May 31, 2007
Fred Thompson To Form Presidential Committee – Washington Post
Ok, my first correct prediction, though, looking back, I realize I’ve already made like four of them, so this is bound to go pretty bad.
Until then, I’ve got Fred Thompson and he’s got 10 couples:
“On the call, donors were told they are part of a group being called “First Day Founders” and were instructed to begin submitting checks to the campaign dated June 4. Each was asked to collect $4,600 from 10 couples — $2,300 per person is the maximum allowed under federal law — during the month of June.”
I know all the candidates do something like this, but clearly the thinking is that couples probably vote the same and that just in case someone wants to give more than $2,300, perhaps their partner doesn’t have the money and you can see where this is going. Again, it makes sense, but it’s no fun to think about.
No Comments » | 
Fred Thompson | 
Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett
May 31, 2007
[Note: This should have been published on Friday and containd a bunch more links]
This week’s Washington news cycle was dominated by a couple of not so minor bills making their way through congress – Immigration and Iraq War Funding. Then again, these bills or at least their debates have been around for so long that any given news week probably includes them. But the Iraq funding bill actually got a vote on Thursday, so I thought it was a good time to review some of the candidates stances.
Three of our eight - Clinton, McCain, and Obama– actually had to cast a vote and carve a meaningful notch in their congressional records. Not that voting for or against a war necessarily defines a candidates stance, but let’s take these candidates word for it until they really start debating whether they were “for it before they voted against it:”
Obama: No war.
Clinton: Not gonna do it (now).
McCain: Loading weapon…
In the public imagination, Obama and McCain are probably representative of the two poles when it comes to the stance of the eight on the war. There was never any doubt regarding McCain’s vote and we could be relatively certain that Obama would remain in the antiwar camp with a no-vote on the funding bill.
Meanwhile, there may have been some anxious Democrats (particularly on the left of the Left) waiting to see whether Hillary would capitulate since the President’s veto of the first war-funding bill. She did not, and she followed-up with a well-stated “I like the earmarks in this bill but I want a new course in Iraq, so I can’t vote for this bill…and btw, I’m still Wonderwoman when it comes to homeland security.”
Not that anyone was listening to Hill, especially when there’s a spat between McCain and Obama on the war funding that includes abandoning the troops, bongs, and other flack (not flak). Doing his best to make a statement in support of the war without being able to make a vote, Mitt Romney claimed that Hillary and Obama “cast a vote that singularly defines their lack of leadership and serves as a glaring example of an unrealistic and inexperienced worldview on national security.” Yup, that was Mitt Romney calling someone else’s worldview unrealistic…
So, three are on the record (again) in regards to the Iraq war. Clearly, the meaning of these stances will emerge further down the campaign trail if either side can provide anything comparable to a scorecard on Iraq. My bet is that we’ll see a draw-down in Iraq before the primaries and the Democrats will have the easier time claiming victory at that point, with the Republican hope that they can’t ride it until the following autumn. I can see McCain coming through such an affair with minor burns, but it might be the least of his worries in the Republican primaries. Meanwhile, I don’t think this scenario bodes well at all for Hillary, who is now set on a steady course for flip-flopville. It’ll be particularly interesting to see if the Dems are willing to use this smear on one of their own.
No Comments » | 
Clinton, Iraq War Stance, McCain, Obama, Romney | 
Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett
May 25, 2007
For a while now, I’ve been trying to figure out what this blog would be all about. The 2008 Presidential Election – yes. The candidates involved – yes. Grandstanding, broken promises, and sex scandals – definitely. But what could make it different from every other political fanatic’s blog (oh, I forgot b.s.) out there? A collaborative effort’s a good start, but how do I get a bunch of brilliant people on the same page? And what about my apparent obsession with the number 8?
Then I though: well, it at least needs to be a blog. So, I’ve decided it would be a good idea to actually write something. For now, this blog will be about the 2008 race (brilliant…) and I’ve decided to get things started by choosing eight candidates, categorized to the right. I’m thinking the choices alone will give us something to write about:
Hillary Clinton
John Edwards
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Barack Obama
Bill Richardson
Mitt Romney
Fred Thompson
My thinking is that these are currently the four front runners from each party that are either running and are likely to run. Which means I don’t think Al Gore or Newt Gingrich will run. Minus those two, these are the top four in most polls, but I invite debate and will even include a category for it: The Others.
As the poles change (and interpretations of the many poles may change as well) and new candidates declare (and if Gore or Gingrich declare I will endure some sort of blogosphere embarrassment dictated by other bloggers on this site) the eight will change. In fact, there will eventually only be two (or maybe three…nah, not in this country), so you can see that this eight thing is a loose category (and a catchy web address…).
1 Comment | 
About, Clinton, Edwards, Fred Thompson, Giuliani, McCain, Obama, Richardson, Romney, The Others | 
Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett
