Giuliani, not because the former governor has a record to brag about.

He also took a light shot at Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), whom he described as a friend and “hero.” McCain’s record isn’t comparable to his as the former New York mayor, Giuliani said, because he hasn’t been in executive office.

“They don’t have the background and experience that I have,” Giuliani said, reserving his sharpest criticism for Romney’s record on taxes and health care.

Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Romney, rejected Giuliani’s assessment.

“The mayor’s nasty side becomes more apparent once desperation sets in, and with all of the slipping poll numbers, it is certainly apparent that these negative attacks are coming for a reason,” Madden said.

“There is only one candidate in this race who has actually achieved health-care reform, and that’s Gov. Romney. Mayor Giuliani can only recite talking points provided to him because he has neither a record or even a basic understanding of how health care markets work or how reform is achieved.”

Posted by Mark Silva at 2:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

by John McCormick

HARLAN, Iowa -- From his days of campaigning in Downstate Illinois, Sen. Barack Obama has been asked plenty of times about his views on gun ownership.

But the Illinois Democrat and presidential candidate added a new wrinkle Saturday night while campaigning in conservative-leaning western Iowa, when he said his Chicago-native wife, Michelle, recently commented that she could see why rural folks might want to own guns.

Here was Obama's discussion of gun ownership and his wife's thoughts during a campaign stop at a middle school:

"We should be able to combine respect for those traditions with our concern for kids who are being shot down. This is a classic example of us just applying some common sense, just being reasonable, right? And reasonable would say that lawful gun owners – I respect the Second Amendment. I think lawful gun owners should be able to hunt, be sportsmen, protect their families.

"And by the way, Michelle, my wife, she was traveling up, I think, in eastern Iowa, she was driving through this nice, beautiful area, going through all this farmland and hills and rivers and she said 'Boy, it's really pretty up here,' but she said, 'But you know, I can see why if I was living out here, I'd want a gun. Because, you know, 911 is going to take some time before somebody responds. You know what I mean? You know, it's like five miles between every house.'

"So the point is, though, we should be able to do that, and we should be able to enforce laws that keep guns off the streets in inner cities because some unscrupulous gun dealer is, you know, letting somebody load up a van with a bunch of cheap handguns or sawed-off shotguns and dumping them and selling them for a profit in the streets."

Posted by John McCormick at 9:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (55)

The Bush administration had prepared for the transition: Vice President Dick Cheney, viisiting Sydney in February, received Kevin Rudd, left, the Labor leader who now has defeated Prime Minister John Howard and promised to remove Australian combat troops from Iraq. Photo by Mark Silva

by Mark Silva

President Bush has lost another key ally in the war in Iraq with the election losses of Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s government.

Like former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose third term was aborted after his popularity plummeted, the long-serving Howard had staunchly supported the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq as well as the fight against terrorists in Afghanistan. Australian Labor Party candidate Kevin Rudd has swept to power in a landslide victory over the second-longest serving prime minister in Australian history.

While Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney alike had forged a close relationship with Howard, they also had prepared for this widely predicted upset. Cheney met privately with Rudd earlier this year during a visit to Sydney in which Howard reaffirmed his government’s commitment to the war against terrorism.

Unlike Howard, Rudd has pledged to pull Australian combat troops from Iraq.

Rudd, a former diplomat who has served in China, rode a wave of public discontent over domestic problems -- interest rate hikes increases that Howard had promised to control, failed workplace reforms and a bid by Howard to retire midterm and anoint a deputy who would not have to face elections.

Rudd’s party needed to win 76 seats in the 150-seat lower house of Parliament to gain control, but his party has won at least 86.

"Today Australia has looked to the future," Rudd said after acknowledging the long public service of his predecessor. "It's time for a new page to be written in our nation's history."

Howard’s legacy includes a firm bond with the Bush administration. He was among the first to support Bush's original "coalition of the willing" to battle terrorism and has allied with Bush on most foreign policy issues.

In September, Bush traveled to Australia for the annual summit of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation and made a tour of Australian defense forces with Howard, who introduced him as a “good mate’’ of Australia.

Howard said then with Bush: “The thing we share most of all is common values, and the values are values that our two countries have fought together to defend, starting way back in the first world war at the battle of Hamel, which was the first time that Australians and Americans fought together, and under the command of that great Australian general, Sir John Monash, and from them on we've fought in every major conflict together.

“We are fighting together in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other parts of the world to defend the things that we hold dear,’’ Howard had said. “You come here as the leader of a nation to which we owe so much in terms of our defense during World War II. You come as a good friend of Australia, you come as a good friend of mine. And you come as somebody who has stood up for the things that you believe in and has demonstrated a great example of strong leadership in so doing.’’

In February, Cheney stood alongside Howard at a press conference during the vice president’s own Pacific tour, which included stops in Afghanistan and Pakistan after leaving Sydney.

“Decisions about what Australia does going forward with respect to force levels (in Iraq) is a decision for the government of Australia,’’ Cheney said then. “Those decisions are obviously going to be made by the Australian government based on their considerations, as well as I would expect conditions on the ground in that part of the world. It's not for us to suggest to our allies what their appropriate response might be. But certainly, I would say that the government has met our expectations in every regard. cooperation has been excellent.’’

Callling Howard "a good friend and ally," the White House on Saturday said he had "served the people of Australia well by pursuing policies that led to strong economic growth and a commitment to keeping Australians safe by fighting extremists and their ideology around the world."

Posted by Mark Silva at 8:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (27)

by William Neikirk

The falling dollar may still be seen as the world's chief "reserve" currency that countries like to hold, but you'd never know it in pop culture circles. These days it's the euro that's getting the star treatment.

Consider the recent Jay-Z video in which the rapper is shown thumbing through a wad of 500-euro notes -- not greenbacks -- while cruising through New York City.

The comedown for the once-almighty dollar has been in the works for some time, especially in the last year, and questions are now swirling about how far down it will go and when it will recover. It has hit record lows against key currencies, losing 44 percent of its value against the euro since 2002. It has suffered a similar decline against the British pound.

Meanwhile, the euro, created in 1999, has steadily gained in strength and respect. Some say it may be on its way to eclipsing the dollar.

See the rest of the story in today's Tribune:

Even those who can still afford to travel to Europe are noticing the difference in the pocketbook.

While the shrinking dollar has been good to Zebra Technologies of Vernon Hills, which has seen overseas sales of its high-tech bar-code printers soar in recent years, Charles "Randy" Whitchurch, the firm's chief financial officer and treasurer, also knows the dollar's downside. Taking his daughter out to dinner in London, where she attends business school, can be a shock, he said.

When a bill arrives to an American in Europe these days, Whitchurch said, "you go into a swoon."

Fueling the dollar's decline is a huge budget deficit forcing the U.S. to borrow from abroad and running up a large trade deficit with the rest of the world, particularly with China. And China alone holds more than $1.4 trillion in dollar reserves, most of them in U.S. government securities.

Now the weak dollar is becoming a matter of deep economic concern around the world. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called it a "worthless piece of paper" after a recent OPEC meeting. It is a factor in the soaring price of oil, approaching $100 a barrel. And its decline is a complex issue that many say goes beyond economics.

To Neal Soss, chief economist at Credit Suisse First Boston in New York, the dollar's plunge reflects a deeper reality related to world stability. "The value of the dollar can be read as a referendum on the state of the world," he said. The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent Iraq war have unsettled faith in the United States' ability to do its perceived job as "the world's policeman."

On top of that, with the economic coming-of-age in China, India and other countries, Soss said that "the center of gravity of the global economy has shifted away from the oldest and established countries in Europe and Japan. That is a very big change. It's a change that takes a lot of getting used to."

Financial markets worry about how and where vast dollar holdings in China and Japan will be invested. One major question: Will they be used to buy firms and banks in the U.S.? "The flip side of 'Buy American' is 'Buy America,'" said Donald Straszheim, a vice chairman of Roth Capital Partners in Los Angeles and a China expert.

Michael Drury, economist at Memphis-based McVean Trading and Investment LLC who just returned from China, said the weak dollar could lead to greater buying of U.S. assets by foreign countries. If some of America's largest banks are taken over, he said, "that would scare the heck out of us."

A strong currency like the euro reflects the continent's economic power as well as higher interest rates when compared with the United States. But Europe is complaining about its impact on jobs and business.

But the dollar's diminished value is helping U.S. companies like Zebra Technologies do better in the global economy, preserving jobs and keeping the U.S. economy afloat. Whitchurch said in the last quarter the firm's profits were up more than 16 percent, with currency changes accounting for nearly 3 percent of the growth.

Some economists hope the dollar's low value will begin to reverse a huge trade deficit with the rest of the world, although that will be slow in coming, said economist Gary Hufbauer of the Institute for International Economics in Washington.

In September, the U.S. trade deficit stood at $56.5 billion with the rest of the world. But in recent months, exports have been rising, a sign that the dollar's weakness is starting to work.

The Bush administration talks out of both sides of its mouth about the dollar. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said he favors a "strong dollar" while suggesting that its value is helping U.S. companies compete across the globe and helping the economy weather a major housing correction.

The U.S. has been pushing China to increase the value of its currency, the yuan (or renminbi), against the dollar so Chinese goods coming into the U.S. will be more expensive. China has agreed to only a modest appreciation of 5 percent or so in its currency. Hufbauer said a faster rate of revaluing the renminbi is not politically feasible for the Chinese. Last year, China had a $233 billion trade surplus with the U.S. alone.

Normally a weak dollar would raise the price of imports coming into the U.S., triggering inflation. But inflation remains in check so far. Analysts said that foreign companies are keeping prices down in order to continue to maintain their market share in the world's biggest consumer economy.

Whitchurch said Zebra benefits because its makes its printers and other products in the U.S. and sells directly across the world. About half its sales come from overseas, he said, and 35 percent of all sales are from Europe.

"When the euro strengthens against the dollar, it increases our revenue," he said. And much of that gain from currency change goes straight to the bottom line. His firm also hedges against currency changes in futures markets, he said.

Another Chicago-area firm that has benefited from the euro's rise in value against the dollar is Sysix Technologies of Downers Grove, which sells computer technology and services. Its chief executive, John Sheaffer, said his firm sells its products chiefly to subsidiaries of U.S. companies in Europe. He, like Whitchurch, believes the dollar ultimately will reverse its slide and continue its leading role as the world's reserve currency.

Fear of a plummeting dollar still persists in financial markets, but Whitchurch said, "I don't think the dollar is finished. We have the deepest and most liquid currency market in the world."

Posted by Mark Silva at 8:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (39)

by Christi Parsons

NASHUA, N.H.--Attempts to cut back on government surveillance and "aggressive questioning" of suspected terrorists are irresponsible and undercut the country's war on terrorism, Republican Rudy Giuliani said this weekend.

"Talking about cutting back on the Patriot Act, talking about cutting back on electronic surveillance, talking about cutting back on aggressive questioning -- not torture, but aggressive questioning -- wanting to remove our soldiers from Iraq in a way that would require them to give the enemy a time table of their retreat," Giuliani said. "I don't know that I've ever seen anything more irresponsible than that."

The remarks came late in a Saturday of campaigning in the state of New Hampshire, the first of a two-day tour through the early primary state. Shortly after that address, Giuliani headed out for the Holiday Stroll in downtown Nashua, where supporters of GOP candidate Ron Paul accompanied him for most of his visit.

As Giuliani walked down Main Street shaking hands and wandering in and out of shops, the Paul supporters encircled his entourage and waved their candidate's signs as they walked.

Paul, a congressman from Texas, opposes the Patriot Act, which he once called "a moratorium on constitutional rights."

As he made his way around the state on Saturday, Giuliani's rhetoric on the point of terrorism grew stronger. In the morning, at a stop in Laconia, Giuliani complained that Democrats' failure to use the phrase "Islamic terrorist" exposed a failure to fully comprehend the threat.

By the end of the day, he was telling an audience in Nashua that the mere use of the phrase was a powerful weapon against "tyrants, bullies and terrorists."

"They won't even say the word 'Islamic terrorist,'" Giuliani said of the Democratic candidates. "Tell me who you're going to insult when you say 'Islamic terrorist.' You're going to insult Islamic terrorists.

"You're also going to say to them, 'We understand who you are, and we're going to stand up to you . . . We're not going to beg you to negotiate with us. That's the beginning of making yourself safe against tyrants, bullies and terrorists. Standing up to them."

Some people object to use of the phrase "Islamic terrorism," arguing that it emphasizes the terrorists' religion instead of their cruelty and violence as the reason for objection.

A couple of members of the audience in a Nashua hotel ballroom raised that question afterward.

"He said it would only offend terrorists," said Sandra Marwill, an independent who traveled from Massachusetts to attend the town hall meeting. "But I think it might offend Islamic people to be linked in that way."

Still, she and her husband said they like Giuliani, partly because they think he seems like a tolerant person.

Giuliani said partisans should be more respectful in their discourse. He said he doesn't think Democrats' opposition to the war means they don't feel for the military.

"I don't think it's because they don't care about the troops," he said. "I don't think it's because they're not patriotic. We should get that out of our political debate. That's just unfair and it's wrong. I just think they don't get the threat."

Posted by Christi Parsons at 7:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (160)

by Christi Parsons

NASHUA, N.H. -- Rudy Giuliani combined campaigning with a little shopping here this weekend, and pulled it off with all the subtlety of an elephant in a china shop.

The Republican candidate made a surprise visit at a store on Main Street specializing in New Hampshire-made candies and knick-knacks, not to mention several fragile ceramics.

Not good, given that Giuliani had about thirty reporters, a full complement of staff, his security detail and a few curious onlookers in his wake.

Twice, some little mugs with moose faces on them came perilously close to toppling off the shelf. Innocent shoppers pressed themselves against the walls of the narrow store to make way for the swarm.

Meanwhile Giuliani busied himself with some woodsy Christmas ornaments as if the whole thing were very normal.

It's an act candidates carry out all the time, as they wade through diners in the middle of lunch rush or descend upon coffee shops, stores and city streets -- all the while pretending that they haven't just A-bombed whatever folksy setting they were trying to become part of.

And like the old saying goes, when the elephants stampede, it's the grass that suffers.

In the knickknack shop, a Manchester seventh grader named Megan Cleary looked up from a checker set she'd been inspecting when the crowd came in with a look of horror on her face.

"Who is that?" she asked her dad.

"He's running for president," he told her. "He used to be the mayor of New York."

Eyes wide, Cleary looked for a break in the crowd.

"Eek," she said, grabbing a friend's hand when she spotted an opening. "Let's get out of here."

Posted by Christi Parsons at 6:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By John McCormick

AUDUBON, Iowa -- If anyone suspects the campaign for Sen. Barack Obama stages the questions he is asked at campaign events, just listen to a few of the quirky ones from the trail Saturday in Iowa.

After one on same-sex marriage, a woman here asked him what he is reading.

The Illinois Democrat first responded that he is reading a collection of speeches by Franklin Roosevelt because he is working on a few speeches of his own.

Then, he mentioned a book about some of the so-called lost children of Sudan.

Finally, he admitted his actual "favorite" reading. "I confess, though, I'm also reading the sports pages a lot," he said.

Next, a child asked him what currency his face would appear on.

"I don't know. That's a great question. Let's see, the five-dollar bill is taken. One-dollar bill is taken. Who's on the two-dollar bill? I don't know. But the truth is they don't put the president on money until long after you are dead, so I don't want to be on money anytime soon. Maybe 75, 80 years from now, I'll be on the hundred-dollar bill or something. That would be fine, elbow Benjamin Franklin aside."

He was also asked here whether he would legalize marijuana for medical use, something he said he would support only if science and doctors said it was the best way to relieve chronic pain and that it was carefully controlled.

That, of course, was followed by a question on whether he inhaled, when he used marijuana as a youth.

"I did," he said. "It's not something I'm proud of."

Still, he said he always questions the premise of the question. "That was the point," he said.

Throughout the day, Obama needled Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York by alluding to her campaign recently getting caught for staging questions in front of audiences in Iowa.

"These questions are not pre-arranged," Obama said during an evening stop in Harlan, Iowa, where a toilet in an adjacent bathroom repeatedly flushed during his speech.

Earlier in the day, Obama had faced Norma Glassburner, 79, a retired teacher from Council Bluffs. She asked about several questions all at once, ranging from trade with China to crime to gun control to Cuban relations.

"I've got a lot of questions," Glassburner later admitted.

Still, Obama seemed to have won her over.

"What I like about him is that he will negotiate with those countries," she said. "I think we should talk to people."

Posted by John McCormick at 10:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (14)

by John McCormick

COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa – Sen. Barack Obama today defended his health care proposal, a key issue with voters and one that has emerged as a dispute between him and his leading Democratic nomination rivals.

"There have been some folks -- some other candidates -- who said that it's not possible to provide universal health care coverage unless there's a mandate," the Illinois Democrat said. "The reason people don't have health insurance isn't because they don't want it. It's because they can't afford it. And if we make health insurance affordable, then people will buy it."

The dispute re-emerged last week during a debate in Las Vegas, when Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York challenged Obama on the fact that his proposal would not require coverage for all.

"When it came time to step up and decide whether or not he would support universal health care coverage, he chose not to do that," Clinton said then.

Obama maintains mandating coverage is not essential and pointed to state requirements for automobile insurance that have failed to translate into universal coverage.

"There may be a few people, mainly young people, who think they are going to live forever, who decide not to get health insurance, even when it is affordable," Obama said. "If we see that people are still not covered, when we've made it affordable, then we will figure out how to make sure that everyone has coverage."

Obama praised Clinton's efforts for trying to get universal health care in the 1990s, but also offered criticism.

"They basically went behind closed doors," he said. "I want to do it the exact opposite...I'm going to have a big table and I'm going to have everyone represented."

Obama said his health care plan is "basically the same" as those offered by Clinton and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

"The one difference is, as I said, John Edwards and Hillary, they want to impose a mandate," he said. "They want to say, you've got to buy health insurance."

Clinton's campaign stressed Saturday that there are differences.

"It's unfortunate that Sen. Obama didn’t have the political will to produce a universal health care plan," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement. "The real difference is that her plan covers every American and Sen. Obama's leaves 15 million without insurance."

Obama also offered a funny riff on all the expensive television advertising offered by drug companies.

"People are running through the fields, and they're all smiling, but you don't know what it's for. You just hear about the side effects," he said. "You know, this may cause diarrhea. If you have shortness of breath. It's like, what is this drug for? I don’t know. Except there's that one you do know, right? The middle-aged couple is all smiling at each other. You know what that one's for."

Obama worked to shed any cobwebs from his campaign trail presentation, following a two-day Thanksgiving break at home in Chicago. "I ate too much," Obama confessed to his first audience of the day.

The stop at a high school here was his first of a two-day swing through western and central Iowa.

Posted by John McCormick at 5:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (12)

by Christi Parsons

LACONIA, N.H.—Republican Rudy Giuliani said today that he doesn't doubt the national loyalty of Democratic candidates for president, just their comprehension of international affairs.

He also accused Democrats of bowing to "political correctness" by not properly labeling the current threat to American national security.

"I'm not questioning their patriotism," Giuliani said. "I honestly think they do not properly appreciate the danger of the Islamic terrorist war against us . . . They even refuse to use those words."

The assessment came at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, where Giuliani is on a two-day bus tour to court early primary voters over the weekend.

For months, Giuliani has forsaken the conventional political strategy of concentrating campaign efforts on the early-voting states, instead choosing to criss-cross the entire country in search of support.

The strategy may help explain some recent polling data that shows Giuliani running trailing rival Mitt Romney, for whom New Hampshire is more of a focal point. But Giuliani's New Hampshire allies see their early state as one where their candidate could perform well.

Giuliani said he thinks Granite State voters will give him a chance.

"The reality is that New Hampshire expects you to have answers, they expect you to have results you can show them," Giuliani told reporters as he finished lunch at the Corner View Restaurant in Concord. "We think we have that."

Giuliani didn't speak directly about Republican opponents, but criticized Democrats on the subject of national security.

The way to bring home troops from Iraq, he said in response to a question at his town hall meeting, "is with victory and success . . . This is for an enormously important purpose. They are keeping us safe from Islamic terrorism."

But announcing a schedule for withdrawal from Iraq is a bad Democratic idea, Giuliani said.

"Have you ever heard of anything worse?" he said. "Would you give the enemy a timetable of your retreat?"

Although Giuliani confined his public critique to the Democratic field, two of his surrogates went after Romney. Former Massachusetts governor Paul Celluci and former Massachusetts treasurer Joe Malone both questioned Romney's claim that he lowered taxes while he was governor of their state.

Posted by Christi Parsons at 3:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (39)

by Mark Silva

President Bush has summoned a call to thanksgiving for American soldiers serving abroad with his weekly radio address.

"We give thanks for a new generation of patriots who are defending our liberty around the world,'' the president said today. "We are grateful to all our men and women in uniform who are spending this holiday weekend far from their families.. And we especially remember those who have given their lives in our nation's defense.''

But the story which Bush draws from the battlefield for his thanksgiving address does not come from Fallujah or from Anbar province or from Baghdad. It comes from Afghanistan -- the one front which Americans still largely identify as directly relevant to that war on terror which Bush has committed the United States to waging for six years now.

It's the story of Lt. Michael Murphy, a Navy SEAL who was conducting surveillance on a mountain ridge in Afghanistan in 2005 when his four-man team was surrounded by a far greater force. As his men counterattacked, he sought a clearing where he could call in reinforcements and was killed. He was awarded the Medal of Honor.

"We're also blessed by the many other Americans who serve a cause larger than themselves,'' said Bush, citing the police, firefighters and emergency responders and "faith-based'' community volunteers who serve the country -- but bypassing, on this day, any direct mention of the fight in Iraq which most Americans today wish the U.S. were not fighting.

For more, see the radio address here:

This is the text of the president's radio address:

"Good morning. This week our nation celebrated Thanksgiving. American families and friends gathered together to express gratitude for all that we have been given. We give thanks for the freedoms we enjoy. We give thanks for the loved ones who enrich our lives. And we give thanks for the many gifts that come from this prosperous land. Thanksgiving is a time when we acknowledge that all of these things, and life itself, come not from the hand of man, but from Almighty God.

"Earlier this week, I visited Berkeley Plantation in Virginia. The story of this historic setting goes back nearly four centuries to another day of thanks. In 1619, a band of 38 settlers departed Bristol, England for Berkeley. At the end of their long voyage, the men reviewed their orders from home. The orders said, quote, "The day of our ship's arrival ... shall be yearly and perpetually kept holy as a day of Thanksgiving to Almighty God." In response, the men fell to their knees in prayer. And with this humble act of faith, the settlers celebrated their first Thanksgiving in the New World.

"Berkeley's settlers remind us that giving thanks has been an American tradition from the beginning. At this time of year, we also remember the Pilgrims at Plymouth, who gave thanks after their first harvest in New England. We remember George Washington, who led his men in thanksgiving during the American Revolution. We remember Abraham Lincoln, who revived the Thanksgiving tradition in the midst of a terrible civil war.

"Throughout our history, Americans have always taken time to give thanks for all those whose sacrifices protect and strengthen our nation. We continue that tradition today -- and we give thanks for a new generation of patriots who are defending our liberty around the world. We are grateful to all our men and women in uniform who are spending this holiday weekend far from their families. We keep them in our thoughts and prayers. And we especially remember those who have given their lives in our nation's defense.

"One of these brave Americans was Lieutenant Michael Murphy. In June 2005, this officer gave his life in defense of his fellow Navy SEALs. Michael was conducting surveillance on a mountain ridge in Afghanistan, when his four-man SEAL team was surrounded by a much larger enemy force. Their only escape was down the side of the mountain. The SEALs launched a valiant counterattack while cascading from cliff to cliff. But as the enemy closed in, Michael recognized that the survival of his men depended on calling back to base for reinforcements.

"With complete disregard for his own life, Michael Murphy moved into a clearing where he could get a signal. As he made the call, Michael fell under heavy fire. Though severely wounded, he said "thank you" before signing off, and returned to the fight. His heroism cost him his life -- and earned him our nation's highest decoration for valor, the Medal of Honor. This weekend, we give thanks for the blessings of young Americans like Lieutenant Michael Murphy, who risk their own lives to keep us safe.

"We're also blessed by the many other Americans who serve a cause larger than themselves. Each day our Nation's police and firefighters and emergency responders and faith-based and community volunteers dedicate their time to serving others. While we were enjoying our Thanksgiving turkeys, tens of thousands of these men and women were on the job -- keeping their fellow citizens safe and bringing hope and compassion to our brothers and sisters in need. And their sacrifice reminds us that the true strength of our nation is the goodness and decency of our people.

"Since America's first Thanksgiving, we have changed in many ways. Our population has grown. Our people have prospered. And we have become a great beacon of hope and freedom for millions around the world. Despite these changes, the source of all our blessings remains the same. We are grateful to the author of life who blessed our nation's first days, who strengthened America in times of trial and war, and who watches over us today.

"Thank you for listening.''

Posted by Mark Silva at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (15)

by Mark Silva

President Bush started the year with a warm invitation to the new Democratic-controlled Congress, spelling out steps they might "take together," from immigration reform to health care improvements to energy conservation.

"We're not the first to come here with a government divided and uncertainty in the air," the president said in his State of the Union address in January. "Like many before us, we can work through our differences and achieve big things for the American people."

Yet now, with immigration, health care and much more sidelined, and with fading prospects for an energy bill or any other major domestic achievement during his final year, Bush chides Congress week after week for failing to meet its responsibilities to the American people.

On the radio, Bush accuses congressional leaders of "political posturing." On the road, as he did last week in Indiana, he accuses them of "acting like a teenager with a new credit card."

With the president's public approval ratings in a yearlong slump about to surpass Richard Nixon's for its duration – the two are tied at 13 months of approval ratings below 40 percent – the president has turned to one target in Washington held in even lower regard. Congressional approval stands at 20 percent in the latest Gallup Poll.

The president's escalating criticism of Congress, intensifying Democratic opposition to funding for the war in Iraq, and the arrival of a political season with control of the White House and Congress at stake may signal the end of Bush's hopes for a major domestic achievement in his second term, analysts say.

See the rest of the story in today's Tribune:

The president, who sought the middle ground politically on matters such as immigration reform, essentially has retreated to his own political base— the 32 percent of Americans who still tell pollsters he is doing a good job.

"It's a truly unfortunate response because it's dragging everyone down," said Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "It's particularly unfortunate because we have a lot of problems out there where we do have running room in the middle."

It's tough for any second-term president to win legislative victories. And it's even tougher for a president with an opposition Congress. Bush's situation is made more difficult by the low public support for him and the war in Iraq.

"Every president in the modern period, dating back to FDR, has seen a decline in their political capital over time," said Paul Light, professor of public service at New York University. But "Bush's situation is complicated by the fact that he is very unpopular."

The issues on which Bush and Congress still could find common ground include energy conservation and health care, said Ornstein, adding that even immigration reform could still be salvageable.

But it becomes harder to get anything done once an election year starts, because the departing president has diminishing clout and members of both parties find it harder to compromise. In addition, Bush's hopes for domestic achievements suffered a serious blow when he could not hold his own party on immigration.

"I think there was a pivotal moment here, and that is when the immigration bill—the president's single hope for a domestic accomplishment—flopped in the Senate," Ornstein said. "That just kind of sealed the deal that his final two-year period would not be a burst of accomplishments."

Bush's supporters dispute this, publicly at least, saying his weakness is overstated. And the president himself insisted recently he will "sprint to the finish line."

But he may already have crossed it in some ways.

The president scored significant achievements in his first term, including sweeping tax cuts, education reform and a Medicare prescription drug benefit, which had eluded Democrats for years.

Bush entered his second term emboldened by a solid re-election victory, declaring that he had gained political "capital" and intended to spend it. He outlined four big goals: Social Security overhaul, immigration reform, tax reform and an energy bill.

The president devoted several months to campaigning cross-country for a Social Security plan, including private savings accounts, which lacked public support and gained no traction in Congress. His vision for tax reform never got off the ground.

But the government's botched handling of Hurricane Katrina undermined public confidence in an administration that had committed itself to stronger homeland security. Then his party lost control of Congress a year ago.

In his 2007 State of the Union address this year, the president held out hope for work on immigration, energy and a new health-care initiative, featuring tax credits for those who cannot afford health insurance. The health plan was largely ignored by Congress, while immigration reform failed amid strong opposition from Republicans.

The long-stalled energy bill may offer the best remaining hope. But any energy measure may be relatively limited, if it passes at all, and may have a decidedly Democratic cast. Democratic leaders have even been speaking of breaking up the legislation into pieces in an effort to get some of it through.

At his most recent White House press conference Bush faced an embarrassing question: Is he "becoming increasingly irrelevant?" In response, Bush cited his vetoes – which only recently has he started exercising on congressional spending.

"When I tell you I'm going to sprint to the finish and finish this job strong, that's one way to ensure that I am relevant," Bush said.

The president has vetoed items such as a popular bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program. And he also recently faced his first veto override, when Congress restored a $23 billion water bill stocked with projects for congressional districts throughout the country.

There is little doubt that the public's intense disaffection with the Iraq war has weakened Bush politically.

Public approval for his performance is 32 percent in the latest Gallup Poll. It has hovered below 40 percent since September 2006, matching a slump suffered by Nixon in the final 13 months of his aborted presidency. (Harry Truman set the modern record for approval ratings below 40 percent with a run extending 26 months.)

During his first term, in contrast, Bush was buoyed by public approval for his response to the terrorism of Sept. 11, 2001, and his public approval rating averaged 62.2 percent, according to Gallup. His second-term average is 38.8 percent so far.

With Bush and Congress at odds over the war, there appears to be little prospect for reconciliation in the remainder of his term. Bush is demanding that Congress approve more war spending by Christmas. Democrats have responded by attaching troop withdrawal requirements to spending bills. Bush, in turn, rejects these and warns that 100,000 civilian workers at military bases could receive furlough notices by mid-December.

This month-to-month struggle over war funding could easily obscure Bush's domestic agenda in 2008.

"The question is whether a Congress at 20 percent (approval) calls the bluff... and basically says, 'We're not going to give you more money,' " Ornstein said. "What they have to do is try to give him this money only in dribs and drabs... They almost have to do something before the end of the year. If they don't, it makes for a very, very rough holiday period."

Posted by Mark Silva at 7:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (40)

Ashcroft once insisted on a coverup for "Minnie Lou," the Art Deco sculpture in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice, seen here at Atty Gen'l Michael Mukasey's swearing in. AFP photo.

by Andrew Zajac

It's been a busy month for former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

On Nov. 5, an op ed under his name in the New York Times argued that telecoms, including his client, AT&T, should be immunized from liability for cooperating with government intelligence operations.

That same day, Ashcroft issued a press release announcing a new business venture, AshcroftCEA, an alliance with Community Equity Associates, for "strategic consulting and investment and merchant banking".

Tampa-based CEA is headed by J. Patrick (Rick) Michaels Jr., a longtime player in the buying and selling of cable television properties. Read the release here: Download file

Ashcroft's main business vehicle, The Ashcroft Group, marked him as a new kind of ex-Attorney General when he established it after leaving office in 2005. He is the first former AG in recent memory to go into lobbying and consulting as opposed to back to lawyering or teaching.
Here's a story on the founding of the Ashcroft Group: Download file

In mid-month, some levity.
Aschcroft came in for some good-natured ribbing on Nov. 14 when he was briefly re-united with "Minnie Lou" the Art Deco sculpture in the Justice Department's Great Hall he once ordered covered up because he didn't like be photographed with a statue of a bare-breasted woman over his head.

His successor, Alberto Gonzales, ordered Minnie Lou restored to toplessness.

Ashcroft was in the Great Hall to witness the ceremonial swearing-in of Gonzales' successor, Michael Mukasey.

This week, back to grubby commerce.

The Newark Star-Ledger reported Monday that Aschcroft's firm is in line to collect $52 million in fees for monitoring settlement of a kickback case against an Indiana maker of replacement knees and hips.

Ashcroft's involvement was engineered by U.S. Atty. Christopher Christie, who worked under Ashcroft while he was AG and was appointed by him to a federal prosecutors advisory panel.

Posted by Andy Zajac at 6:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)

by Mark Silva

The Bush administration could not have set expectations any lower than they are for next week's summit of Middle East and Arab leaders at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis.

"If the Bush administration intended to lower expectations ahead of the Middle East peace conference it is hosting in Annapolis... the effort has been a resounding success,'' writes Michael Moran, editor of CFR.org at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Yes, Arab leaders have accepted invitations to attend Tuesday's summit. Yes, Bush will meet invdividually with both Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestiniani Authority President Mahmoud Abbas at the White House on the eve of the summit. But no, the White House is not promising "instant results'' from this long-planned meeting.

"In spite of an upbeat assessment from David Welch, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, the ground looks anything but fertile,'' the award-winning Moran writes in his account of The Road to Annapolis.

"Prodded by (Secretary of State Condoleezza) Rice, the primary diplomatic actors—Israel and the Palestinian Authority—spent weeks in a fruitless effort to agree to a joint declaration on a “two-state solution” that Washington hoped would form the foundation of the conference,'' he writes. "In the latest twist, rhetorical outrage swept the Arab world when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert insisted the Palestinian side accept the notion of Israel as a Jewish state, as opposed to a multicultural one, as a precondition to any grand bargain.

"On a political level, things are hardly better,'' he adds. "A presidential election year in the United States limits the Bush administration’s options as candidates on both sides vie to be seen as a friend of Israel. Among Palestinians, meanwhile, the week preceding the conference brought new violence in Gaza, the destitute Palestinian appendage seized from President Mahmoud Abbas’ government by the Hamas movement last summer. ''

For more, see his report at CFR.org.

Posted by Mark Silva at 3:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (13)

by Mark Silva

It may be “black Friday’’ at the malls today, but it’s six Fridays out from Iowa.

With a countdown to the January caucuses and primaries – with the Democratic contest boiling down to “a four-letter word, Iowa,’’ and the Republican race “remarkably fluid’’ – the Associated Press today offers a walk-through of the early-caucusing and voting states in presidential nominating contests that will reach a crescendo on Feb. 5.

“For now, the Democratic presidential campaign has become a four-letter word. Iowa,’’ report the AP’s Nedra Pickler and Beth Fouhy, sizing up the states for the Democratic field. And the AP’s Liz Sidoti and Libby Quaid write that “the Republican presidential race is still remarkably fluid less than six weeks before voting begins.’’

This is their state-by-state assessment of the state of play, six Fridays out from the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses:

From combined AP reports of the party contests in each state:

IOWA -- Jan. 3 caucuses

Democrats: (45 pledged delegates)

State polls show a tight race among Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards with the rest of the field lagging behind. But polling is notoriously difficult among potential caucus participants, making the true state of play very difficult to gauge.

Clinton's strategists believe a key source of potential strength lies with women who have never attended one of the state's 1,784 precinct caucuses. The campaign is building a "buddy system" to match experienced caucus participants with the novices, and is offering transportation and child care.

The Obama campaign has a similar strategy with young voters, connecting them with veteran caucus goers. The "Barack Stars" are high school seniors supporting the Illinois senator — they can vote in caucuses if they'll turn 18 by the time of the general election Nov. 4 — and he has strong support among college students.

Edwards is concentrating on a strategy that served him well four years ago when he finished a close second in Iowa — bringing out the reliable caucus goers, particularly in rural areas. He's the only Democratic candidate to have visited all 99 Iowa counties, and the 2004 vice presidential nominee has gotten some key labor support here.

Trailing the front-runners in polling and fundraising, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd are all banking on a surprise showing in Iowa.

Richardson has sent mail to Iowa voters touting his support of gun rights, while Biden has secured more endorsements from Iowa elected officials than any Democrat except Clinton. Dodd has temporarily moved his family to Iowa to demonstrate his commitment to the state, enrolling his daughter in kindergarten at a Des Moines public school.

Republicans: (37 pledged delegates)

The race is still Mitt Romney's to lose but has turned more competitive as voters begin to focus. Many Republicans still are undecided, and a lot of those who have picked a candidate say they are willing to switch.

Romney had held a double-digit lead in polls for months here after spending some $4 million on advertising. By far, he has the strongest organization and the most money in a state where both are essential. But Romney's advantage now is threatened by Mike Huckabee, a deft communicator with a rock-solid record opposing gun control, abortion rights and gay marriage. A Southern Baptist minister, he lacks money but his message is resonating with voters craving a true conservative. He just started running TV ads on cable.

Rudy Giuliani, a thrice-married abortion-rights and gay-rights backer, has made strides in recent months in part by a direct mail and radio advertising campaign telling voters about his conservative approach to spending and security. But Iowa clearly is not a priority state for him, and many Republicans believe his support here has reached its ceiling. Thompson recently started running a ton of TV ads billing him as the most consistent conservative in the race, but he has not caught fire. McCain is a bit player here.

Immigration is a key issue.

* * *

NEW HAMPSHIRE — Jan. 8 primaries

Democrats: (22 pledged delegates)

Clinton's once-commanding lead in New Hampshire has diminished somewhat in recent weeks, but it's still in the range of 11 to 15 percentage points. Her strategy here is to build a New Hampshire firewall that would withstand an unpredictable outcome in Iowa.

Clinton has traveled to each of New Hampshire's 10 counties and has secured the backing of most of the Democratic establishment. The campaign has made more than 250,000 phone calls to voters.

Obama has started advertising in New Hampshire and is courting Democrats as well as the independents who can participate in the party's primary. His campaign stages house-to-house canvassing and phone banks every night and weekend, with 800 people knocking on doors one weekend in November. "When people begin to decide, we're going to be at their doors," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.

Edwards is in a distant third place here. He has more than 60 staff on the ground and bought air time touting his health care plan in commercials that were already airing in Iowa.

Richardson has sent field aides from New Hampshire to Iowa, but brought in some national staff to work here. Dodd, a senator from nearby Connecticut, is counting on his New England roots to help woo New Hampshire voters his way. Biden has a very limited campaign operation here.

Republicans: (24 pledged delegates; Republican Party penalties will cut the number to 12)

Romney, the former governor of a neighboring state, has a vacation home here and has poured $4.5 million into advertising. He has an edge, but the dynamic could quickly change.

Giuliani, a Northeasterner, is playing to win after months of focusing elsewhere. He now views New Hampshire as the early voting state where he's most likely to come out on top. He's made numerous recent visits, flooded mailboxes with literature, run lots of radio ads, made his TV ad debut in the state, and is courting moderates and independents.

John McCain has aired nearly $1 million in commercials emphasizing his military service to capitalize on signs of a campaign rebound. While he remains a favorite among hard-core supporters from his 2000 win here, he can't count on independents this time.

Ron Paul could be a force if his anti-war stance and libertarian bent continue to resonate in the "Live Free or Die" state. He's running ads and just raised a hefty $4.3 million in one day. Fred Thompson isn't much of a factor here, nor is Huckabee. Both could be if they place strongly in Iowa.

Independents who can vote in either party's primary are a wild card. So are the many undecided Republicans. Spending issues and taxes dominate.

* * *

MICHIGAN — Jan. 15 primaries

Democrats: (128 pledged delegates, likely to be stripped by the national party for holding a January primary counter to party rules)

The parties wanted a state-run primary on Jan. 15, and the Michigan Supreme Court gave the go-ahead this week. It could be irrelevant to the candidates, however. They've signed a pledge to skip the state if it goes ahead and holds the contest that early — against the early-primary rules of the national party.

Republicans: (57 pledged delegates; penalties will cut the number to 30)

The contest is wide open. Michigan moved its primary early seeking more clout in picking a president, but most candidates have given it short shrift.

Giuliani is in strong contention, but he doesn't have much of an organization to back up that support. Romney emphasizes his deep Michigan roots and visits frequently. He grew up in the state, and his father was governor. McCain won Michigan eight years ago.

The economy and gas-mileage standards are main issues in an automotive state with a high unemployment

* * *

NEVADA — Jan. 19 caucuses

Democrats: (25 pledged delegates)

Clinton is far-and-away the leader in Nevada with double the support of Obama in a recent poll.

The Clinton and Obama campaigns have been working with experienced Iowa caucus organizers, developing a precinct-by-precinct system similar to Iowa's. Edwards moved staff from Nevada to Iowa over the summer, but recently has added organizers back to his Nevada operation.

The campaigns are awaiting a coveted endorsement expected in early December — that of the 60,000-member Culinary Union, which represents most employees on the Las Vegas strip.

Republicans: (31 pledged delegates)

This Western state is a wild-card. Nevada wanted more say in choosing the nominee, but the candidates haven't given it much love. Geographically, the state is far from other more prominent early voting states, and campaigns privately grumble that disorganization has hurt caucus planning.

The candidates visit sporadically, and usually only to pocket campaign cash from big donors on the Las Vegas strip.

Polling shows Giuliani, Romney and Thompson competitive.

* * *

SOUTH CAROLINA — Jan. 26 primaries

Democrats: (45 pledged delegates)

Clinton holds a wide lead in most polls, and the campaign is working to reinforce her position in South Carolina amid an expected strong challenge from Obama. He is running to become the first black president, and blacks make up about 50 percent of Democratic primary voters in the state.

Campaign officials note two major advantages for Clinton in the state: her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and her strength among older voters and women, no matter what skin color. Former President Clinton remains popular among blacks and has campaigned extensively for his wife here.

Obama has been advertising on three dozen black radio stations across the state — the most recent spot features him talking about growing up without his father.

Edwards, who was born in South Carolina, and won the state's primary in 2004. But he's been polling a distant third this time. This week he became the first Democratic presidential candidate to advertise on South Carolina television, touting his roots.

Republicans: (47 pledged delegates; party penalties will cut the number to 24)

It's a toss-up. Thompson, Romney and Giuliani are duking it out for the lead as McCain gives strong chase in the sole early voting state where all four are competing hard.

South Carolina is a must-win for Thompson the Tennessean. His Southern style hasn't translated into support, but it still could. He just started running a biographical ad to introduce himself. Romney has seen his support climb after spending about $2.3 million on TV ads. A Mormon, he's gaining ground even though white Christian evangelicals dominate the electorate.

Giuliani's rocky personal life and left-leaning positions on abortion and gay rights haven't crippled him. Giuliani attracts support along the state's moderate coastline and has run a slew of radio ads on fiscal and security issues. McCain, who lost a nasty primary to George W. Bush in 2000, has worked for years to prevent a repeat. He wants South Carolina to be the second stop on his comeback tour. His support comes from many elected officials like popular Sen. Lindsey Graham and loyalists from his first run. His Iraq war advocacy and his Navy service during Vietnam earn him respect in a state with a large military population.

The Iraq war, terrorism, and torture are hot issues.

* * *

FLORIDA — Jan. 29 primaries

Democrats: (185 delegates, also stripped for violating party rules with an early primary)

Florida falls under the candidates' pledge not to campaign in states that violate national party rules in scheduling their nominating contests. Florida plans to hold a primary a week earlier than allowed.

The candidates have not been holding campaign events in Florid, but still have been aggressively raising money there.

Republicans: (114 pledged delegates; Republican Party penalties will cut the number to 57)

Giuliani dominates in this state that's home to many retired New Yorkers. The question is whether he can sustain a series of losses before reaching this big-prize state — and whether he will have enough money to blanket Florida's costly media markets.

Once competitive, Thompson has tanked here. Romney, whose Florida team includes several backers of popular former Gov. Jeb Bush, has made inroads in recent weeks largely because he's been the only Republican on the air; he's spent $2 million on ads. McCain still has a measure of support.

Immigration and border security are high-profile issues, but it's unclear how they play with Cuban immigrants who populate South Florida. Other prominent topics include oil drilling and energy policy.

* * *

MEGA TUESDAY — Feb. 5 primaries and caucuses, as many as 25 states

Democrats: (at least 1,370 delegates)

With 370 pledged delegates, California remains the biggest prize. Clinton maintains a wide lead in California polls, and has launched "Hillcorps," an extensive volunteer outreach effort. Obama is holding "Camp Obama" training for volunteer organizers in California and in other Feb. 5 states such as Georgia, Missouri, Alabama and Illinois, his home state.

Clinton is expected to cruise in her home state of New York and neighboring New Jersey. Besides the large delegate states, Obama's campaign is focusing on caucus states like Colorado and Minnesota where local organizations are necessary for victory.

Edwards does not have staff in Feb. 5 states, banking that a win in Iowa can propel him to victory elsewhere, particularly Southern states such as Arkansas and his home state of North Carolina.

Richardson is counting on strong support in New Mexico and other Western states, including Colorado, Arizona and Wyoming. But he'll have to beat expectations elsewhere to make it that far.

Republicans: (at least 995 delegates)

The biggest question looming over every candidate but Romney is how to survive to this point and still be able to afford to run the millions of dollars in TV ads it will take to compete in this de facto national primary day when 19 states hold contests. Retail politicking will be replaced by made-for-TV events in airport hangars in several states a day to maximize "free media" — and reach voters through their local news.

Romney already has poured at least $17.5 million of his personal fortune into his bid and has indicated he's willing to spend more. He's given some attention to more right-leaning Feb. 5 states like West Virginia. Giuliani has been looking toward this day — and California, New York and Illinois in particular — but his is an untested strategy that requires big money to compete in extraordinarily expensive media markets in multiple states. Unlike Romney, he doesn't have nearly as much money available.

Thompson has more limited resources but hasn't ignored this crop of states. McCain and Huckabee can only hope they win early and benefit from an opening of financial floodgates — or that they win enough first-voting states to seem the all-but-certain nominee as this day approaches.

Posted by Mark Silva at 11:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)

by Frank James

For all the self-styled media critics who call into C-Span and other talk shows to insist the MSM don't ever tell the good news about what's happening in Iraq, I suggest they actually read the coverage being produced by reporters there.

In recent weeks, there've been a number of front-page stories about the drop of violence in Iraq, especially in Baghdad, a result of the U.S.-Iraqi military surge and the resistance of Sunnis tribal leaders to the insurgency, particularly that fueled by al Qaeda in Iraq.

The latest such story comes today in the Washington Post, which reports that Iraqis are returning to Baghdad as the violence levels fall and the city literally becomes more livable.

Here's how the story starts:

BAGHDAD, Nov. 22 -- Iraqis are returning to their homeland by the hundreds each day, by bus, car and plane, encouraged by weeks of decreased violence and increased security, or compelled by visa and residency restrictions in neighboring countries and the depletion of their savings.

Those returning make up only a tiny fraction of the 2.2 million Iraqis who have fled Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. But they represent the largest number of returnees since February 2006, when sectarian violence began to rise dramatically, speeding the exodus from Iraq.

Many find a Baghdad they no longer recognize, a city altered by blast walls and sectarian rifts. Under the improved security, Iraqis are gingerly testing how far their new liberties allow them to go. But they are also facing many barriers, geographical and psychological, hardened by violence and mistrust.

This too was in the top half of the story:

"Security is better," said Melal al-Zubaidi, who has a degree in engineering. "But we still have fear inside ourselves."

Over the past two months, the level of nearly every type of violence -- car bombings, assassinations, suicide attacks -- has dropped from earlier this year. The downturn is a result of a confluence of factors: This year, 30,000 U.S. military reinforcements were funneled into Baghdad and other areas. Sunni tribes and insurgents turned against the al-Qaeda in Iraq insurgent group and partnered with U.S. forces to patrol neighborhoods and towns. Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, seeking to improve his movement's image, ordered his Mahdi Army militia to freeze operations.

U.N. refugee officials estimate that 45,000 Iraqis returned from Syria last month, while Iraqi officials say 1,000 are arriving each day.

The returnees find a capital that offers greater freedom of movement. Shops are open later in many neighborhoods, and curfews have been reduced.

But those freedoms still come with constraints. Weddings, accompanied by honking cars and lively bands, are reappearing on the streets, but they still end before darkness falls.

Visits to relatives and friends across Baghdad are more possible but still hinge on which group or sect controls each neighborhood. Some stores are selling alcohol, but fundamentalists watch for those who breach their codes.

Again, this report parallels other MSM stories in recent weeks. The reports have been balanced, noting the continued challenges facing Iraqis and the U.S. military but clearly reporting the improvements in the security situation and a rising optimism among Iraqis who are voting with their feet and returning in significant numbers to Baghdad.

So the good news from Iraq isn't being hidden or unreported from the field. Far from it.

What will likely go unreported, however, at least by MSM critics, is that such stories are being reported.

Posted by Frank James at 9:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (33)

by Tom Brune of Newsday

In 1973, a 29-year-old federal prosecutor named Rudy Giuliani indicted a Brooklyn congressman, unknowingly creating a political opening for an ambitious 23-year-old named Chuck Schumer.

It is the first and least known link between two powerful New York politicians whose paths have crossed and careers intersected in often surprising ways over the past four decades.

But it certainly wasn't the last.

Just two weeks ago, Sen. Schumer ( D-N.Y) found himself defying his own party to confirm U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, a retired Manhattan judge and close friend of the former mayor.

Schumer and Giuliani may seem an odd pairing, but they have connected in ways that often have been mutually beneficial in the past and might be again in the future.

Now that history could prove politically awkward in this presidential season for Schumer, a prominent backer of Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Giuliani, the leading GOP contender.

See the rest of the story this week in Newsday:

Republicans rail against Schumer for launching filibusters against conservative judge nominees, leading his party's takeover of the Senate and demanding that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resign.

Democrats criticize Giuliani's years as mayor for his confrontational dismantling of liberal programs, a lack of tolerance for dissent and allowing overzealous policing to alienate minorities.

Still, they share more than reputations as a liberal Democrat and an increasingly conservative Republican would suggest.

"They both have a middle-class, outer-borough sensibility," said Fred Siegel, a Giuliani biographer.

"They see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues," added Democratic consultant George Arzt. "They both view themselves as champions of middle-class values."

Schumer, 56, and Giuliani, 63, share some unconventional common ground: Both were born in Brooklyn, the home of the Dodgers, but grew up as Yankees fans.

They do have basic differences personally and politically: Schumer is a traditional Democrat and Giuliani a free-market Republican.

But they also have similar hawkish views on crime, terrorism and protecting Israel, and lenient views on abortion, gay rights and gun control — positions out of step with the base and ideologues of their parties.

They have common friends and associates in the political, business and social world of New York City, including many big-name campaign donors such as Giuliani's presidential campaign backers Paul Singer and Ken Langone.

And they are both driven men, ambitious and self-confident, known for their love of attention.

Neither Schumer nor Giuliani would comment for this article.

While not personal friends — they now only see each other at the annual Sept. 11 ceremony in New York, a source said — they remain friendly.

Schumer tells reporters he likes Giuliani, and Giuliani talks about how he named Schumer's wife, Iris Weinshall, to his mayoral cabinet. Both talk fondly about working together on crime legislation in 1994.

"There's a kind of cordial connection," Siegel said. "There is never a bitter clash between them."

The scrutiny that attends a run for the White House, however, is raising links they would just as soon leave in the past.

Take Giuliani's inadvertent opening of the door for Schumer's political career.

In 1973, a grand jury led by Giuliani indicted Democratic Rep. Bert Podell on charges of taking $41,000 in bribes. That led to Podell's defeat in the 1974 Democratic primary by state Assemblyman Steve Solarz, leaving his Albany seat open.

Schumer, just out of law school, jumped at the opportunity and became at 23 the youngest member of the state Legislature in his first political victory.

And Podell pleaded guilty, giving a victory to Giuliani and his team, which included an up-and-coming lawyer named Michael Mukasey.

A decade later, Giuliani was faced with a different decision: Should he approve a proposed federal indictment of Schumer?

Giuliani had joined the Reagan administration as associate attorney general. Schumer had made the jump to Congress in a successful 1980 race, but his campaign had come under a cloud.

A Village Voice article reported that Schumer had packed a state Assembly committee that he chaired with six campaign workers.

Brooklyn federal prosecutors reacted with an innovative charge: mail fraud, since Schumer had mailed vouchers for their state pay from New York City to Albany.

Schumer's camp complained the charges were politically motivated and worthless. Schumer insisted he had broken no laws.

In late 1982, Brooklyn's U.S. attorney and an assistant argued for the indictment in a Washington meeting with Giuliani and his boss, Deputy Attorney General Edward Schmults.

The meeting was leaked to the newspapers. The decision was in Giuliani's hands, stories said.

In a three-page letter dated Jan. 21, 1983, Giuliani called it off, saying the case was not appropriate for a federal prosecution and that it foundered on ambiguous local laws. "New York has not clearly drawn a line between legal or illegal use of staff for campaigning," Giuliani wrote.

He kicked the matter to local prosecutors, but after several attempts, they dropped the case in 1985.

The Voice later reported that it was Schmults who made the final call, overruling Giuliani, who had signed off on the indictment.

But a former Justice Department official familiar with the matter recently confirmed accounts at the time that it was, in fact, Giuliani who had made the decision.

Giuliani had saved Schumer's career from what would have been a damaging legal fight at best, and from a crashing end at worst.

After another decade passed, Schumer had become an established congressman and Giuliani New York City's mayor. For the next eight years they often collaborated on projects for the city.

Former Staten Island Borough President Guy Molinari said the two had "a special relationship, considering they represented different parties."

The key issue was law and order. "Schumer was closer to Giuliani on crime issues than he was to liberal Democrats," said Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf.

The vehicle was the 1994 crime bill, which included the COPS grant program to add 100,000 police to city streets while banning assault weapons and restricting gun purchases.

At Giuliani's request, Schumer expanded the COPS grant legislation to allow cities also to hire civilians and buy computers. Giuliani put his prestige on the line to lobby GOP House members and to promote gun control.

Over five years, the Justice Department granted more than half a billion dollars to Giuliani's signature crackdown on crime, more than it gave any other city in the country.

In 1998, Schumer won a bitter battle for the Senate, with Giuliani waiting to the last minute to endorse the incumbent Republican, Al D'Amato — whom neither could stand.

Two years later, Giuliani named Weinshall as his transportation commissioner.

"She is a professional," said Arzt, "and it helps when you're governing in New York to have the state's senator's wife in the fold."

Since Giuliani left the mayor's office after 2001, the links have been friends and associates. Many of the same donors, especially from Wall Street, give to both the GOP presidential contender and Wall Street's man in Washington.

Yet Schumer also gets money from unexpected sources: George Steinbrenner, Yankees owner and Republican stalwart; one-time Giuliani aide Robert Harding, and Peter Powers, Giuliani's friend and first deputy mayor.

Several top Giuliani presidential fundraisers also gave to Schumer: hedge fund billionaire Singer, investor Langone, financier Carl Icahn, attorney Mel Immergut, accounting chief James Turley and advertising honcho John Wren.

For his part, Schumer has helped Giuliani friends in Washington, like former city corporation counsel Paul Crotty in his appointment to a seat on the federal bench.

Then there is Mukasey.

Schumer first named him in 2003 as a compromise choice Democrats could confirm for a possible Supreme Court vacancy, thinking the White House would never actually pick him.

In March, as he argued on a Sunday morning talk show that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had to go, Schumer suggested Mukasey as one of three acceptable replacements.

Why Mukasey?

Many point to his solid reputation in New York legal circles and his much praised handling of terrorism trials, and said Schumer shares the judge's sensibilities.

Others say a former Schumer aide chose him. The aide won't discuss it.

Giuliani, asked at a recent briefing, said he never talked to Schumer about Mukasey.

Yet there is every indication Schumer was just as surprised as everyone else when Mukasey was nominated.

On the hook, Schumer delivered, breaking from the majority of his own party who had abandoned the judge over his waterboarding dodge.

While the battle was uncomfortable, it sets up Schumer as the man in the middle if next year's presidential election comes down to New Yorkers Clinton and Giuliani.

Tom Brune reports for Newsday, a Tribune Co. newspaper

Posted by Mark Silva at 9:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

by Mark Silva

Here’s a gem:

Since Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf declared emergency rule and started locking up opponents, the Bush administration has said it will review its considerable foreign aid to a state that has served as an ally in the war against terrorism.

Some of that $150 million a month that the U.S. sends to Pakistan goes to educational causes, however, the administration notes – and it is in no rush to undermine aid aimed at a longer-term goal of building the institutions that will help Pakistan become a more democratic and open society over the long haul.

Like the U.S. aid that burnishes Pakistan’s jewelry craft.

A consortium of leading Pakistani universities and technical institutions announced today in Lahore that they had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the leading bodies of Pakistan’s gems and jewelry industry to establish the Lahore Centre of Excellence for Creativity and Design. This is a product of the Gems and Jewelry Strategic Working Group, a USAID-supported venture that devises strategies for improving the production and marketing of Pakistani jewelry.

“We realize that industry inputs and linkages are vital for academic institutions to develop their training, design, mechanics and marketing components,” Anne Armes, Pakistan mission director of the US Agency for International Development, said in a statement released by the U.S. embassy today. “We also realize that academic preparation is an integral part of creating the skilled entrepreneurs who will help strengthen the gem and jewelry value chain.”

The agreement includes Beaconhouse National University, the National College of Arts, Pakistan School of Fashion Design and the Punjab University College of Art and Design. They will work with the Pakistan Gems and Jewelry Development Company and Pakistan Council for Scientific and Industrial Research to develop curricula, exchange information, upgrade course offerings, and share laboratory and technical facilities.

“The proposed center will bring both academicians and entrepreneurs together - forming the foundation for a more productive and competitive industry,” USAID’s Aarnes said.

And, yes, the White House says, the State Department still is reviewing its overall aid package for Pakistan as it presses Musharraf to take off that uniform, hold elections and end the emergency rule that he has declared. Musharraf has promised elections in January, and has committed to resign as Army chief of staff.

Posted by Mark Silva at 8:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

by Mike Dorning

If you live in Iowa or New Hampshire, the season of Christmas shopping and holiday parties that starts today is also likely to include a local visit from Oprah Winfrey.

Obama has hinted for months that Winfrey, who has boosted his presidential bid on her TV talk show and in September hosted a fundraiser that reportedly raised $3 million for him, would campaign for him.

He dropped another hint this week in a brief conversation with a big-dollar fundraiser who asked Obama about a potential Oprah campaign appearance as the Illinois senator was shaking hands at a campaign event in New Hampshire.

"First she’s coming to Iowa,” Obama told Ralph Hoagland, co-founder of the CVS pharmacy chain and a major Obama fundraiser, in a conversation overheard by a reporter and published in the Chicago Sun-Times. When asked if that meant the star would not be visiting New Hampshire, Obama replied, "No, no no. We’re just doing it one state at a time.”

Obama evidently spoke prematurely and aides declined to confirm a potential Winfrey visit or provide any details.

But he previously has also suggested Winfrey would make a visit on his behalf to South Carolina, another early primary state that votes soon after New Hampshire.

“I can’t make promises,” he told South Carolina public radio in September. “But I know she has expressed an interest in South Carolina and maybe we can pull that off.”

There are signs other celebrities will be hitting the campaign trail for Obama this holiday season, too.

The Hollywood trade newspaper Variety reported this week that "CSI New York" star Hill Harper, an Iowa native and a contemporary of Obama's at Harvard Law School who graduated one year after the future Illinois senator, plans to campaign for him in Iowa with Desparate Housewives star Alfre Woodard in mid-December.

Variety reported that during a visit to Los Angeles in October he met with a group of Hollywood supporters to recruit volunteers to campaign in Iowa and appear in campaign commercials. The group included Harper, Jamie Foxx, Kal Penn, Sharon Lawrence, Wilmer Valderrama, Laura Prepon, Adam Rodriguez, Jonathon Schaech, Henry Simmons, Kelly Hu, James Van Der Beek and D.B. Woodside, Variety reported.

Another celebrity to look out for is actor George Clooney. He has indicated he would be willing to stump for Obama if the campaign thought it would be helpful.

Posted by Mike Dorning at 7:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Andrew Zajac

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is fond of saying that he has lived the American Dream.

Now more than ever, perhaps.

Forced to quit his office by the uproar over the dismissal of nine federal prosecutors plus other alleged missteps relating to surveillance and the treatment of detainees, Gonzales now commands a cool $40,000 on the speakers circuit, according to recent news accounts.

Gonzales appeared Monday night at a speakers series event at the University of Florida in Gainesville.

Predictably, protestors greeted him. Two students hooded and cuffed like Abu Ghraib prisoners, and a third bearing a sign reading "Habeas Corpus" took the stage and were quickly marched off by police, according to a story in the St. Petersburg Times, which also reported his fee, paid for by student activity funds.

Gonzales may be pinched for cash. The Washington Post reported a few days ago that David Leitch, a former White House counsel's office colleague of Gonzales, was passing the hat for a legal defense fund to cover expenses Gonzales may incur as ongoing Justice Department inquiries connected to the controversies that led to his ouster threaten to expose him to perjury or witness tampering charges.

The former AG was making a good buck as a real estate deal maker and partner at Houston's Vinson & Elkins. But that was a dozen years ago, before he became a George W. Bush retainer.

While in office, protestors routinely dogged Gonzales, and since they're following him into the private sector, he may be too hot for making rain or playing Wise Man, two lucrative roles ex-AGs might normally be expected to play.

Gonzales is repped by New York's Greater Talent Agency, which looks to have a wide-ranging roster legal/government types including former CPA spokesman Dan Senor, author and CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin, and former CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson whose blown cover helped send Scooter Libby to jail.

Suggested topics if you decide to book Gonzales:
-Pursuing your American Dream
-Hispanics in America
-Living legal history: Working with the White House, the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court

(Not sure why that the last topic doesn't include Congress, but then the Hill wasn't Gonzales' favorite place even before the Democratic takeover.)

Posted by Andy Zajac at 6:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)

Posted by Frank James at 6:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by Mark Silva

President Bush, celebrating Thanksgiving with his family at Camp David, called on several servicemen and women today by telelphone n Iraq, Afghanistan and other overseas deployments.

The president called 12 soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen with wishes of "happy thanks'' to them and their families, according to Press Secretary Dana Perino. Bush told them "how proud he is of them.''

"It’s a great sacrifice to be away from your children, and if it wasn’t a noble cause he would not ask them to do it,” she said. “He knows that it’s tough work but it’s necessary work and he is proud of them.”

The president is spending the holiday with wife Laura and daughters Barbara and Jenna and Jenna's fiancee, Henry Hager, members of his family and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The president is preparing for a Middle East summit in Annapolis on Tuesday.

Bush told the servicemen and women overseas: “When you tell your parents you’ve been talking with the president, half of them will think you’re fibbing, but you can tell them its true.”

From Camp David, the White House says, the president called on:

Sergeant First Class Amy Adams, U.S. Army, deployed to Balad, Iraq as a member of the 216th ESC LSA, Anaconda, is responsible for reporting and tracking all casualties for six brigades. Sergeant Adams has served one prior rotation in Afghanistan and one prior rotation in Iraq.

Staff Sergeant William Cannon, U.S. Army, deployed to Camp Taji, Iraq as a member of the Alpha Battery, 1st Battalion 82nd Field Artillery 1BCT, 1CD, supervises and trains NCOs and Soldiers in the proper emplacement, firing, and displacement of his section’s howitzers. Sergeant Cannon helped build a team that won the Top Howitzer section during a competition at Camp Taji in October.

Sergeant Frank Gervascio, U.S. Army, deployed to Al Asad Air Base, Fallujah, Iraq as a member of the 2nd Battalion 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, is the Battalion’s Aid Station Sergeant in charge of emergency and routine care of over 700 personnel. Sergeant Gervascio has been deployed twice to Afghanistan and twice to Iraq in support of operations there totaling thirty-nine months.

Sergeant Thomas Kelley, U.S. Marine Corps, deployed to Fallujah, Iraq as a member of the 2nd Supply Battalion, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, is the Platoon Sergeant for thirty-four Marines. He is the transportation coordinator for supply gear that includes Marine Corps and Navy MRAP vehicles. He is responsible for ensuring gear is properly staged for tactical movement.

Sergeant Santos Alvarado, U.S. Marine Corps, deployed to Fallujah, Iraq as a member of the 2nd Recon Battalion, Headquarters and Service Company, Supply Section, is responsible for maintaining the gear and equipment of the battalion’s Marines. He is responsible for the proper accountability and management of the Battalion’s budget. Sergeant Alvarado won the Meritorious Sergeant Board.

Petty Officer Second Class Melanie Mosley, U.S. Navy, deployed to Camp Bucca, Iraq as a member of the Navy Provisional Detainee Battalion THREE (NPDB-3), is the Quad Section Leader of a seven Marine guard force responsible for maintaining position control of detainees.

Operations Specialist Seaman (OSSN) Surface Warfare (SW) William Jamieson II, U.S. Navy, deployed to Arabian Gulf/North Arabian Sea on the USS Vicksburg (CG 69), is responsible for timely and accurate identification of aircraft flying within organic sensor ranges of the USS Vicksburg and coalition warships. He was awarded the Surface Warfare qualification as a Seaman early in his career.

Technical Sergeant Cimarron Reeves, U.S. Air Force, deployed to Samarra, Iraq as a member of the 732nd Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron, Weapons Intelligence Team One, is an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Team Leader for Weapons Intelligence Team. He performs post-blast analysis and prosecutes weapons caches. His position is vital to the counter Improvised Explosive Device (IED) effort.

Staff Sergeant Neil Lockart, U.S. Air Force, deployed to Balad Air Base, Iraq as a member of the 332nd Expeditionary Security Forces, is the leader of a team that protects USAF aircraft, personnel, and equipment. He was selected as Tuskegee Airman of the Week (week of October 29, 2007) and was recently recognized by General Petraeus for exemplary service.

OS2 Distin Bingham, U.S. Coast Guard, deployed to the Eastern Pacific on the USCGC Morgenthau (WHEC 722), is a senior member of the Morgenthau’s CIC watch team and is currently filling the position of CIC watch supervisor. He is instrumental in the development of junior OS personnel and in the teaching and training fellow shipmates in Law Enforcement skills. OS2 Bingham has prosecuted eight successful cases against narcotics traffickers.

Food Service Specialist Second Class (FS2) Michael Smith, U.S. Coast Guard, deployed to the Arabian Gulf as a member of the Patrol Forces Southwest Asia (PATFORSWA), serves in an Operations Officer capacity by drafting classified message traffic coordinating ship movements and fueling of the PATFORSWA Cutters and Navy Patrol Craft Fleet. FS2 Smith also coordinates the purchases of critical supplies and equipment.

Airman First Class Chris Steven Ericksen, U.S. Air Force, deployed to Bagram Air Force Base, Afghanistan, issues fuel to Close Air Support, Aero medical, cargo, and transient aircraft in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and International Security Assistance Forces in Afghanistan. He has personally issued over 500,000 gallons of fuel during 2200+ missions.

Posted by Mark Silva at 10:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (20)

President Kennedy greets Ft. Worth, Tex. crowd hours before his death in Dallas. Photo credit: REUTERS/JFK Library/The White House/Cecil Stoughton/Handout

by Frank James

Today is not only Thanksgiving but also Nov. 22, 2007, the 44th anniversary of President Kennedy's assassination on Dealey Plaza in Dallas.

Like 9/11 or Dec. 7, today is one of those anniversaries in American history that, for those old enough to remember the tragedy itself, still delivers a certain chill and a sadness. Even for many born afterwards there is a sense of loss, like what we feel for Abraham Lincoln.

It is a feeling only intensifed by looking at the webcam image from the "sniper's nest" from the Sixth Floor Museum in what was the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas. Or by this home movie of the president's motorcade made by George Jefferies about 90 seconds before the fatal shot.

Nov. 22 is a day for private remembering. Evidently, the Kennedy family has never wanted large public remembrances of the assassination. Better to remember the president's life than the way he died.

As Dallas Morning News columnist Jacqielynn Ford noted this week, it's also a day for conspiracy theorists to again get ginned up, with something of a spectacle occurring at the site of the assassination.

But for those of old enough to remember, the Kennedy assassination marked the start of the time of tumult that the 1960s were to become. Vietnam. Riots. Anti-war and civil- rights protests. More assassinations.

It is said that America lost its innocence that day 44 years ago. In truth, America was never innocent, could never be innocent.

What America really lost was a chance to see how the Kennedy story, allowed to play out naturally, would've ended. Would he be as highly regarded a president as he is today by so many? Or would his have been another failed presidency?

What would he have done about Vietnam? Would he have done as much for civil rights as his successor, Lyndon Johnson? Would Medicare exist? With his Addison's Disease resulting from adrenal insufficiency, would he have even survived a second term?

Perhaps more than any other event in modern American history, what happened in Dallas forty-four years ago today left us with one of the greatest collective "what if" questions of our time.

Posted by Frank James at 9:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (56)

This is either May or Flower, we're not sure which, but it's one of the two turkeys that Vice President Dick Cheney wanted to name Lunch or Dinner but President Bush pardoned this week at the White House -- see the reassuring first hand on the bird -- meaning that neither will serve as the oven roasted turkey on today's menu at Camp David. Photo by Mark Silva.

by Mark Silva

It's been a quiet week at Camp David.

That's because the president didn't get there until Tuesday.

And today, President Bush is celebrating Thanksgiving with his family in the Catoctin Mountains of Maryland, where the presidential retreat of Camp David is perched atop a low range, some 1,600-feet high and somewhat cooler than its surroundings. The peak of autumn colors hit these parts about one week ago today, so you know the faded leaves are falling.

And today, all the president's menus are on the table and all the president's chefs are serving: Oven roasted turkey. Surprise.

Plus cast iron skillet cornbread dressing, jellied cranberry molds, sautéed green beans, zucchini gratin, whipped sweet potato soufflé, buttered mashed potatoes, giblet gravy, Morelia style gazpacho, fresh clover rolls with honey butter, pumpkin pie with whipped topping, apple pie, apple crisp and pumpkin mousse trifle.

So, it's a happy Thanksgiving.

At Camp David. And from the Swamp, to you.

Posted by Mark Silva at 7:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)

Posted by Frank James at 6:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

by Mark Silva

The Granite State finally carved in stone its 2008 presidential primary election date today.

Jan. 8.

"It is kind of fitting that on the eve of Thanksgiving, a uniquely American tradition, I'm pleased to announce that another important American tradition will endure,'" said Bill Gardner, New Hampshire's secretary of state, in an announcement of the election date just now in Concord. "New Hampshire has held the first presidential primary since 1920.''

With the Iowa caucuses set for Jan. 3, the 2008 presidential nominating season already was set to open earlier than ever before. And with a spree of megastates voting on Feb. 5, the season may effectively end sooner than ever before as well.

The Michigan Supreme Court today cleared the way for a primary there on Jan. 15, Nevada, South Carolina and Florida are all set to run primaries or caucuses in January as well.

But New Hampshire, whose own state law requires that its primaries come before all others, has moved to ensure that Dixville Notch preserves its place in presidential nominating lore.

New Hampshire, which gave Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona a dramatic boost in 2000 with his 19-point primary victory over then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, will be critical to the McCain campaign again this winter. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is favored there. But for McCain, the state's vote could be fateful. Among Democrats, the state will provide a critical test of any rival's ability to thwart the bid of front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, whose apparent advantage has slipped in New Hampshire polls in recent weeks.

Posted by Mark Silva at 3:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

by Mark Silva

First the writers silenced Jay Leno and David Letterman.

Now the writers may silence Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and company.

In the case of the late-night comics, it's the Hollywood writers' strike that has cast the television entertainment world into reruns.

In the case of the Democratic candidates for president, it's the threat of a news-writers' strike that could imperil the final party debate before the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3.

The Democrats today pledged not to cross the picket line, if CBS News writers strike before the planned Dec. 10 Democratic debate in California, the last in a long-running series of debates before the first presidential nominating caucuses in January.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) issued a statement about the Los Angeles debate that CBS plans in conjunction with the Democratic National Committee: "“It is my hope that both sides will reach an agreement that results in a secure contract for the workers at CBS News, but let me be clear: I will honor the picket line if the workers at CBS News decide to strike.''

Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina made the same pledge in a conference call with reporters. And spokesmen for Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut said they too will not participate in that debate.

CBS News writers this week authorized their union leaders to call a national strike. About 500 of the network’s TV and radio news writers in New York, Los Angeles and other cities have been working under an expired contract since April 2005.

CBS News called the vote “unfortunate” and said its latest offer was “fair and reasonable.”

“The Democratic Party believes the right to organize and collectively bargain is one of our most fundamental rights, and we are proud to stand with the working men and women in the labor movement,” DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said. “Given the Democratic Party’s long history of supporting the labor movement in America, if the strike is still going on, we will not cross the picket lines.”

Posted by Mark Silva at 2:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (14)

by Mark Silva

At his "Ask Mitt Anything'' events, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney gets asked a lot of questions.

He was on his way to one this morning in Iowa City when he fielded a question at a morning stop at The Coffee Corner down the road on West Main Street in Washington, Iowa.

A reputable source relays to the Swamp, and another strong source confirms in essence, this encouter at the coffee counter:

A woman asked the former governor of Massachusetts: What can we do to stop the newspaper and television from attacking the president?

Romney replied: "It's amazing isn't it?

"Well, fortunately you can change the channels,'' he said, "and there are channels like FOX that gives a different perspective, and you can also go on the Internet and talk radio."

Posted by Mark Silva at 1:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (44)

by Tim Jones

The Michigan Supreme Court cleared the way today for Michigan to hold its presidential primary on Jan. 15.

The decision by that state’s highest court should remove the last significant hurdle for New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner to select the date for his state's primary, which under state law must be the nation’s first.

However, Michigan Democrats have kept open the possibility of picking their presidential preferences through a party caucus, even if the primary is held in January. That could delay Gardner’s decision on the New Hampshire primary date.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich) has been a driving force behind the move to make Michigan a more influential player in the selection process, and has suggested holding the Democratic caucus on the same day as the New Hampshire primary.

The Michigan court’s 4-1 decision overturned lower court rulings that said the law was unconstitutional because it would let state political parties keep track of voters’ names and withhold public access to that information.

Posted by Mark Silva at 1:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

by James Oliphant

Now that the Supreme Court has taken up interpreting the Second Amendment for the first time in almost 70 years, the question now turns to what happens next and how we might expect the justices to rule.

First, start with the text of the Second Amendment itself. Here’s the key passage:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In interpreting this sentence, there’s first a fundamental question to ask: What do those commas mean? Especially that third one. The Washington newspaper Legal Times recently devoted an entire article to this question. In other words, does that last clause somehow restrict the right of “people to keep and bear arms?” And do the breaks in the sentence mean that it should, or shouldn't, be interpreted to apply only to a “well regulated Militia” and not to individual gun owners.

Grammar aside, the justices will be tasked with determining first whether the Second Amendment creates a right to gun ownership and whether that right is a collective one or an individual one, the latter being what gun rights activists have been pressing for.

Then the court must determine the scope of that right. Is it the right to own any kind of gun? Or the right to own certain types of guns, with the government able to prohibit ownership of other kinds, such as assault weapons. In the case of the D.C. gun ban, the justices confined themselves to addressing whether the ban, which forbids ownership of a handgun at home, violates the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court doesn’t like to decide cases in ways it doesn’t have to. New York appellate specialist Meir Feder said that because the constitutional law in the Second Amendment arena remains so undeveloped, the justices may wish avoid sweeping statements of individual rights in deciding the case. “They do to some extent have a tendency to decide things narrowly,” Feder said, “and this is a prime candidate for that.”

That means it is likely that the court, if it finds that an individual right exists, will find that it isn’t an absolute right, but one that can be abridged a variety of ways. First, as noted above, in identifying the nature of the right. Then the legal question becomes then how burdensome a government regulation upon that right becomes.

A more moderate and pragmatic justice such as Anthony Kennedy (who may well be the deciding vote in the case) might see as reasonable a regulation that another justice, such as Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, might see as a clear constitutional violation. This may be especially true involving laws that are less restrictive than the D.C. one, such as requirements that guns be registered.

The current justices on the high court have been tight-lipped about the Second Amendment. During his 2005 confirmation hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts neatly dodged a question about the court’s last ruling, in 1939. And the approach the various justices take in determining the scope of Second Amendment rights will differ along the lines of their judicial philosophies. Is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights “fixed,” in that we might look at the language as it was intended by its framers (Scalia, Thomas). Or is the Constitution a “living” document, whose meaning changes with evolving societal standards (Breyer)? And should the court, as some gun-control advocates believe, take into account the sky-high murder rates in cities such as Washington and Chicago in balancing personal rights against governmental interests?

And whatever the outcome of the case, it’s likely the justices will confine the holding to pertain only to the federal government, because the District is a federal entity. That would leave open the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states.

It is enough of a muddle that had one long-time gun activist, Richard Pearson of the Illinois State Rifle Association, less than ready to proclaim victory Tuesday. “You never know about the Supreme Court,” he said ruefully.

Even so, gun rights supporters finally have the judicial platform for their cause they’ve been fighting for 30 years. Expect a flurry of friend-of-the-court briefs on both sides, from interest groups, Congress, and states and cities to help the justices with their deliberations. And expect a decision in June, just in time for a back stretch of the presidential race.

Activists such as Pearson and the Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb say that they can score a victory in this situation no matter what, either judicial or political. They say that the worst-case scenario -- a statement from the high court denying that such an individual right to gun ownership exists -- would galvanize the gun lobby and its supporters into furious political action during an election year. “It would probably bring all of the gun owners in the country together at once,” Pearson said.

Posted by Jim Oliphant at 12:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (33)

by Paul West

It’s a cliché, but there’s truth to the line that candidates and campaign strategists often fight the last war—and not always to their benefit.

There are good reasons for this tendency in presidential politics. History never repeats itself exactly, but certain patterns hold true. For example, the candidate who raises the most money in the year before the election (almost always) becomes the nominee. Also, a candidate who does best in the first two voter tests, the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, (usually) winds up heading the ticket.

This explains current behavior— the obsession that both Republicans and Democrats have with piling up campaign cash and putting vast time and effort into courting voters in two overwhelmingly white, and disproportionately rural, small states.

But the devil is in those parentheses, above. It’s impossible to know whether 2008 will be one of those years when the old war is the wrong one to fight.

Like politicians, journalists and analysts have a weakness for viewing elections through a backward-looking lens. When something new actually happens, when someone succeeds with a novel approach or confounds conventional wisdom by successfully ignoring old thinking, it’s often clear only in hindsight.

What’s plain, so far, is that there’s been some last war fighting going on.

The most obvious retro-warrior is John McCain. The man who started out as the presumed favorite in the Republican contest may have committed a fatal strategic blunder by taking the wrong lesson from his party’s last nomination race, in 2000, when he got stomped by George W. Bush.

Adopting a join-‘em-if-you-can’t-beat-‘em approach, McCain attempted to become Bush, at least for the purposes of winning the prize that eluded him last time. He aggressively embraced the president’s 2004 re-election, became a cheerleader for the Iraq war, hired top Bush aides to run his campaign and tried to mimic W’s 2000 strategy. The idea: Become the inevitable nominee of a party that has strong royalist tendencies and a solid history of crowning the establishment choice.

That’s how Bush ran the first time, with a front-porch campaign that drew planeloads of Republican nobles to Austin and garnered endorsements from fellow governors, most of whom knew little more than the Bush name and that he’d won re-election in Texas after ousting a Democrat four years earlier.

Instead of becoming the inevitable nominee before the first votes were cast, McCain saw his candidacy all but collapse. His support for an immigration overhaul plan that most Republicans detested and his surprising ineptitude in overseeing the finances of his own campaign had a lot to do with it.

Now, with the race blown wide-open, McCain is trying another last-war strategy: He’s launched a desperate effort to resurrect his candidacy by throwing everything he’s got into New Hampshire. That’s where he upset Bush in the 2000 primary, but this time McCain is facing much tougher terrain, both in the Granite State and those that follow.

McCain’s plunge from the lofty expectations of one year ago, when he held a gala Christmas party in Washington that had the air of a pre-inaugural ball, is still the surprise of the Republican contest. But Rudy Giuliani’s resilience is at least a close second, and if he wins the nomination—no longer an impossibility by any means—it would be a major turning point in national politics.

When the former New York mayor began his run, the smart money in Republican circles, aware of repeated intraparty battles dating back over decades, was convinced that he’d go nowhere. Eyes fixed keenly on the past, the wise guys were sure that a thrice-married candidate who supported abortion rights, gun control and gay rights, to say nothing of resisting crackdowns against illegal immigrants as mayor, didn’t stand a chance in a party where social and religious conservatives play an influential part in nomination politics.

On top of that, Giuliani’s initial strategy flew in the face of conventional wisdom. His aides said Rudy could endure defeats in the early primaries, then come back weeks later when the competition turned to big states where, early polls showed, he was more popular. As analyst Stu Rothenberg has pointed out, Giuliani’s strategy of waiting until Florida’s primary in late January to start a winning streak is a reflection of weakness, rather than strength.

But it’s not a novel idea. Other presidential candidates, largely out of necessity, have tried to get around Iowa and New Hampshire, either by avoiding them completely or making only token efforts in those crucial states, hoping that later victories in the South would carry them to the nomination. No one in the modern era has won that way.

Polls show Mitt Romney, who has the biggest bankroll in the Republican race, leading in both Iowa and New Hampshire, with Mike Huckabee gaining in Iowa. No Republican has ever won both of those early battlegrounds, but every Democrat who did has gone on to head the ticket.

Democrats, meantime, are looking over their shoulders at 2004, when the decisive action in the nomination fight took place in the last few weeks before Iowa voted.

John Kerry, left for dead politically, was forced to mortgage his Boston townhouse to remain viable. He eventually overcame the two presumed front-runners—Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt—and eked out a victory over John Edwards on caucus night.

In a matter of a few weeks, it was all over. Dean’s poll numbers plummeted and Kerry finished him off in New Hampshire. Despite losing to Edwards in South Carolina, Kerry was never seriously challenged after that.

This time, with many Democratic voters saying they could change their mind before the Iowa and New Hampshire tests, what took place last time could well happen again--a final flurry of advertising and campaign charges in Iowa, sharper and more combative than any so far, timed to coincide with last-minute endorsements and a pair of broadcast debates in the state, all leading up to the caucuses on Jan 3.

But the two leading candidates are trying something new--persuading first-time caucus-goers to put them over the top. It is a strategy that candidates frequently talk about---usually insurgents like Dean—but it seldom works.

Barack Obama, this year’s insurgent, is counting on younger voters who are new to the process, a particularly difficult group to mobilize. Hillary Clinton, meantime, is getting strong support from female first-time caucus-goers, many of them older, according to the polls.

If either Clinton or Obama wins big in Iowa, the reason is likely to be the emergence of these "hidden" voters. The upshot could be something truly historic—the first woman or African-American on a national ticket—and a new battle plan for future campaigners to look back on.

Paul West is the Baltimore Sun's bureau chief in Washington. He joined the paper as national political correspondent and has covered every presidential campaign since the 1980s. Before coming to Washington, he was a reporter in Texas and Georgia, where he covered education, the federal courts and local and state government and politics.

Posted by Rhonda Stewart at 8:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)

by Mark Silva

Scott McClellan came to Washington from Texas with George W. Bush, so that would make him pretty loyal, one suspects.

But the former press secretary to the president and ex-governor of Texas feels compelled to speak some truth in a book that he will be publishing next year, with the publisher releasing a select excerpt now. McClellan claims that he unintentionally misled the public about the leak of a CIA operative's name because both the president and his former chief political adviser, Karl Rove, had misled him.

The case ultimately led to the indictment and conviction of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice

"I stood at the White House briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby," McClellan, 39, writes in his book. "There was one problem. It was not true."

A three-paragraph excerpt from the book released by the publisher stops short of details about what the president told McClellan.

But McClellan writes that he "unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff, and the president himself."

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino says the president "has not and would not ask anyone to pass on false information." She also is directing reporters to McClellan, saying that he believes the excerpts were taken "out of context." But McClellan wasn't commenting.

McClellan does not suggest that Bush deliberately lied to him about Libby's and Rove's involvement in the leak, acoording to Peter Osnos, founder and editor-in-chief of Public Affairs Books, which is publishing McClellan's memoir next year.

"He told him something that wasn't true, but the president didn't know it wasn't true," Osnos said in a telephone interview. "The president told him what he thought to be the case."

In July of 2003, syndicated columnist Robert Novak identified Wilson's wife as a CIA operative, citing "two senior administration officials." That led to an investigation by a federal prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago, and a grand jury

Rove repeatedly was questioned by the gand jury, but never charged. Libby was indicted for providing false information to the grand jury and investigators, with testimony in his trial revealing that he had discussed Plame's employment with the CIA with news reporters.

In July, the president commuted Libby's 30-month prison sentence but let his conviction stand. Rove left the White House in August, and is serving as a columnist for Newsweek. McClellan left as White House press secretary in 2006, having served three years.

McClellan's memoir, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and What's Wrong With Washington,is scheduled for release in April by New York-based Public Affairs Books.

Tribune wire services contributed to this report.

Posted by Mark Silva at 7:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (81)

by William Neikirk

Much of the political discussion about Social Security these days concerns how it might be rescued from insolvency. Rarely do you hear that the government's popular retirement program should be expanded.

But in some circles, particularly among those who call themselves progressives (or liberal, if you will), there is increasing talk about enlarging the Social Security program because of perceived inequities in tax-deferred retirement savings like 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts (IRAs).

One such program was outlined Tuesday by Teresa Ghilarducci, a Notre Dame economics professor for the past 25 years, at an event sponsored by the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank. Like many others, she is concerned that the political discussion today is focused on cutting Social Security.

She proposed creating government-guaranteed retirement accounts in addition to the current Social Security System, funded by a 5 percent payroll tax shared equally between employers and employees.

Her proposal would set up investment accounts for individuals managed by the government. A 3 percent "real" or inflation-adjusted return would be guaranteed each year no matter what happens in the stock and bond markets. It is expected that over the longer run, investors could get this kind of return in financial markets, she said.

With such a plan, retirees could replace as much as 70 percent of their pre-retirement income, she said.

It differs from President Bush's plan for individual accounts. Bush wanted to take part of the existing Social Security program and convert it to a private investment system. His investments would be voluntary. But her proposal is an add-on, and would be more tightly controlled by the government. And it would be mandatory.

Ghilarducci would end current tax deferrals for 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts, which she said are inequitable in that they favor the well-to-do over lower and middle income Americans. Workers earning $24,000 or less would get a $600 tax credit that would cover their 2.5 percent contribution.

"A wealthy family in a 35 percent tax bracket gets a tax break three-and-a-half times more valuable than a family in a 10 percent tax bracket, even if each family contributes the same dollar amount to a 401(k)," she said. Though these plans were created to increase national savings, she said the savings rate has fallen dramatically.

Other analysts at the event said Social Security benefits should not be cut in order to prevent insolvency, as some have proposed.

Nancy Altman, a lawyer who worked on the 1986 rescue of Social Security with former Federal Reserve chief Alan greenspan, proposed three solutions to the long-term shortfall--use the estate and gift tax for funding, gradually raise the wage base on which Social Security taxes are levied, and permit the government to invest some of the money into the stock market.

Though some Democrats have proposed plans to deal with the Social Security financing problem, Altman said the public seems largely ambivalent about overhauling the system now. And health care looms as a larger problem in the minds of many, she said.

David Walker, head of the Government Accountability Office, said the government's health-care programs face a much costlier and more immediate challenge, and that is where the energy and money will likely go over the next several years.

Ghilarducci said those who plan to work past the traditional retirement age of 65 often find that it doesn't work out for them. Many companies are willing for keep older workers on the payroll, but only if they work part-time at relatively low pay, she said.

How practical is her plan? It won't be easy, considering that Wall Street's power is behind the 401(k) and the IRA. Sweet reason is often less persuasive than sweet campaign contributions.

Posted by Bill Neikirk at 6:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (39)

by Mark Silva

GQ holds itself out as arbiter of all things stylistic.

So GQ must know what it’s getting into when it includes Ron Paul and Cate Blanchett on the same list.

They are “men of the year,’’ according to that institution formerly known as Gentlemen’s Quarterly.

Paul, the Republican congressman from Texas and physician who is running for president with an Internet following of simply-obsessed Perilous Paulines who helped the “dark horse of the year’’— in GQ’s words – raise more than $4 million in one day of online fundraising for a campaign with virtually no chance of success, stands near the end of a long lineup of actors, musicians, politicians and more whom GQ has singled out for its de rigeur year-end list.

Paul stands next to last, just before Blanchett, who made the list, it appears, for playing Bob Dylan in the movies. Paul plays simply a candidate.

Never mind that neither Blanchett nor Hayden Panettierre are men. They made the cut, along with some other femmes of fashionable ways -- and a few real men as well.

It’s a long list, actually, nearly three-dozen in number, and it starts with Bill Clinton, “public citizen,’’ and it includes Kayne West, “graduate,’’ and more:

Bond-man Daniel Craig, “leading man,’’ baseball's Alex Rodriguez, “hit man,’’ Casey Affleck, “breakout of the year,’’ Hayden Panettierre, “obsession of the year,’’ Josh Brolin, “tough guy,’’ N.Y. Mayor Mike Bloomberg, “maverick,’’ Ryan Howard, “slugger,’’ American Idol's Simon Cowell, “mastermind,’’ Tom Hanks, “icon,’’ Paul, “dark horse of the year.’’ And Blanchett, “I’m not there performance of the year.’’

See it to believe it.

Posted by Mark Silva at 6:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (40)

Andrew Zajac

One of the unusual aspects of Rudolph Giuliani's presidential candidacy is that it's based on his work in public service – primarily as mayor of New York after 9-11 – but he's spent the past five plus years in the private sector, where his work has been harder to evaluate.

Today, the Tribune takes a look at one of Giuliani's more unusual recent business deals, consulting on a casino resort proposal in Singapore.

Here's the story:

By Andrew Zajac and Evan Osnos
Tribune correspondents

WASHINGTON--Nine days after registering his presidential exploratory committee last November, Rudolph Giuliani appeared in Singapore to help a Las Vegas developer make a pitch for a $3.5 billion casino resort.

Though the bid ultimately failed, and there was nothing illegal about the involvement, it drew Giuliani into a complex partnership with the family of a controversial Hong Kong billionaire who has ties to the regime of North Korea's Kim Jong Il and has been linked to international organized crime by the U.S. government.

Giuliani's participation as a security consultant in the Singapore gambling venture illustrates the challenge he faces while attempting to win the Republican presidential nomination with a law-and-order message while maintaining a far-flung, international business portfolio, an unknown portion of which remains in the shadows.

As a candidate, Giuliani is banking on his reputation as a hard-nosed prosecutor and a crime-fighting mayor, along with his performance after the Sept. 11 attacks, to trump doubts about his turbulent personal life, his tolerant stands on gambling, abortion and other social issues and perhaps some of the decisions he's made as a businessman.

So far, the strategy seems to be working, as Giuliani leads most polls of GOP presidential contenders.

But as the primary campaign nears its first electoral tests in Iowa, New Hampshire and other states in the coming weeks, new details of Giuliani's extensive business dealings since leaving office continue to emerge piecemeal. Each revelation raises new questions for the first major presidential candidate in memory to build a multi-million-dollar business on the foundation of his time in elected office, and not the other way around.

Even today, more than a year after the former New York mayor signaled his intention to run for the presidency, it remains impossible to fully evaluate Giuliani's business dealings because he has declined to list all of the clients in Giuliani Partners, the consulting firm he founded and heads.

Questioned during an appearance Tuesday in Chicago, Giuliani said that, "all of Giuliani Partners' clients, maybe with one or two exceptions, I'm not even sure that's right, are public....At least the ones that I was familiar with."

Confidentiality agreements prohibit disclosure of an unspecified number of clients, Giuliani said, "but somehow I think you--you meaning the press in general--have been successful in discovering. I'd have to check if it's every client. But just about every single client of Giuliani Partners. You'll have to check with them."

A spokeswoman for Giuliani Partners said that "a number of client relationships...must remain confidential, as per the specific request of those clients."

She did not respond to questions about whether Giuliani was asking those clients to waive privacy in light of his presidential bid.

Giuliani's public involvement in the gaming bid began at a September 2006 press conference in Singapore hosted by Mark Advent, CEO of Eighth Wonder LLC, a Las Vegas development company heading one of three consortia competing to build the Sentosa Integrated Resort.

Giuliani Security & Safety LLC, a division of Giuliani Partners, was to provide security on a celebrity-studded, multi-billion project featuring participation by soccer legend Pele, chef Alain Ducasse, New Age guru Deepak Chopra and designer Vera Wang, according to Advent.

Advent estimated that he spent more than $30 million to assemble and present his plans to Singaporean authorities. He declined to disclose the fees paid to Giuliani, but described them as "fair and priceless."

Advent said he sought Giuliani's services because he was impressed by the way Giuliani ran New York, before and especially after the Sept. 11 attacks. "In my personal opinion, the mayor is the best crisis manager, post-traumatic event, of anyone I've ever seen," Advent said in a recent telephone interview.

Behind the scenes, Giuliani had been involved in the project for three months before his involvement was made public, and he had a 10-year agreement to provide "security management on all levels," including employee background checks, security features and disaster response, said Advent, who previously developed Las Vegas' New York, New York casino.

Giuliani participated in Eighth Wonder's presentation to Singaporean authorities last Nov. 29, according to Advent. That was nine days after the Rudy Giuliani Exploratory Committee Inc. registered with the Federal Election Commission.

Advent said he never discussed how the consulting arrangement would be affected if Giuliani ran for president. "At no time did Rudy ever talk politics with me," Advent said.

Advent described Giuliani as extraordinarily concerned about his firm's partners and associates. "They did a tremendous amount of due diligence...They wanted to make sure they vetted everybody," Advent said. But in a later interview, Advent said Giuliani's vetting only extended to Advent and his Eighth Wonder colleagues, and that Giuliani had no role in evaluating Eighth Wonder's outside partners.

Those partners would include Melco PBL, a joint venture based in Hong Kong which joined the project, with a 24.5 percent equity stake in October 2006, according to Advent.

Melco PBL is a collaboration between Publishing and Broadcasting Limited (PBL), an Australian firm run by James Packer, son of the late media magnate Kerry Packer, and Melco International Development, run by Lawrence Ho, son of Stanley Ho, a colorful casino tycoon.

At 85, Stanley Ho remains the dominant player in the gambling industry on Macau, an 11-square mile spit of land near Hong Kong on China's southeast coast.

A Portuguese possession for more than 400 years until it was returned to China in 1999, Macau has long been the gaming capital of Southeast Asia. For 40 years, until 2002, Stanley Ho held a monopoly on casinos there.

Even now, with the Macanese gaming market open to foreigners, including Americans, Stanley Ho and two of this 17 children, Lawrence Ho and Pansy Ho, have an interest in three of Macau's six casino licenses.

Although he has never been charged with a crime, the U.S. government's 2000 International Crime Threat Assessment described Stanley Ho as "a reputed organized crime figure."

A 2007 State Department narcotics and law enforcement report noted links between casinos controlled by Stanley Ho and Chinese organized crime.

In addition, Stanley Ho retains ties to the regime of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. In 1999, he opened a casino in Pyongyang.

In March 2003, the South China Morning Post, the main English-language newspaper in Hong Kong, reported that Stanley Ho conveyed an offer of asylum in North Korea by Kim to Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein. The State Department has designated North Korea a state sponsor of terror since 1988.

A spokeswoman for Stanley Ho declined to comment.

Advent and Giuliani's spokeswoman said Stanley Ho had no involvement in the Singapore casino bid, pointing out that Stanley Ho has no direct interest in Melco PBL.

"We did business with Lawrence Ho," Advent said. "It has nothing to do with his dad...He (Lawrence Ho) has a separate company."

A spokeswoman for Melco PBL said that "Dr. Ho was not involved in the Singaporean bid and he is not involved in the affairs" of Melco International, PBL or their joint venture Melco PBL.

According to Hong Kong regulatory filings, Stanley Ho resigned as chairman and director of Melco International, sold the bulk of his shares in the company and turned over leadership of it to Lawrence Ho, in March 2006, about seven months before Melco PBL's participation in the Singapore casino bid was announced.

But at the time of the bid, Stanley Ho and a firm controlled by him still owned more than 21 million shares of Melco International--just under two percent of the shares outstanding.

In addition, regulatory filings in Hong Kong and the U.S. show a series of loans and contracts for computer services and gaming machines between Melco International and Stanley Ho-run firms. Melco International reported spending about $2.4 million as its share of costs to pursue the Sentosa license through Melco PBL.

The Giuliani Partners spokeswoman termed the link between Stanley Ho and the Eighth Wonder partnership "a stretch."

The government of Singapore announced Dec. 8 it was passing over Eighth Wonder and another bidder and selected a consortium headed by Genting International Bhd, a Malayasian casino company.

Analysts studying the three bids for the project before the decision generally marked down Eighth Wonder for its relative lack of experience in developing an entire resort complex.

Such a deficiency might be enough to eliminate Eight Wonder without considering other factors, but even a tenuous tie to Stanley Ho would give Singapore regulators pause, said William Eadington, an economics professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, who has extensively studied casino gaming in Macau.

"There were and probably still are Triad [Chinese organized crime] connections around Stanley Ho," said Eadington. "I think anything very close to Stanley Ho they [Singaporean regulators] are going to have trouble with."

Zajac reported from Washington and Osnos reported from Beijing. Tribune political reporter Rick Pearson also contributed to this story in Chicago.
[email protected]
[email protected]

Posted by Andy Zajac at 6:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (13)

by Mark Silva

The White House's long-promised Middle East Summit will take place Tuesday in Annapolis, with President Bush pressing the leaders of Israel and the Palestine Authority to agree on principles that can pave the way toward a “two-state solution'' that Bush has long advocated.

Prospects for real progress in this summit are limited, the White House acknowledged today, conceding that there may be no “instant results'' from the conference in Anapolis. Yet, White House aides say, this will be an important juncture in the pursuit of a lasting peace between Palestinians and Israelis, whom Bush has stated should accept a framework of two states living side by side.

“ What the president has wanted is what he said had wanted back in July of 2002,'' White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said today. “He's the first president to call for a two-state solution.

“He'd like to see these two parties come together to talk about the substantial and core issues surrounding the peace process so that we can begin negotiations towards that end,'' she said. “That's what we've been working towards as we get toward -- get closer to an Annapolis conference.''

Bush will hold individual meetings with Ehud Olmert, the prime minister of Israel, and Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, at the White House on Monday. Bush will play host to each leader indiviually in the Oval Office – with meetings that are likely to overshadow the pre-scheduled appearances of this year's American winners of the Nobel Prize on Monday, including former Vice President Al Gore, who narrowly lost the White House to Bush in 2000.

Olmert arrives at the White House late Monday morning, Abbas early in the afternoon, Gore and company following close behind them, the White House announced this evening.

The meeting with Gore and fellow Nobel Laureates is billed as “a photo opportunity.''

But Bush has stated that he wants the Annapolis summit of the U.S. And Middle East leaders to be much more.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has spent months preparing for this encounter with personal diplomacy in the region, though the White House, attempting to set realistic expectations for the summit, has acknowledged much “posturing'' leading to the meeting.

The White House downplays any idea that this summit is a “gamble'' on the president's part.

“It's an important initiative,'' Perino said. “The president is not a gambler. The president wants these parties to come together for the sake of peace and stability and democracy and freedom in the Middle East. He understands there's a root cause here, in that region, and he has dedicated a significant amount of time and resources and effort to bringing them together, and I think that it's well worth it.

Bush plans to attend a dinner for the Annapolis conference participants at the State Department on Monday, before heading to Annapolis on Tuesday. Bush will deliver “brief remarks'' at that dinner.

On Tuesday, the leaders will convene at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis for a one-day summit.

On Wednesday, Bush plans to follow up with individual meetings wth Olmert and Abbas at the White House.

“We recognize that at the Annapolis conference we are not going to have instant results,'' Perino said “ What you are going to have, however, we hope, is a discussion of the core issues, the substantive issues that can get the Palestinians and the Israelis to a place where they can have negotiations to get to the two-state solution that they say that they both want to get to.''

Posted by Mark Silva at 9:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (20)

by James Oliphant

The Tribune's series of profiles of presidential candidates continues this week with a look at the campaign of Joseph Biden, the Democrat from Delaware. Biden, who has spent 35 years in the Senate, first ran for president 20 years ago, but was forced from the race after he was accused of stealing a British politician's speech.

Biden was profiled over four days in Iowa. The story can be found here on chicagotribune.com, or below, in an extended version of the article.

You can also read an extended version of the profile here, by clicking on the link below.

By James Oliphant

Friday, Des Moines, IA

Joe Biden’s story starts, and ends, and starts again here. Or more specifically, at the Polk County Fairgrounds, home of the Iowa State Fair. Where 20 years ago it all went wrong in a flash, with just a few words. Now the place to exorcise the ghosts.

If the ghosts are truly to be exorcised, you might as well duke it out on their home field, whip them once and for all, Patriots-style.

Twenty years ago, Biden was his generation's New Voice, the Democrat whose soaring rhetoric and youthful exuberance leveraged the Kennedy mystique for the Delaware Catholic. For a time, he seemed the ideal antidote to the autumnal stagger of the late days of the Reagan administration.

The field with which he was competing in Iowa was only nominally formidable. The earnest Dick Gephardt, the congressman from neighboring Missouri, the durable bow-tied liberal, Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois, the technocratic Massachusetts governor, Michael Dukakis. Jesse Jackson could go one better than Biden in the speechifying department, but the others were better for the chorus than in the lead. The prize loomed for him. The numbers were trending well. Momentum was the first word on every staffer's lips.

It was his ability to talk in that rousing fill-the-hall way that put Biden in his place. Then came that speech here at the State Fair, his failure to credit a British politician. Rarely had someone like Joe Biden been persecuted for something he didn't say. Usually, it's been the other way around, as the stir over his comments about Barack Obama last year illustrated.
All it took was a nasty trick from Dukakis' campaign to end Biden's presidential dreams – and send him sprawling, into the wilderness.

And after all of that, he pretty much almost died, had his brain sliced open on an operating table.

It was a very bad year.

* * * * *

The narrow street in front of the fairgrounds pavilion is lined with signs: Clinton, Obama, even Richardson. None are Biden's.

But there are the Ears of Experience.

It's the first thing you see inside the building. A large display featuring mounted ears of corn stacked vertically, an index of each candidate's time in office. Biden beats them all, easily, with ears to spare, 34 ears -- er, years -- in all.

More than 1,000 people pack the room. At tonight's event, Biden will be the first speaker of three, to be followed by Bill Richardson and the headliner, Hillary Clinton. That means, right now, Biden is the only candidate in the place, he's pumping hands, fronting the Smile, the wide-angle grin with the perfect white teeth that is as much as his trademark as his exuberant speaking style.

Biden quickly makes it clear what this campaign, 20 years later, is all about, a theme he would echo for the next four days. He’s here to "tell the truth" to the American people. He's running this campaign his way, screw the naysayers and the experts and everyone else who tells him he doesn't have a chance. He's the Democrat, not only with more “ears” of experience, but with a plan for Iraq. No one else has one. He's tough on crime. He's big on God. He's the statesman coming to the rescue of the party.

Unfortunately, the mic keeps going out, which dampens the effect a bit, ending up
with something that sounds to the crowd like:

[ muffle] know that America is [flump] more than a country, it's [flump] idea.

But that’s the problem. Since 1987, the timing has never been great for Biden. The following morning, in the small town of Guthrie Center, right in the middle of his impassioned plea about not allowing the White House to exploit fear of terrorism to push its agenda, the town air raid siren would start wailing, drowning out Biden’s words.

Timing.

"It was over for me, before it ever really got started," says Paul Newman’s pool player, Fast Eddie Felson, in "The Color of Money."

That 1986 movie came 25 years after Newman first played Felson in "The Hustler." That Felson was brash, cocksure, with an answer for everything. At the end of the film, he’s ruined, pushed out of the game by larger forces. "The Color of Money" finds him aged, ruminative, watching younger players chase the glory that was meant for him. Eventually, he's seduced into taking one more shot at the big time.

In ’87, Biden was the hustler. Now he’s the seasoned hand. He is a high priest of the senate, a master of its mores and a beneficiary of its homage to seniority. He chairs the prestigious Foreign Relations Committee and is such a regular on Sunday morning talk shows for his wonkishness that he complains that people forget he’s running for president.

The question is whether he, like Felson, was first too young, and then too old, for the ultimate prize, whether he missed the window clean.

* * * * *

Clinton, by the way, ends up showing up 90 minutes late, when half the disgruntled crowd is gone. It's that kind of behavior that makes the Biden camp think that, at least in Iowa, they've got a real shot. The saying, as repeated by the campaign, is that "they don’t do coronations" here. But Biden has little to show but pluck; he’s hovering near the bottom of the polls and has limited funds.

Because of that, Biden has wedded himself to capturing Iowa's rural voters. After the speech, in a Des Moines restaurant that actually serves appletinis, Biden's national political director, Danny O'Brien, explains Biden's rural strategy, which involves him visiting one small burg after the other, because half of Iowa's caucus-goers come from there. It’s a time and labor-intensive approach, but it could have its rewards. One soaring speech in a public library or diner can do things that a big-city appearance never can. In small towns, people talk.

"The bottom line is that Iowa is a grassroots state and it's in the rural areas where the roots are deepest," O'Brien says.

O'Brien is relatively new to the Biden circle. That makes him an exception. This campaign is more like a family business. Biden is on the road here with his sister, two nieces, his sons, his wife, old friends from Delaware, and former campaign aides from 20 and 30 years ago. Biden travels in a caravan of one, sometimes two vehicles, staying at two-star hotels with free "continental" breakfasts. At one stop he takes down the folding chairs himself. It's all enough to wonder why in the world a six-time senator would want to schlep around like this -- especially in the state where he lives in a peculiar form of infamy.

His longtime friend and former chief of staff, Ted Kaufman, says it's a matter of Biden believing that his experience, especially in national security and foreign affairs, is needed. "It's the question of 'What did you do in the war, Daddy?’" Kaufman says.

Also at the restaurant in Des Moines is Biden's sister, Valerie Biden Owens, who ran his first campaign, ever, for county council in Delaware, almost 40 years ago, has been at her brother's side ever since. And even though all seem loathe to address the ghosts hovering about in Iowa, she finally can't contain herself.

"He cited Kinnock in speeches all over the state," Owens says. "That was the one time. The only time."

The press murdered him for it.

This might sound kind of funny now. In an era where politicians are getting arrested for sending secret foot-signals in airport restrooms, where the administration is in hot water over secret memos about torture, is mired in one war and threatening a second, but Biden's political career almost ended over plagiarism.

Plagiarism. The kind of thing that, if it does in anyone at all beyond tweedy academics, does in very few who give speeches at the Iowa State Fair and touts his ears of experience. And it might sound especially odd in an age where Google gives you instant slice of everyone else's history.

But that's what happened. In the summer of 1987, Biden, searching for a campaign theme, latched onto a speech by Neil Kinnock, a British politician. He loved the working-class hero stuff, as it mirrored Biden's own rise from the coal towns of Scranton, Pa and Claymont, Del. He might have loved it a little too much. He began quoting it wholesale in speeches, but usually careful to give credit. But at one rushed appearance at the State Fair, he forgot. And neither he nor his staff bothered to correct the error.

That's all it took. Soon, Dukakis' campaign manager, John Sasso, was circulating a tape to the press that matched Biden and Kinnock's speeches side by side. Biden looked like a word thief. All it took was a front page article in The New York Times (by Maureen Dowd, no less), to invite the scrum. Soon, irregularities in Biden's law school record were aired; others were questioning his use of Bobby Kennedy's words in other speeches.

It was raining everywhere. In Washington meanwhile, as the new chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden watched as opposition to Reagan's choice for the Supreme Court, Robert Bork, exploded, forcing Biden to split his time between the campaign trail and the Senate. Finally, he surrendered his bid for the presidency and dedicated himself to fighting Bork. Later he would preside over the circus that was the Clarence Thomas nomination and watch with dismay as testimony over pubic hairs, soda cans and porn films took center stage.

Lives of senators are epochal. To the average American, even the ones who vote, watch the evening news and read the occasional non-fiction tome, Joe Biden effectively disappeared from their lives in 1991, after the clamor over the Thomas nomination faded away. That was 16 years ago.

Given all this, you might understand why it was a bit jaw-dropping for some to hear Biden, near the close of his speech at the fairgrounds, to use someone else’s words. In this case, it was John Kennedy’s: "Now the trumpet summons us again-not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are-but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle . . . "

Apparently it was a bit of ad-lib. The JFK rap, Biden would later confess, "surprised the hell out my staff. It surprised the hell out of me."

Saturday, Greenville, IA

This is a tough day to be campaigning here. Iowa and Iowa State are playing football, dominating the radio dial. The main square of this hamlet is ghost-quiet. But, inside a cramped coffeehouse, Biden has 20 people waiting for him. It’s a good opportunity to road-test his new speech, one that places him squarely in the moderate wing of the party.

"How did we ever allow the Republican right to take the high ground on values?" Biden tells the group. "We Democrats aren’t fighting back. We don’t fight back on the values front. I can’t wait to debate Rudy Giuliani. I mean, come on man!"

Outside of the coffeehouse, on the silent town square, Biden’s voice booms through the screen door. Kevin Shilling, an organic farmer, is leaving. But he’s on board. "I like what he has to say about values. It’s about time we start fighting back," he says.

This "values" speech (written the day before by Biden himself) is intended to play to Biden’s strengths as a candidate --- primarily his track record as a family man and church-goer. His devotion to his kin is more than legendary, it’s a documented fact.

But it was borne out of the worst circumstances imaginable.

For a moment, Biden had made politics look like paint-by-numbers. The middle-class kid from Claymont, Del. decided to run for U.S. Senate at 29, against state’s best-known politician. It was quixotic, or to use the one-cent word instead, crazy. (Biden couldn’t even serve until he was 30.) He, his wife, Neilia, and his sister, Valerie, criss-crossed the state, taking retail politics down to the discount level, just as Biden is doing now here in Iowa.

Thirty-five years later, Biden’s son, Beau, tells a handed-down story of his father’s first campaign: Joe and Neilia get out of a car in southern Delaware, which natives will tell you has all the feel of South Carolina. A supporter comes up to him and says "Joe, we have a problem down here. They’re saying you’re a Catholic."

"I am Catholic," Joe says. "But my wife’s a Presbyterian."

"Well, we don’t have much to work with," the supporter answered, "But we gotta make it work."
Biden made it work. He won, and became the youngest senator. But before he could even take office, Neilia, his two sons, and their baby daughter were in a brutal car accident in Delaware. Neilia and the baby were killed and the boys, Beau and Hunter, were badly injured. Biden stayed by their side during their recovery and initially refused to return to D.C. to take his Senate seat, acquiescing only after then-Majority Leader Mike Mansfield pushed him to take it.

Biden vowed to remain a fixture in his sons’ lives. Valerie became their surrogate mother, and Biden began the daily commute from Wilmington to Washington that made him an Amtrak champion for life. Even after Biden met and married his second wife, Jill, five years later, he didn’t surrender the back-breaking schedule. "Kids keep a thought in their heads for 12 hours," he says at one campaign stop. "They aren’t gonna keep it for 24 hours."

He’s been rewarded with two now-grown boys who are loyal to him with every inch of their being, who stump in Iowa for him, and who speak the same language of electoral politics that he does, and a surrounding extended family that remains just as beholden - and just as active. For Biden, it all comes back to his home base. (He has named just about every house he has ever lived in.) After this Iowa trip was completed, Biden would prepare for the Democratic debate in Philadelphia by . . . cleaning out the gutters of his house, with Beau holding the bottom of the ladder.

Beau Biden, now Delaware’s attorney general, says of it all: "It’s a beautiful life . . . that takes work. As a Dad, he rebuilt this family."

Saturday, Corning, IA

As good as Biden can be on the stump, he might be better in a small room. He’s an old-school space invader, bending over, getting in people’s faces, squeezing their shoulders, using their names freely. ("And the CEO gets a bonus. Is that fair, Larry?") He’s a Universal Uncle, filled with hyperbolic warnings about the future ("This election can change the direction of the world!"), mixed with anecdotes about his family, the father who couldn’t afford to send him to college, the sister-in-law who lost her pension. He rarely patronizes or panders, not hesitating to throw around terms like "Orwellian" and "Faustian" to his largely rural audience. And he isn’t above a little global name-dropping to illustrate the relationships three decades in the Senate gives you. ("The phone rang, and it was Al Gore"…."I worked with Bono.")

Along with John Kennedy, he’ll quote Samuel Johnson, William Butler Yeats. He’ll answer every last question at an event, even as his nervous young staffers study their watches, re-computing the distance to the next stopover, wondering if they can warp time. Here, in tiny Corning, he stands at a chalkboard at a public library and painstakingly explains to a crowd of 20 wedged into orange plastic chairs how to achieve stability in Iraq, as well as peace in the Middle East, as if there’s an adult education course in statecraft.

He dissects the Iraqi constitution, talks about the Ottoman Empire, speaks about Iraq's history as a British territory, and, of course, delves at length into the Biden Plan. If Biden does have an opportunity to gain ground in Iowa, this is his best weapon. Somehow, in September, he persuaded 74 fellow senators to endorse a comprehensive plan that would divide Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions for each dominant sectarian group, with a weak central government. He has found a welcoming audience in Iowa, where the war seems to be the first thing on everyone's minds. He also has gotten “his skin ripped off” among anti-war Iowans for his vote to support funding the war, saying that if you aren’t going to remove the troops, then you have keep funding them.

Biden embraces his track record in the Senate; indeed what choice does he have? He points to his sponsorship of the 1994 crime bill (“the Biden bill that became the Clinton bill”) and his support of the Violence Against Women Act (for which he wore a lapel pin in Iowa). He uses his work in the 1990s in helping the Balkan peace process as establishing his bona fides on Iraq. And he will remind listeners that his foreign relations committee work means he has leaders like Jalal Talibani, the president of Iraq, on speed dial. “I met with Talibani last Thursday,” Biden says at one juncture. “He spent a couple of hours with me.”

Saturday, Five Thousand Feet over Southeastern Iowa

How many people walk the same path 20 years apart? After Greenville and Corning, aboard a plane so small that there’s only room for Biden, the pilots and two others, provided they don’t mind their knees knocking, Biden won’t admit to any sense of deja vu. This time it’s different. He is different.

In 1987, "I was a 42-year-old guy who never really when I started off intended to really run. Quite frankly, I thought more about how to win than how to govern. I wasn’t nearly as sure as what I wanted to do if I were able to govern. Today it is almost the opposite, unfortunately," he half-shouts over the roar of the propellers. "This time, rightly or wrongly I am given a fair amount of credit by serious press guys for being ready to be president, but there’s grave doubt whether I can get the nomination to run for president. So it’s kind of a flip, do you know what I mean?"

And he marvels at the press attention given Clinton and Obama at the expense of the other candidates like himself.

"It’s not the press has been unfair," he says. "They’re just not there."

"It’s sort of been liberating. I don’t feel constrained in this campaign. I don’t parse my words. I don’t look at the polls. I’m going to win or lose on my own terms. One of the things that last time taught me was the worst way to lose was on somebody else’s terms."

Because of the long road he has traveled, Biden has a full arsenal of life experience to bring to bear for every issue, allowing him to fuse the personal and the political almost effortlessly in public. As his sister says, “The private person is the public man.”

Education? Jill Biden is a teacher, has taught kids for 30 years.

Iraq? Well, Beau is in the National Guard. His unit is deploying to Iraq next year.

Health care? "They literally had to take the top of my head off twice," Biden likes to say. "At least I had health insurance."

As part of Biden’s very bad year, back in 1987, during the campaign, he began suffering from paralyzing headaches. Turns out he had a bleeding vessel in the brain. Doctors had to cut open his skull. Just as they were going in, the vessel burst. Had it blown in a different direction, he would have died. During his convalescence, he suffered a pulmonary embolism and almost died again.

His friends and family will tell you that the plagiarism scandal that forced him out was, in a way, a blessing. When Biden became stricken, he was home, close to Walter Reed Army Hospital, where he eventually had his surgery.

Sunday, Cedar Rapids, IA

One of the more notable features of Cedar Rapids involves the two cereal plants, Quaker Oats and General Mills. Its nickname is “The City of Five Smells" and locals will tell you that they can tell which cereal is being made from the odor in the air.

Everyone tells you that Iowa is different, that the nature of the caucuses is such that voters expect personal attention. Listen to LaDawn Edwards, attending a Sunday morning house party for Biden. "Every time I hear I am more and more convinced he’s the guy I want in the White House," she says in a sun-streaked kitchen.

This is the third time she’s seen Biden. And she’s almost convinced.

Later in the day, Biden addresses Teamsters at a union hall, and it’s here where his traditional Democratic principles, his blue-collar Irishness, truly resonates. "This is not your father’s fight," he intones. "They’ve convinced themselves that you don’t even know what’s best for your own members. They’ve drugged the Kool-Aid." More Orwell. And Yeats, too. "There would be no middle class in American without the union movement!"

(A television reporter from Cedar Rapids is taking it all in. "Does he usually go on this long?" she asks. "He’s got the stamina of an ox.")

Biden quotes his own father: "I don’t expect government to solve my problems, but I expect it to understand my problems!"

Also watching is Dave O’Brien, a union organizer and Biden volunteer. O’Brien and his father worked for Biden back in ’87, across the state in Sioux City. He shakes his head. "Plagiarism? Give me a break. I was chair of Clinton-Gore in ’92 and we were dealing with Gennifer Flowers."

Two years after Biden flamed out, O’Brien’s father died. And Biden flew up to Sioux City for the funeral. Not the most direct of flights. And Biden wasn’t running for anything.

"He didn’t do it for political reasons," O’Brien says. "He did it because he knows about loss."

Later, back on the plane, Biden remembers the funeral. He had been avoiding Iowa. "They stuck with me when I was being called a lying no good so-and-so. How could I not? And I really did not want to go back to Sioux City."

Biden agrees with O’Brien’s assessment about knowing loss - and he says that’s why he remains loyal to a fault, to as many people as he can. "When you give up that principle…you’re just yielding to selfishness. The people who got me through are the people who stayed loyal to me."

He returns, once again, to the bleak period after the accident, to the emptiness. "What you want to know," he says, plane engines humming, "is how do I survive this? I think you are blinded by your despair. It’s kind of like you’re getting sucked inside yourself into a black hole. Except what you really need sometimes, you just need to know someone else made it."

In that vein, for years Biden’s neurosurgeons asked him to visit other patients to reassure them prior to surgery. "I didn’t know them. I had never met them in my life," Biden says. "But you know when you have sort of a gift. The gift is you survived. You know if you give that to somebody, it makes you feel worthwhile. Because people did it for me."

Those close to Biden say while he wants to win, he doesn't need to win, maybe the way he would have 20 years ago, when he was Fast Eddie. That's because he knows the precious life he has built will be there no matter what, and ironically, losing is what could keep that life stable and intact while winning would blow it to smithereens.

If he doesn't succeed here in Iowa, he'll just go home. That's really not so bad.

Posted by Frank James at 5:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)

by Rick Pearson

Former Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar is subscribing to the theory that his candidate for president, Rudy Giuliani, doesn’t need to win in Iowa and New Hampshire next year since big states such as his own have an earlier say on the nominating process.

“I don’t view the caucuses in Iowa as a meaningful way to gauge public opinion. I just don’t like caucuses,” the former two-term Republican chief executive told reporters in Chicago after appearing with the former New York mayor to endorse Giuliani.

“Now, if Iowa had a primary, I’d say, now that would mean something. But caucuses?” he asked rhetorically. “I mean, most reasonable people at that time of year would rather be home watching basketball or, in this case, probably unwrapping Christmas presents. So I’ve never thought that that was the best indicator.”

In addition to criticizing Iowa’s Jan. 3 caucuses, Edgar didn’t have much to like about the New Hampshire primaries, in which a final date still hasn’t been set.

“Nothing against New Hampshire, but I’m not sure New Hampshire is a cross-section of America,” the former governor said. “So, I think Illinois, Florida, California, New York, these large states that are going to have primaries after that--then you get a better indication. There’s a lot of delegates there.”

Though Giuliani has done some campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, his campaign has been looking ahead to the so-called “Super Tuesday” of Feb. 5 primaries in delegate-rich states such as California, New York and Illinois where conservatives may not dominate Republican turnout.

“It’d be nice to win those first states but because you have the big states coming so soon afterwards, I think that will have a major impact on the outcome in both parties,” Edgar said.

Posted by Mark Silva at 5:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

by Christi Parsons

The Battle of the Passports continues.

Yesterday, Barack Obama said his experience living overseas in his youth helped prepare him to be president.

This afternoon, Democratic rival Hillary Clinton fired back.

“I have traveled the world on behalf of our country, first in the White House with my husband and now as a senator,” she said at an event in Shenandoah, Iowa. “I’ve met with countless world leaders and know many of them personally. I went to Beijing in 1995 and stood up to the Chinese government on human rights and women’s rights.”

In case you missed the intended comparison, here’s the finer point:

“Now, voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next President will face,” she said. “I think we need a President with more experience than that.”

But Obama spokesman Bill Burton says lots of passport stamps, even when accumulated by grown-ups, aren't everything.

"Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld have spent time in the White House and traveled to many countries as well,” he said. “But along with Hillary Clinton they led us into the worst foreign policy disaster in a generation and are now giving George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran.”

UPDATE, 4:11 p.m.: Obama just earned a spirited, if unusual, defense from rival Democratic candidate John Edwards. The former North Carolina senator's campaign released the following dictionary-style definition of the word "mudslinging":

"The use of insults and accusations, esp. unjust ones, with the aim of damaging the reputation of an opponent. As in: Hillary Clinton said about Barack Obama, ‘Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face.’

“Now we know what Senator Clinton meant when she talked about ‘throwing mud’ in the last debate," the release concludes. "Like so many other things, when it comes to mud, Hillary Clinton says one thing and throws another.”

Posted by Mike Dorning at 3:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (17)

by Mark Silva, and updated

Pat Buchanan did it -- parlaying a high-profile cable television network soapbox into a campaign for president.

Will Lou Dobbs do it?

Will he take that bully -- and we mean, bully -- cable pulpit of his on CNN, with his nightly harrangue about the nation's "broken borders,'' and turn it into a campaign for president?

No, pretty much, he said this evening on his own network.

"I've been saying for some time, I’m very flattered that a number of people have asked me to run for office,'' Dobbs told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "That isn’t where my interest lies.

"I’m an advocacy journalist,'' he said (We're glad here that he explained that part of what he does on CNN each evening).

"You never say never, but the fact is, my commitment, my interest lies in doing what I do,'' said Dobbs, adding that he'd have to give up working with Wolf.

The folks at U.S. News and World Report were talking up the Dobbs idea today, afer Dobbs appeared on ABC's Good Morning America this morning and also cast doubt on the prospect of a campaign, without really ruling it out.

In Washington Whispers:

This,, earlier, from U.S. News:

"Remember when conservative pundit Pat Buchanan ran for the GOP nomination in 1992, miffed with former President George H.W. Bush's policies?

"Now there's talk of another media big shot considering a bid: CNN's Lou Dobbs.

"Fans say he'd most likely run as a third-party populist, as Ross Perot did the same year Buchanan ran. A TV business anchor, Dobbs has morphed into a powerful voice calling for new national leadership and ending illegal immigration.

"While not ruling out a run, he says, "I've got a day job that I love."

"Dobbs, however, says that he is desperate for a change in the direction of the country. Asked about accepting a vice presidential nomination, he says, "How about secretary of state? I don't want to seem overly ambitious."

Posted by Mark Silva at 3:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (53)

by Christi Parsons

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) often tells voters that the problem with the “No Child Left Behind” effort to improve public schools is that George Bush “left the money behind.”

But in a policy speech on Tuesday, Obama added two of his rivals for the Democratic nomination for president to the list of culprits – immediately inspiring them to point the finger back in his direction.

In a speech unveiling his $18 billion plan to improve public schools, Obama accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina of making a “serious mistake” in not voting for a measure in 2003 to require full funding of the program.

"It's pretty popular to bash No Child Left Behind out on the campaign trail, but when it was being debated in Congress four years ago, my colleague Dick Durbin offered a chance to vote so that the law couldn't be enforced unless it was fully funded," Obama said. "A lot of senators, including Senator Edwards and Senator Clinton, passed on that chance. And I believe that was a serious mistake."

But aides to the two Democrats noted that, as a member of the Illinois Senate, Obama voted to implement it at the state level without a requirement for full funding. And both camps pointed out other instances in which their candidates supported full funding of the law.

Obama left out the “inconvenient fact,” said Edwards spokesman Chris Kofinis, “that he supported No Child Left Behind as an Illinois state senator before he opposed it as a presidential candidate.”

The back-and-forth broke out shortly after Obama unveiled his plan for primary and secondary education, which would encourage but not require universal pre-school programs, allow school officials to extend the school day or school year and reward high-performing teachers with pay increases.

His staff says he help to would pay for the program with cuts and savings in several agencies – including by delaying NASA’s Constellation program, which aims to send human explorers to the moon and beyond.

Obama said the improvements would help fix some of the problems associated with No Child Left Behind, passed in 2001 with the goal of improving schools by raising accountability standards for educators.

But his criticism of Edwards and Clinton drew fire immediately. Obama was referring to a September 2003 vote on a measure offered by Sen. Durbin (D-Ill.). It was designed to protect states from the new federal mandates if the government failed to provide full funding.

Clinton voted against the measure and Edwards didn’t vote. Edwards also voted against an amendment allowing states to limit participation in the program if there wasn’t full funding.

But “Sen. Clinton has repeatedly called for fully funding the law, and has voted several times to do so,” spokesman Phil Singer said.

Aides to Edwards also pointed out several instances in the past in which he supported an increase in funding for the program. One of those instances was a 2004 vote and the others were press releases.

As for his vote, aides to Obama say he was just trying to get what little money was made available by the “No Child” program. And they objected to the comparison of Obama’s state Senate vote with the ones Edwards and Clinton cast in the U.S. Senate.

"We realize it's a textbook Washington tactic to pass the buck for your mistakes, but the truth is, states are not to blame for Washington's failure to fund NCLB,” said spokesman Bill Burton.

Meanwhile, at Republican National Committee headquarters, Obama critics scoffed at the idea of cutting that particular NASA program.

"It is ironic that Barack Obama's plan to help our children reach for the stars,” said spokesman Danny Diaz, “is financed in part by slashing a program that helps us learn about those very same stars."

Posted by Mike Dorning at 3:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

By Jim Tankersley

A lot of American travelers will unwittingly stop off in Peter Roskam's congressional district this week, en route to grandmas' houses coast to coast. Roskam wants to make sure they don't run into anyone unexpected along the way - at 20,000 feet.

Roskam, a freshman Republican whose district includes O'Hare International Airport, has written the Federal Aviation Administration with some sharp questions about a pair of barely averted midair collisions near the airport. He wants to know how adequately staffed the nation's air traffic control system is, in light of a recent wave of retirements among controllers - and what procedures are in place to avoid collisions in the future.

Midwestern skies saw two near-miss collisions within a week's span this month, the Tribune reported recently, both attributed to an FAA radar station near Chicago. Roskam said in the letter that the reports worried him.

"Any air traffic control mistake that resulted in a mid-air collision would be a tragedy not only for those on board the airplanes, but also for those who live and work around the crash site," he wrote. "The aftermath of a mid-air collision could be devastating to my Congressional District."

Read on for the full letter to the FAA:

Dear Mr. Krakowski,

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) fulfills a vital role, ensuring we have a safe and viable air transportation system to serve the needs of our nation. Given this important role, I am writing seeking to work with you in ensuring the continued safety of the airspace around Illinois’ 6th Congressional District.

I represent a portion of the western and northwestern suburbs of Chicago. Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport is located in my Congressional District. The airport sits directly adjacent to homes, schools, and businesses that employ thousands. Thus, I sincerely hope that we can work together to ensure the safety of the environment around the airport.

On November 15, 2007, the Chicago Tribune reported that a Chicago-bound jet came within seconds of a midair collision at 25,000 feet over Indiana. A cockpit safety device alerted the pilots in one of the planes of the danger in time for the pilots to take action to avoid a collision. Yesterday, there was another story in the Chicago Tribune that described another similar incident.

Any air traffic control mistake that resulted in a mid-air collision would be a tragedy not only for those on board the airplanes, but also for those who live and work around the crash site. The aftermath of a mid-air collision could be devastating to my Congressional District.

Accordingly, I am inquiring about the adequacy of staffing levels in our nation’s air traffic control system. It has been brought to my attention that recently there have been a great number of retirements of the most seasoned air traffic controllers, and that there are even many more currently eligible, or about to become eligible, to retire.

It is my hope that you can address the following questions so that I might be better able to assist the FAA in maintaining a safe and sound air traffic system.

Are we currently operating with adequate staffing levels in our air traffic control facilities?

It has been brought to my attention that the Chicago Air Route Traffic Control Center currently has 340 fully trained controllers on staff, with 85 trainees, down from 380 and 45, respectively, just 14 months ago. Further, the O’Hare Air Traffic Control Tower is down from 51 to 38 fully trained controllers, and 20 to 16 trainees. I am concerned we may be stretching our controllers thinly; what assurances do we have that these reduced staffing levels are not coming at the expense of public safety?

What procedures are in place, and how will they be applied to the situations recently reported in the Chicago Tribune, to address mistakes that result in near collisions?

What mechanisms are in place to reduce or eliminate the occurrence of errors in the future? If our air traffic control staff is already stretched thinly, how can we address concerns without exacerbating the problem?

What steps is the FAA taking to maintain and enhance the safety of our air traffic system?

Given that a significant portion of our current stock of air traffic controllers was hired en bloc in the early 1980s, and given that many of those are soon eligible to retire, what is the FAA doing to maintain a vibrant group of air traffic controllers? It is concerning that the number of air traffic controllers currently working is fewer than the number just a few years ago. On top of that, if many in our current stock are able to retire, how is the FAA working to ensure we are not left with a thin field of air traffic controllers with little experience?

Thank you for your attention to this matter of great importance to the people of Illinois’ 6th Congressional District and the larger Chicagoland area.

Posted by Jim Tankersley at 3:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

by Mark Silva, and updated with full interview

President Bush, who has retreated to Camp David in the Maryland mountains for the Thanksgiving holiday, says Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York understands "pressure'' -- more so than any of the other candidates seeking his job.

"No question, there is no question that Sen. Clinton understands pressure better than any of the candidates, you know, in the race,'' Bush told ABC News' Charlie Gibson in an interview at Camp David that will air on this evening's World News.

"I do believe our candidate will beat her,'' Bush added, "if she happens to be the nominee.''

The president also hinted at his perception of a relative lack of experience in Clinton's leading Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. The president, however, declined to speculate on the outcome of his own party's race, calling it "wide open.''

Bush, whose father lost his bid for a second term to then-Gov. Bill Clinton in 1992, called the former first lady a "very formidable candidate" in this interview with ABC -- repeatedly saying she and the former president "understand the klieg lights".

"I think she's a very formidable candidate, and one of the interesting things that she brings is that she has been under pressure. She understands the klieg lights.''

Asked about Obama's statement that he would meet with the leaders of rogue nations without preconditions, the president called it an "odd foreign policy" and suggested that the statement stemmed from the senator's lack of experience.

"These candidates don't really understand is how complex the environment is inside the Oval Office," Bush said in the interview, with excerpts released by ABC News. "And how important it is to have a set of principles from which you will not deviate, and, so that you can make good sound decisions. It is impossible -- maybe not, but I think it's impossible for anybody to fully comprehend, you know, how much incoming there is into the Oval Office."

Asked if candidates could ever know the psychological and physical burdens which they might face in office, Bush "No, you can't, and 'til you actually get in there, and understand the responsibilities that come with the office, you can't possibly, can't possibly comprehend it."

"I'll tell you one thing that'll surprise 'em if they've got an open heart, is that the prayers of the people will affect 'em in a positive way,'' Bush added. "That has been one of the most surprising aspects of the presidency for me."

First Lady Laura Bush, also interviewed, said experience as a first lady could be "very helpful'' in the White House. "You certainly know what it's like," Mrs. Bush said, "you know the pressure, there is, you know the difficulties."

The first lady later added: "I think it was very helpful for us to have been...around the White House as much as we were when his parents served there."

ABC will air more this evening on its nightly news as well as the later Nightline program and on Wednesday morning's Good Morning America.

And, here courtesy of ABC, is a transcript of the interview:

CHARLES GIBSON: Let me start with, did you put too much faith in President Musharraf?

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: President Musharraf is, right after September the 11th, was asked whether he was with the United States or with the radicals and extremists who had come to kill our citizens. And he said, he's with you, he's been a loyal ally in fighting terrorists.

He's also advanced democracy in Pakistan. He has, he has said he's going to take off his uniform, he's said there will be elections. Today he released prisoners, and so far I've found him to be a man of his word.

And the fundamental question I have for President Musharraf is, will these elections be under emergency rule or law, because if they are, it's going to be hard for --

CHARLES GIBSON: It'd be a sham.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: -- well, it'll be hard for those of us who, have belief that he's advanced Pakistan's democracy to, to say that's, that's still the case. So, we'll see. Things are unfolding in Pakistan. But he's been a strong ally of the United States, and I certainly hope he succeeds.

CHARLES GIBSON: Is there a line he cannot cross, that he cannot cross, something that would go too far, where you might say to yourself, 'OK, that's enough?'

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Well, he hasn't crossed the line. As a matter of fact, I don't think that, uh, he will cross any lines. I think he truly is somebody who believes in democracy. And he made a decision, we didn't necessarily agree with his decision, to impose emergency rule, and I, my, hopefully he'll get, get rid of the rule. Today I thought was a pretty good signal that he released thousands of people from jail.

CHARLES GIBSON: But he says he believes in democracy but this state of emergency, which he says he needs to do to fight terrorism, all he's done is arrest political opponents, he's arrested lawyers, he's arrested human rights people. It looks more about saving his own political skin?

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Well, as I say, he has done more for Democracy in Pakistan than, than any modern leader has, and one of the reasons you're seeing the blowback that you're getting in Pakistan is because of the reforms that, that President Musharraf has put in place. Are we happy with the emergency rule? No, we're not. Do we, do I understand how important he is in fighting extremists and radicals? I do. And do I believe that he's going to end up getting Pakistan back on the road to democracy? I certainly hope so.

CHARLES GIBSON: Mrs. Bush, you were very outspoken when the Myanmar situation occurred, and the monks were protesting, and very outspoken about the call for sanctions when they would not tolerate protest. Why is Myanmar and different than Pakistan?

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: Well, that isn't my & I can't answer that. I can talk to you about Burma, because that's what I know the most about, and what I've studied the most, and know most about what's going on in those countries.

But there is a difference, and that is, this has been military rule since 1962 or something, and when there were democratic elections in the early nineties, they were never recognized by the military regime, and in fact the leader of the party, the National League for Democracy, that won those elections, has been under house arrest for most of the time since then, Aung San Suu Kyi. And the, what everyone in the world looked at in the, protest by the Buddhist monks was the violent, crack down on the, on the monks themselves.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Yeah, there is a difference in that, Pakistan has been on the road to democracy, Burma hadn't been. And um, I'm real proud of Laura's, she's learned that her voice can be pretty loud in international politics, and has really called the world's attention to the plight of Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese people.

One of the interesting stories, if I might, not to be Mister Interrupter here, but uh, was after my speech at the United Nations where it was pretty clear about Burma, and she got an email from a human rights activist on the Thai border that had gotten to know Laura, heard the comments that I had made at the UN, and emailed Laura as a, as kind of a conduit into the White House. So it's a, she's, her role has been very impressive and very important.

CHARLES GIBSON: Just one more question on Pakistan, are the, are the nuclear weapons, in your mind, safe from Islamic radicals, and can you be sure?

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: I certainly hope so. We feel pretty comfortable at this moment in time. And of course we'll pay very close attention to, to any, country that has got nuclear weapons. And, but yeah, I feel good about it right now.

CHARLES GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran, Admiral Fallon, the head of CentCom, said in a recent newspaper interview, he said the military strike against Iran is not in the offing. It would be a strategic mistake. Do you agree?

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: I think it's very important for us to pursue our objectives diplomatically. I also know it's important for all options to remain on the table, and they are on the table.

CHARLES GIBSON: Including military?

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Yes, sir.

CHARLES GIBSON: So he's wrong?

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: As the Commander in Chief, all options are on the table --

CHARLES GIBSON: When he says it's a strategic mistake?

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: My, my objective is to solve this issue diplomatically, and I fully intend to, and I believe we can. But diplomacy is effective when all options are available to a president, and all options are available. No one wants to use military force to achieve any objective. But, but it's important for all parties to understand that, you know, while I'm optimistic we can solve it diplomatically, options are available to the president.

CHARLES GIBSON: There's been a lot of bellicose rhetoric that has been aimed at Iran, and you yourself, at a news conference recently, raised the specter of, of World War III if there was a nuclear armed Iran. Just my curiosity, why not turn the rhetoric around and smother them with kindness, call their bluff and say, look, if you're seriously interested in nuclear power, we'll build the nuclear power plants for you?

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: I've done that. You must have not heard it, but we actually did it with Russia. Russia and, has offered to, you know, construct Bushehr, which is fine. I supported Russia and said that not only should you build it, but uh, the major suppliers group will provide the fuel and collect the fuel. And, so Russia and the United States are in concert on that issue. Matter of fact, I said this in a press conference, that it's the sovereign right of Iran to have civilian nuclear power, and I agree, and I believe that.

But the problem is, is that it's, what's dangerous is there desire to learn how to enrich uranium, and, because the enrichment process could lead to a weapon. Let me, if I might, I might want to comment on what I said about World War III. I said, if you want to avoid World War III. And the reason I said that is because I take the words of their leader very seriously when, for example, he says he wants to destroy Israel. And you know, an attack on Israel, as far as I'm concerned, would draw the United States into a very serious conflagration in the Middle East. At least it would under my presidency.

And secondly I think it's very important for our partners who are in the United Nations, for example, to understand that now is the time to work diplomatically to convince the Iranians to change their behavior.

And so, our strategy is clear, and I hope it's, I think it's working. You know the reason why I say that is because, one, there are people at the table that, you know, first were a little, little reluctant, and didn't take the Iranian threat seriously.

Secondly, Iran is beginning to feel a sense of isolation. And thirdly, my rhetoric, by the way, is aimed to the Iranian people, which is, and I'll be glad to repeat it here, which is that you've had a grand history, and a great tradition. Our beef is not with the Iranian people, it is with the government that is, you know, has hidden programs from international inspectors, has made very bellicose statements about how they intend to conduct foreign policy, that is promoting terror through organizations like Hezbollah, that is disrupting young democracies like Iraq and Lebanon, and therefore as a result of the actions of your government, you're becoming isolated, and you can do better.

CHARLES GIBSON: Let me turn to Iraq.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Yes, sir.

CHARLES GIBSON: You took a lot of doubting and rather skeptical questions about the surge. I'll give you a chance to crow. Do you want to say, I told you so?

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: [LAUGHS] No, I don't, because the decision, while it was a tough decision was really studied, and uh, and it was based upon the recommendations of wise military commanders.

CHARLES GIBSON: Don't you take some satisfaction, though, in the fact that the, that the levels of violence have come down so far?

CHARLES GIBSON: Absolutely, primarily because I, you know, I hurt when America loses a soldier anywhere, and it breaks my heart to think about loved ones who will miss a child, or a husband. And having said that, I'm thrilled for the Iraqis that they're beginning to see enough security so that reconciliation is taking place as well as in, as the economy is beginning to move.

CHARLES GIBSON: Well, that's the flip side, and that's the reconciliation issue. You said the design of this is to give the Iraqi government breathing space, to bring about reconciliation. We've got a reporter right now who's embedded with the 1st Cav, and I talked to him yesterday, and he said that's all they're talking about. He quoted a captain to me, we've gone as far militarily as we can go. The coalition cannot make reconciliation. And then they go on with their impatience and their frustration, that reconciliation isn't coming --

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: I don't know what province this person is in, but this province, if this person were in Anbar Province, which used to be the al Qaeda stronghold, they would see enormous amounts of reconciliation taking place as these, Sunni sheiks are stepping up and beginning to take the lead at the local level.

If he's referring to, if this person's referring to laws being passed by the parliament, he's right in terms of a de-Baathification law, for example. On the other hand, they're just in the process of passing yet another budget which will distribute monies from the central government to provincial governments.

But there, as well there's a lot of local reconciliation taking place. I mean, after all, I, welcomed, you remember the Sheik that got killed? Well, his brother came, he's now assumed the mantle of the --

CHARLES GIBSON: This is in Anbar? PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Yeah. But they're reaching out beyond Anbar, these Sunni sheiks are. And he said to me, he came to the White House, and he said, you know, here's what I'd like, I'd like the following things. It's like dealing with a county judge in Texas in a way. Here is what the local folks want, I represent the local folks.

And he asked me, he said, would you mind meeting with some of the Shia Sheiks that I have gotten to know? And my only point to you is, is that, the captain's remarks are true in this sense, the Iraqis are going to have to, you know, obviously take the leap politically, which they are beginning to do.

My, my advice to him is that you have to be somewhat patient. One, because the grass roots reconciliation is beginning to translate into national, national changes. But also, these are people who are learning what it means to be involved in democracy. They, they're adjusting, they haven't had the same experiences that we've had.

CHARLES GIBSON: Let me turn to politics, and the real political pro in the family. A year from now, a year from this day, we're gonna now who has custody of this cottage for the next four years. You got a gut sense as to who it's gonna be?

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: No, I have absolutely no idea. No idea, I don't know who our nominee's gonna be from the Republican Party and & So we'll have a very interesting year watching from the sidelines, and I'm glad we'll be on the sidelines this time.

CHARLES GIBSON: He's got a sister who's endorsed one candidate, a nephew who's endorsed another, a second nephew who's endorsed a third, can't these Bushes&get together --

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: Stay together? [LAUGHS]

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Either that or my mother wisely has said, okay, you pick this camp, you pick that camp, you pick this camp.

CHARLES GIBSON: Shouldn't the family be united on this, they're -- they stick together pretty well --

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: I can -- I'll tell you this, they will be united behind the Republican whoever it is when the nomination is finished and we know who it is.

CHARLES GIBSON: And Mr. President, three months from now, we'll know who the nominees are, essentially, this thing is so front-loaded --

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Amazing, isn't it, yeah. Uh, you know --

CHARLES GIBSON: What's your sense of, of who it'll be.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: I'm like Laura, I really don't know, um &uh, and if I didn't I wouldn't wanna opine about it.

CHARLES GIBSON: You said --

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: I have a sense -- I have a sense that, um & I think, I think we're gonna wanna reevaluate a primary system that gets so front-end-loaded. It's, I'm not sure what to think about it, I do -- I, I, I, I know people are adjusting, all the campaigns are coming up with game -- new game plans, but &

CHARLES GIBSON: This thing has been going for a year. And, I wonder to what extent it inhibits your ability to get anything done in Washington and to govern.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Yeah. I don't think so, I don't -- certainly not on foreign policy. Um &

CHARLES GIBSON: But you're not gonna get immigration done in this year, you're not --

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: No --

CHARLES GIBSON: -- gonna get Social Security reform done --

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: No, I know --

CHARLES GIBSON: -- you're not gonna get health-care reform done because everything is so politicized --

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: We may get some health-care reform done. But you're right, it's, uh, you know, and we're not gonna raise taxes. Unless they can override my vetos.

CHARLES GIBSON: And it's almost impossible to get war funding worked out --

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: We'll get something done on the vets -- oh, we'll get war funding.

CHARLES GIBSON: You will.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Absolutely.

CHARLES GIBSON: But -- but we're gonna go through all kinds of political handstands --

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: And shouldn't --

CHARLES GIBSON: -- first. PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: And shouldn't, as a matter of fact on that issue, the Congress, uh, oughta put aside their & philosophical differences with, you know, with the decision I made, uh, on Iraq, and fund these troops. We'll get something -- we'll get a lot, we'll get some, good stuff done on veterans, we got the Dole - Shelala Commission, made some very strong recommendations that the administration strongly supports. We -- we -- we can get some positive things done, but you're right, you know, you get beyond June or July, heading into those conventions, it's & pretty much Presidential politics--

CHARLES GIBSON: But it almost goes back to last June and July that everything has had a -- has been seen through a political prism in Washington. If there's one thing you could get done, one thing, that you could get done in your last year of office, what would it be?

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: That's, make sure those vets get, uh, uh, you know, a modern &system that is &where the bureaucracy functions as smoothly as possible, and that-- I believe we will, get some positive things done for the veterans.

CHARLES GIBSON: You have said you don't wanna comment politically but you did tell a book author that you thought Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee --

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: I did. [LAUGHS] I got caught. [LAUGHTER] I do, I think she's a very formidable candidate, and, one -- one of the interesting things, that she brings is that she has been under pressure. She understands the klieg lights. You know what I'm talking about.

CHARLES GIBSON: Sure.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: You are the klieg lights. And, [LAUGHS] And it's, &you, it's & Heading out to -- heading into this stretch in the primaries and heading into the general election, is, is really the difference between minor leagues and big leagues. And --

CHARLES GIBSON: You wanna get caught on the Republican side too?

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: No, I don't, I really, I really, believe the race is wide open. Uh, and & it's, it's hard for me to gau-- I don't have a sense, I don't have -- 'cause I'm not out there talking to the -- In order to determine how well somebody's doing you gotta get a sense of that grassroots & and how they're feeling or who's organized because these early states, Iowa and New Hampshire, voter turn-out is really important.

CHARLES GIBSON: Mrs. Bush, what's the -- from your perspective, what do you think is the one thing & that these candidates, don't know or probably underestimate, about being President.

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: Oh -- about being President --

CHARLES GIBSON: Yep.

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: I -- you know, I don't know, I have no idea, but, I think that maybe, what the American people don't know, is how difficult it is to run for president. To run for office, and how much, both emotional and physical stamina you need, to run for office, and I think that's what, George is talking about and that's & You know, I think that -- people don't see it really. You just don't have any idea until you're really involved in it. What it means to travel around the country and speak over and over &

CHARLES GIBSON: You -- you said --

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: -- again.

CHARLES GIBSON: You said it's grueling. And candidates get tired and make mistakes. You see any made so far?

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Oh, I'm sure there are, uh --

CHARLES GIBSON: How about Obama saying that he would meet without preconditions with --

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: [LAUGHS]

CHARLES GIBSON: -- the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: I thought that was a &odd foreign policy, but, uh, I'm, I'm really -- [LAUGHS] I'm gonna try to stay outta these races. I would tell you what I think, uh, these candidates don't really understand is how complex the environment is inside the Oval Office. And how important it is, to have a set of principles from which you will not deviate, and, so that you can make good sound decisions. It is impossible I & maybe not, but I think it's impossible for anybody to fully comprehend, you know, how much incoming there is --

CHARLES GIBSON: Yeah.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: -- into the Oval Office, and therefore it's important, to have a very orderly& disciplined process, that enables people to come in and give you their opinion, in a timely fashion, so that there's enough data available for the President to deal with the problems in the world.

CHARLES GIBSON: Can they know & the psychological and maybe even, physical & burden, and pressure, of dealing with post-9/11 homeland security issues --

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: No, you can't. Uh, it's, it's, you just have to -- I mean but this has been the case throughout the presidency. Till you actually get in there, and understand the responsibilities that come with the office, you can't possibly, you can't possibly comprehend it, I'll tell you one thing that'll surprise 'em if they've got an open heart, is that the prayers of the people will affect 'em in a positive way. That has been one of the most surprising aspects of the presidency for me.

CHARLES GIBSON: Do you see it on wearing on him?

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: Sure. [LAUGHTER]

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: I thought I was doing pretty good. [LAUGHTER]

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: He's doing great but, I mean the seven years have flown by, they really have --

CHARLES GIBSON: Have they --

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: -- and we know this last year will fly by too.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: You know, just last year I was thinking about, how to deal with Iraq, I -- you know, I was, I was part of the people who didn't approve of Iraq. And when they asked the endless questions, do you approve of Iraq I was one, no, I didn't approve of what's going on. And wanted to do something about it and was confronted with a serious, decision. It was just a year ago & that I was, you know & listening to people and getting ready to make the -- make the decision, and it just seemed like & it was just yesterday, I mean it's unbelievable how much time's passed --

CHARLES GIBSON: If a person has an opportunity, in the role of the First Lady to observe the President and what he goes through for eight years&does that experience prepare the person to be president? II'm speaking &

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: Yes, in the --

CHARLES GIBSON: -- of course in the abstract --

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: -- totally, yeah, exactly, totally in the abstract. I think you, you certainly know what it's like, I mean there's no doubt about it, you know, you know the pressure, there is, you know the difficulties, you know the& You're very aware, and we certainly were this way too watching George's dad, I mean we were very, always very aware of what it was like to serve both the burdens of it and the great parts about it as well, and the wonderful opportunities you had, when you live in the White House and when you have the chance to meet people everywhere --

CHARLES GIBSON: So if the First Lady were to run, previous First Lady were to run for President, that that experience is very helpful.

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: I think it's very helpful, I mean I think it was very helpful for us to have been & around the White House as much as we were when his parents served there --

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: And that's what I meant by she --

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: -- she understands the klieg lights and the pressure --

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: That's right.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Having said that I do believe our candidate will beat her, if she happens to be the nominee. But --

CHARLES GIBSON: Whoever that candidate may be --

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Whoever -- whoever he may be in this case. [LAUGHTER] No question. There is no question, that, Senator Clinton, understands pressure better than any of the candidates, you know, in the race because she & she under -- she lived in the White House and sees it first -- could see it first-hand.

CHARLES GIBSON: What's the best part of being President?

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Uh -- [LAUGHS] &representing the greatest country on the face of the earth is one of the greatest&parts of being President. Seeing the heroic acts that Americans do on a daily basis, I was in a food bank in Richmond yesterday. And, the woman running the food bank I would describe as dedicated, focused and spunky. And, just so proud of her work. Being -- be -- being the commander-in-chief of a military, of decent, honorable, intelligence, courageous people who volunteer in the face of combat, and, and face the danger. I mean there's a lot that is good about this, I can't -- I don't think you can single out one thing --

CHARLES GIBSON: Do you think about legacy?

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: You know, I -- I tell people I read three books on Washington last year and if they're still writing on the first guy the 43rd guy isn't gonna be around to see it.

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: Mm-hmm.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: And I really bu -- I really mean that, I spent a lotta time reading about Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln had no earthly idea that the Gettysburg Address was a great speech. All he knew is after having given it, he was condemned by a press corps that thought the person that preceded him was much better. Because it, it, because of the length that his, of his predecessor's speech. You know, history, it's just, it, I, I've always felt that there needs to be a long leash to history. That you can't judge a administration, immediately. And, particularly one that has pushed hard for some big ideas, like, like, my administration has done.

CHARLES GIBSON: You just, it didn't get much notice, but you just celebrated your 30th wedding anniversary --

BUSHES: [LAUGHTER]

CHARLES GIBSON: Congratulations.

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: Thank you very much.

CHARLES GIBSON: And may there be 30 more.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Thank you, sir --

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: Thank you so much.

CHARLES GIBSON: What do you know about marriage now, that you didn't know 30 years ago.

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: Well, a lot I think but & I don't know, I mean I think when we decided to get married 30 years ago even though we only dated such a brief time I think we knew we would have this kind of close relationship. And we didn't know we'd have two girls, and, we're very thankful for them, that's always what I'm thankful most at Thanksgiving for because their birthday is this weekend. So that's what I'm reminded of every Thanksgiving.

CHARLES GIBSON: And, and does the pressures of the presidency, and being under the klieg lights & does it bring a couple together or does it put strains on the marriage.

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: I think it really brings us together.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Yeah. I think so too. It depends on the strength of the marriage. A weak marriage'll be torn apart by the pressures. I would suspect. A strong marriage, gets stronger.

CHARLES GIBSON: And will there be a White House wedding? Not decided yet?

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: We haven't decided --

CHARLES GIBSON: Gonna work it out this weekend?

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Ah, well --

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: [LAUGHS] Maybe, hopefully, maybe we can discuss it.

CHARLES GIBSON: Was it in the --

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: She just came off the book tour so we haven't &

CHARLES GIBSON: Gotten there?

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: Made any plans --

CHARLES GIBSON: Was it in this room that he --

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: No, it was behind, Aspen, the presidential cottage. Uh, Henry came, uh, earlier in the day and said I'd like to see you. And --

CHARLES GIBSON: And you knew.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: I knew, because I'd asked Jenna earlier that if Henry ever asks you to marry him, would you say yes. She said absolutely, I love him. And he came in and, and gave a very, uh &

CHARLES GIBSON: I heard you made him sweat --

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: -- adept presentation. [LAUGHS] Well, yeah, a slight bit, not a lot.

CHARLES GIBSON: How long did you make him sweat.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Not too long --

CHARLES GIBSON: 'Cause I have personal experience in this. [LAUGHTER]

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Uh, I, I, I, I --

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: The way you made him sweat was say yes immediately before Henry had had the chance to -- he was all prepared. [LAUGHTER] What he wanted to say, and, George just said oh, okay.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: No, I actually said you got a deal.

CHARLES GIBSON: Oh.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Yeah. And, uh, and, he said well, he basically said -- He's probably gonna be furious at me for talking about it but he said, I've got some more -- if -- and it is my understanding -- I've got some more talking points, and I-- [LAUGHTER] He was a won -- he's a wonderful kid and & we're looking forward to --

FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: We're happy.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Yeah.

CHARLES GIBSON: Have a happy Thanksgiving to both of you.

Posted by Mark Silva at 3:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)

by Mark Silva

At the end of this month – assuming that President Bush’s public job approval doesn’t jump from its current trough of 32 percent to 40 percent or higher – the second-term leader will surpass former President Richard Nixon in the number of months running with a sub-40 percent rating.

That will catapult Bush into second place for this dubious honor in the Gallup Poll’s post World War II-tracking of presidential approval ratings.

But Bush will have to fend off most of the public's approval for much of the rest of his term to make No. 1. That top, or bottom, honor belongs to President Harry Truman, whose public approval hovered below 40 percent in the Gallup Poll from October 1950 to December 1952 – for 26 consecutive months.

Bush’s approval rating has hovered below 40 since September 2006 – matching Nixon’s 13 months (from July 1973 until his resignation from the presidency in August 1974).

The president, whose approval stood at 32 percent in the latest Gallup Poll – in a survey of Americans taken Nov. 11-14 – stands only marginally higher than Congress in this regard. The public’s approval for Congress stood at just 20 percent in that survey.

In his most recent quarter in office, Bush averaged 33.2 percent in job approval, the second lowest quarterly average of his presidency – yet an improvement over the previous quarter’s average of 31.8 percent, which indeed ranked as the lowest period of his administration.

Among the 248 quarters that Gallup has measured since this work began after the last World War, only 18 have scored lower than Bush’s last quarter.

Over the course of his entire presidency, Bush’s public approval has averaged 52.2 percent, which places him in the middle of the post-World War II presidential pack.

That’s because Bush’s popularity soared to 90 percent in the Gallup Poll in the weeks following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

His first term average was better than most presidents, 62.2 percent.

Yet his slumping approval in his second term – averaging 38.8 percent for the term so far – also rivals Truman’s second-term average of 36.5 percent, and the record-low term average of Nixon’s truncated second term, 34.4 percent.

“The trend line on Bush’s quarterly averages throughout his presidency shows most prominently the effects of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which produced a spike in support for him,’’ Gallup’s Jeffrey Jones has reported. “The events surrounding the attacks led to him receiving some of the highest approval ratings in Gallup polling history. Since then, his average approval rating has declined nearly every quarter. In fact, the most recent quarter is only the second time in his second term as president that his quarterly average did not decline from the prior quarter.

“Bush’s second term in office has been a difficult one for him, due in large part to the ongoing war in Iraq,’’ Jones reports. “He has averaged a 38.8% approval rating in his second term so far, which threatens Truman (36.5% in his second term) and Nixon (34.4% in his truncated second term) for the lowest average in any presidential term since World War II.’’

Posted by Mark Silva at 2:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (18)

by James Oliphant

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether Washington, D.C.'s strict ban on handguns is constitutional, perhaps setting the stage for an unprecedented public debate on gun rights and adding a volatile issue to the ongoing presidental campaign.

For gun-rights advocates, today is a red-letter day, one they've been waiting for decades.

"I'm on cloud nine," said Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, minutes after the order from the Supreme Court was handed down Tuesday.

Gottlieb has reason to be optimistic. While the modern court hasn't ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment, its conservative majority may be inclined to make an emphatic statement about gun ownership as an individual right. And, as Gottlieb points out, the worst-case scenario -- a statement from the high court denying that such a right exists -- would galvanize the gun lobby and its supporters into furious political action during an election year.

The District of Columbia bans ownership of handguns, even in the home. The justices (the votes of four of which are necessary to decide to hear a case) will review whether such a ban infringes on residents' constitutional rights. The ruling, which likely will come in June, could have a cascade effect on similar bans across America, including one in the city of Chicago.

A federal appeals court in Washington ruled this spring that the District's ban violated the Second Amendment, forcing the city government to appeal the issue to the Supreme Court.

Posted by Jim Oliphant at 2:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (63)

by Frank James

Anyone who follows Congress and cares about its endangered tradition of compromise is a little more concerned after yesterday's announcement by Rep. Mike Ferguson, a Republican moderate from New Jersey, that he's not running for re-election.

As the Politico noted, eight of the 17 Republicans who aren't running for re-election are centrists, and some of their seats stand a good chance of now being picked up by Democrats, not new Republican moderates.

It's yet another example of how in congressional politics, the center cannot hold.

This passage from the Politico story captured the moment well:

“It’s not a good time to be a moderate in American politics,” said Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.). “Ask Joe Lieberman.”

“The money has moved away from the parties, who used to be the enforcement mechanisms, to groups on the extreme right and left, and it’s killing us,” Davis said.

This state of affairs is partly of Congress's own making. Lawmakers liked the benefit they received from legislative redistricting over the years which locked in most congressional districts for one party or the other.

They also benefitted from campaign-finance laws that favor incumbents who, more than challengers, have the connections to raise the needed sums in the small amounts required by those laws.

All of this just further deepens the partisan trench warfare on Capitol Hill.

The Politico's headline reads: "Retirements push GOP to the right." The upshot of that rightward movement is that Congress, which is already often gridlocked because of the hard left and right divide on Capitol Hill, will probably become even more so.

That's likely to matter less, at least for Democrats, if one of their number retakes the White House and they add to their seats in the Senate and House after next year's election.

In that scenario, congressional Democrats probably would be able to move more legislation to the presidential bill-signing stage, though a Republican minority in the Senate could still effectively stop any proposals it didn't like.

But it pretty much assures the American people that whichever party wins the White House, the nastiness of the current political climate on Capitol Hill isn't likely to dissipate anytime soon.

Posted by Frank James at 1:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (16)

by Mark Silva, and updated

President Bush, who has vetoed two bills offering federal funding for research with new lines of embryonic stem cells, today praised laboratory developments in stem-cell work that bypasses the "culture of life'' debate over embryonic lines.

Teams of scientists in two places are reporting today that they have transformed ordinary human skin cells into stem cells using a technique pioneered with mice. From Kyoto University in Japan comes word of stem cells produced from human skin cells that were treated with genes that had been used in earlier experiments with mice. And from the University of Wisconsin at Madison comes word of similar work involving a different group of genes.

"President Bush is very pleased to see the important advances in ethical stem cell research reported in scientific journals today,'' White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said today. "By avoiding techniques that destroy life, while vigorously supporting alternative approaches, President Bush is encouraging scientific advancement within ethical boundaries.

Bush, with a televised address, had said early on in his presidency that he would forbid federal research using new lines of embryos -- but would support work with existing lines.

James Thomson, a University of Wisconsin-Madison researcher who led one of the teams that published their findings, said at a press conference today: "My feeling is that the political controversy set the field back about four to five years."

Thomson, who co-discovered human embryonic stem cells in 1998, credited the president with providing some funds for work starting in 2001 but said Bush's funding limits "represented very bad public policy as far as I'm concerned. The field has been much slower taking off than it would have been otherwise."

"President Bush was the first president to make federal funds available for human embryonic stem cell research -- and his policy did this in ways that would not encourage the destruction of embryos,'' his spokeswoman said today.

"In July 2006, the president highlighted research into the possibility of reprogramming adult skin cells into pluripotent stem cells without intruding on human embryos or eggs,'' she said. "One of the studies announced today was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health operating under the president’s stem cell policy.

"The president believes medical problems can be solved without compromising either the high aims of science or the sanctity of human life,'' Perino said. "We will continue to encourage scientists to expand the frontiers of stem cell research and continue to advance the understanding of human biology in an ethically responsible way.''

Posted by Mark Silva at 11:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (29)

by Sonja Deaner

Posted by Rhonda Stewart at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

One of the turkeys (seated on table) receiving presidential pardon today at Rose Garden ceremony. Photo by Mark Silva

by Mark Silva

President Bush, intent on proving that he is no lame duck yet, pardoned two turkeys today.

Their names are May and Flower.

They came from a farm near Dubois, Indiana, and will spend the rest of their "blissful, gobbling lives'' at Disney World, starting as honorary parade grand marshals this week, thanks to the traditional presidential pardon of Thanksgiving turkeys.

In a corn-stalk and pumpkin-framed ceremony in the Rose Garden that traces its roots to Harry Truman, Bush delivered a message to the two Hoover-bred, pardoned birds: "You cannot stand the heat, and you definitely are going to stay out of the kitchen.''

Bush also said that the clearly calculated names May and Flower, selected in online voting, are "certainly better than the names the vice president suggested, which are lunch and dinner.''

Lots of gobbling was heard on the sideline of this event, in which Bush praised the American economy and the compassion of the American people and gave thanks for the rite of Thanksgiving. Bush will head today for a holiday break at Camp David, including an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson and a year-ender with People magazine.

Addressing an audience including children from Campfire USA, Bush spoke fondly of all the letters he receives, like the one from a child in California who asked him if he ever gets a headache. "Not really,'' Bush explained. "Only when I have a press conference.''

No headaches, President Bush says, except "when I have a press conference.' Photo by Silva

Posted by Mark Silva at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (18)

by Mark Silva

With the State Department ready to announce a Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, Md., later this month, the White House insists that progress, if not "instant success,'' can be made at this summit.

Asked if the president is taking a big gamble with a conference involving parties that appear at such odds, Dana Perino, White House press secretary, said:

"‘I would say it’s an important initiative… The president is not a gambler.’’

There has been "a lot of posturing… in the walkup to this conference,'' Perino said. "They have seen the difficulties.. We recognize, at the Annapolis conference, we are not going to have instant results.’’

There will be discussions, she said. "There is a lot of history, and there is a lot of tension... But I think the motivations on all sides have been genuine.’’

Posted by Mark Silva at 9:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

by Mark Silva

Merry Christmas from Washington: With Congress balking at continued war funding, the White House says the Defense Department will issue furlough notices to about 100,000 civilian workers at military bases in mid-December.

The threat of notices is the White House’s way of reminding Congress that it must authorize continued funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The House has voted to tie $50 billion in continued funding to a timeline for troop withdrawals, but that measure has been shelved in the Senate. The White House is calling on Congress to approve a spending bill before year’s end. If funding isn’t provided, the Defense Department says, the stall will have a “profoundly’’ burdensome impact on its operations.

“Before you furlough anyone, you have to provide notice,’’ White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said this morning. “If Congress provides the full funding, then the Department of Defense will not have to take the step’’ of furlough notices. They will have to be issued in mid-December, she said.

Perino also acknowledges that this was a warning shot across the bow of Congress – “that’s exactly what that was.’’

“It is not us who is making any civilians suffer,’’ she said. “We are calling on Congress.’’

Posted by Mark Silva at 9:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (38)

by Jill Zuckman

Perhaps this is the equivalent of which presidential candidate you would want to have a beer with. Or maybe it's the 'who do you want in your living room for the next four years' test.

Picking presidents is a highly personal endeavor for most Americans. Now comes a Quinnipiac University national poll examining which presidential candidate would be most welcome as a guest at Thanksgiving dinner.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) is the top choice for 27 percent of all voters, followed closely by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) with 24 percent.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani weighs in with 22 percent of all voters, followed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) at 17 percent, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson at 14 percent and finally, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with 7 percent.

Among Democratic voters alone, Clinton is still on top, with 42 percent eager to welcome her to their Thanksgiving feast. Obama would yield just half the invitations, with 24 percent of Democrats welcoming him into their homes.

If there is a head-to-head match up in the general election between Clinton and Giuliani, Clinton appears to be ahead according to this turkey poll. Twenty-nine percent of women and 26 percent of men prefer to spend the holiday with Clinton, compared to 25 percent of women and 19 percent of men for Giuliani.

“Sen. Clinton and Mayor Giuliani are the top Democratic and Republican vote-getters. They’re also the people Americans would most welcome to Thanksgiving dinner, the people voters would like to spend time with," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “Both Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain do better as dinner guests than they do as candidates,” said Maurice Carroll, Director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Sadly, few Americans want to break bread with Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) or Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). Only two percent of voters would want Biden or Kucinich to join them for dinner, compared to just one percent for Dodd.

On the Republican side, voters are least interested in inviting Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) or Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Col.) for Thanksgiving. Three percent of voters would have dinner with Paul and just one percent would like to eat with Tancredo.

Posted by Mark Silva at 9:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)

by Christi Parsons

Barack Obama is planning to unveil an education plan today that would make affordable pre-school programs more widely available and offer pay incentive programs for effective teachers.

It would also allow schools to lengthen the teaching day or the school year. The $18 billion annual program would be offset by savings and cuts in federal agencies, including NASA.

According to the Obama camp, the idea about teacher incentives is not the same thing as merit pay, a concept long opposed by teachers' unions. It would not be tied to test scores and would be available to districts that wanted to "innovate" with new programs.

The cost of the early education plan would come partly from delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years, cutting costs in the government procurement process and auctioning surplus federal property. The Obama plan also cites "closing the CEO pay deductibility loophole" and ending the Iraq war as other ways to pay for the program.

Posted by Christi Parsons at 8:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (31)

by Frank James

A quick guided tour of some of the morning's most important, most interesting, or both, Washington-related stories.

Freddie Mac, one of the major mortgage-financing companies, was hit hard by the mortgage crisis, saying its third quarter loss widened to $2 billion.

The sense of being under siege lessened for Baghdad residents as the improved security environment and reduced sectarian violence allowed Iraqis to venture outdoors in ways they haven't been able to do in more than a year.

U.S. military commanders are saying Iraqi insurgents are signing up to kill Americans less for ideology than for cash which makes it more possible that the U.S. can peel them away from the insurgency with the right inducements.

Africa's worst humanitarian crisis may be in war-torn Somalia, not Darfur as is commonly thought, according to United Nations officials.

There are millions fewer new AIDS cases than were previously estimated, according to UN officials who will say that 33.2 million are infected globally instead of the 39.5 million they had estimated.

The Homeland Security Department's $1.2 billion plan to roll out radiation detectors at the nation's border crossings has suffered another setback as the agency has decided that the devices don't yet work well enough to be deployed.

The top three Democratic presidential candidates remain in a tight race in Iowa, with Sen. Barack Obama appearing to do slightly better than Sen. Hillary Clinton, whose strength in national polls doesn't appear to be having an effect in Iowa, or John Edwards.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is visiting Saudi Arabia, an ally, where a former prime minister of the subcontinent nation, Nawaz Sharif, has been living in exile. Pakistan has also released 3,400 activists who were arrested following the protests that occurred after Musharraf summarily replaced members of his countries supreme court.

The oil rich Persian Gulf states have long pegged their economies to the U.S. dollar but are now considering whether to continue that relationship since the falling dollar is spurring inflation in their nations.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture told Tysons Food it could not market its poultry as "made without antibiotics," and that an earlier decision by the agency that the large poultry company could use that label was a mistake.

Posted by Frank James at 8:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

by Mark Silva

Setting the table for Thanksgiving?

Don't forget to set a place for Hillary Clinton. Or Barack Obama. Or Rudy Giuliani.