John Edwards… hawk? It appears that during a speech in Israel, he was temporarily possessed by the spirit of Michael Ledeen.

In his speech, Edwards criticised the United States’ previous indifference to the Iranian issue, saying they have not done enough to deal with the threat.

Hinting to possible military action, Edwards stressed that “in order to ensure Iran never gets nuclear weapons, all options must remain on table.”

On the recent UN Security Council’s resolution against Iran, Edwards said more serious political and economic steps should be taken. “Iran must know that the world won’t back down,” he said.

Addressing the second Lebanon war , Edwards accused the Islamic Republic of having a significant role, saying Hizbullah was an instrument of Iran, and Iranian rockets were what made the organization’s attack on Israel possible.

Edwards also discussed Syria’s recent calls for peace with Israel, saying that “talk is cheap,” and that Syria was not doing enough to prove it was serious.

The former senator also said that Syria has been a great source of destabilization in the area, from its support of Hizbullah and Hamas, to its relationship with Iran, and for this it should be held accountable.

And then the article says Edwards began his speech with generous praise for Ariel Sharon!

Refreshing to hear this from a Democratic presidential contender. I just wish we would hear more details on what those “serious political and economic steps” ought to be. And exactly how a President Edwards would hold Syria accountable.

Somebody with a familiar name reports that former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is endorsing Romney.

If Hastert were still speaker, and if he hadn’t become associated with having no idea what was going on with Mark Foley, and completely fumbling the response and public statements in the aftermath, this endorsement would really mean something.

CNN checks out Obama’s school in Indonesia; here’s the summary from the Hotline:

CNN’s Vause went to Indonesia to check out the school Barack Obama attended, which Insight mag claimed was a madrassa.

Vause: “I’ve been to madrassas in Pakistan, and this school is nothing like that.”

More: “This school was established in 1934 by the Dutch. It has a very broad education. It doesn’t focus on religion. It has a very famous alumni. For example, the grandchildren of Indonesia’s second president attended this school. The current CEO of Garuda Airlines in Indonesia’s national carrier, was also a former student at Besuki Elementary. So this is just a normal elementary school, and there’s a good deal of confusion here how it could be confused as being an Islamic madrassa” (“Situation Room,” 1/22).

Vause: “Here, they’re taught science and math and practice traditional Indonesian dance. Besuki Elementary follows a national curriculum, just like it did in the ’60s and ’70s. Take a close look at Obama’s teachers, women and men, all in Western-style dress. There are religion classes once a week. Most of the 450 students are Muslim and are taught about Islam. The handful of Christians learn that Jesus is the son of God.”

Anderson Cooper reportedly punctuated the report with a slam at Insight, and/or Fox News: “Well, that’s the difference between talking about news and reporting it. You send a reporter, checks the facts and you decide at home.”

Howard Kurtz has more:

In an online posting, Insight called yesterday’s Washington Post article on the controversy a “hit piece” by the “liberal media establishment.”

While not addressing the veracity of the madrassah allegation, the magazine said it had contacted the Obama camp, which declined to comment.

“Insight’s story was not thinly sourced,” the posting said. “Our reporter’s sources close to the Clinton opposition research war room confirm the truth of the story. The Clinton camp’s denial has as much credibility as the ‘I never had sex with that woman’ statement.”

That response from Insight is not encouraging.

I recall raising this issue back in 2004 when some shocking, scandalous, and, if I recall correctly, never quite verified quotes from unnamed Democratic sources appeared in a column in another conservative publication.

Speaking from personal experience, it’s not impossible to get a Democratic campaign operative to talk to a reporter from a conservative-leaning publication… but it’s not exactly easy, either. There are trust issues to work out. The Democratic guys are always afraid you’re going to give them the shaft.

If you were the Hillary camp, and you had found out some shocking news about Obama’s education in his early years — and you wanted to do maximum damage to Obama among Democratic primary voters — would you leak the story to Insight? It’s not impossible, but it seems hard to picture. As it is, Obama’s camp can dismiss the story as “a right-wing smear” and very few Democratic primary voters will give it much thought.

This is not an exact transcript, but the best my fingers could keep up with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. The following takes place between 1:30 a.m. and 2:30 a.m Ankara Standard Time. Events occur in real time.

1:46 am: Bad muzak. Really, bad sound quality.

1:50 am: Lost Internet connection. Arrrgh. Want to get back to America.

1:53 am: Reconnect. Get another warning about the security certificate on Hillary’s site. Symbolic?

1:54 am: In the lower left hand corner, I’m getting “Unable to Connect to Text Server. You may be being blocked by your firewall. Please contact your network administrator or this event’s host.”

1:55 am: Back to muzak being piped in through a tin can.

1:59 am: I am breathless with anticipation. No, wait, that’s just tired.

2:00 am: She starts on time!

Hillary: Thanks for great response since announcement on Saturday. This amazing new technology can bring so many of us together.

For her brothers, she says, “Go Bears.” (Carpetbagger.)

Introduces Crystal Patterson, campaign blogger.

Let the conversation begin.

Barbara in Mass: What can I say to people who say America won’t elect a woman?

Hillary: I hope you we won’t know until we try. Any time we’ve broken barriers, required people to make a leap of faith.

Many women are equipped and ready to lead.I believe I would be the best candidate and the best president.

I do think it’s important that we demonstrate that womena re capable of serving at highest level of our government.

Carolyn: Do you regret vote on Iraq?

(I notice at this point the senator’s relentless nodding of her head as she speaks.)

I have said if we had known then when Pres asked for authority put inspectors in make sure he if we had known eveyrhing Pres would never have asked for such authority Congress would not have voted to give it to him.

Faced with very dangerous situation.

I raised questions about policy pursued from my position on Armed Services Committee. Made third trip to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Half the number of troops. Put real conditions on the Iraqi government.

Visited military hospital in Germany.

I do think we should threaten to cut funding for Iraqi army, Iraqi police, and security for the Iraqi leaders. Don’t understand why this president has given them such a blank check. (This line of argument is going to get some traction.)

Al-Qaeda in Iraq weren’t there before, but are there now.

Need to try to prevent Iran from expanding its influence in the region, and prevent from getting a nuclear weapon.

Kim in Winston Salem: How does New Orleans rank in your list of priorities?

Very high. (Surprise.)

When I was in Arkansas, went to visit often. Visited after hurricanes.

Mattie in Armonk New York, a 14 year old class president: What made you so inspirational? (This sounds like a question given to Chris Matthews in the Saturday Night Live sketch. “You’re great.”) 

Do what makes you happy. When I was young, I wanted to help people. (Help, as in, ‘control.’)

I worked for Children’s Defense Fund.

I had a very nice middle class upbringing. If you can get out and learn about the world and help people – that’s what I did, I volunteered through church group growing up.

Volunteer in campaigns. I hope you’ll volunteer in my campaign.

I missed the name – 55-year old hairdresser tough time paying mortgage, can’t afford health insurance. (Softball!)

I committed to affordable quality health care for everyone.

Didn’t you try that in 1993 and 1994? I worked at my husband’s request. We made a bunch of mistakes, and I learned from all of that, and I have the scars to show what we went through.

People are really focused on this.

It’s a problem of cost, of competition, also a question of will, political will. Are we going to roll up our sleeves and do this.

Allow people between 55 and 65 to buy into Medicare, or buy into federal employee health care plan.

Always admired the way you raised Chelsea in life in the fishbowl. Will she be taking a more active role in your campaign?

One of the things of raising an independent son or daughter, you want them to do what’s right for them.

Michael in New Rochelle, what are you going to do about terrorism?

We went through such a horrible time after 9/11, every one of us in the greater New York area knew somebody personally affected. It gave us a keener awareness of the threat.

Just this morning was at Ground Zero with victims affected by toxic dust released by the collapse of the buildings.

9/11 and threat of terrorism is never far from my mind. I want to continue to advocate for more resources, more funding, more personnel to protect our borders, ports…

I can’t sit and tell you there will never be another attack.

Linda in Pensacola, Fla. – end dependence on foreign oil?

Hillary: My answer is longer and more wonkish than I can tell you in a brief web chat.

We are literally over the barrel with people who do not mean us well, not just in Middle East and Iran, but Venezuela. Previous question goes hand in hand.

It’s also a jobs issue. Smart, home-grown energy would give a lot of our people a better future. I support all kinds of ethanol.

Solar, geothermal, do more on hydrogen, longer term goals. Do more on conservation. Very impressed with what California has done with imposing conservation and energy efficiency standards.

Would like to use coal reserves.

Take away subsidies to big oil. Strategic Energy Fund, on par with Manhattan Project, funded by windfall profits tax on big oil. Let’s put this on the fast track.

Jean from New Jersey: Favorite movie?

When I was very much younger, Wizard of Oz. (Hmm – Obama, Edwards, Richardson – who needs a heart, who needs a brain, and who needs courage?)

In college and law school, Casablanca.

In the last years, Out of Africa.

Rachel in Austin, Tex: improve relationships with other countries?

We cannot jail all of the bad guys who wish us ill, but we can surround them. We have so squandered post-9/11 goodwill. Start at the top with the president.

I don’t understand why our current president will not talk with people he thinks are bad. There are a lot of bad actors in this world.

We are not being smart about how we solve our problems.

I could talk for the rest of this webcast on this topic. When President Bush pulled out of Kyoto, I thought that was a mistake. Don’t pretend global climate change isn’t real. Come up with a different process, but don’t walk away from the problem. We need to get back into a dialogue with the world.

Afford a college education?

College education is increasingly expensive, and hard with the rising costs of everything else.

(Sorry – this was a long stretch about the importance of education, and how hard it is for many families to afford it; the senator hopes to get the cost down.)

Nancy in Wisconsin: retirement is an impossible dream. Give me hope. (Perhaps even the audacity of hope.)

Hillary: I understand the discouragement. Pensons are no longer guaranteed. Workers lose pensions because of decisions in the boardroom. Social Security is a critical part of everyone’s planning. We’ve got to come up with some new ways to help you save for retirement.

Can’t be left hanging by your employer or by your government. Something I’m going to be focused on during this campaign.

Thanks and farewells.

Overall reaction: Do you remember the sketch where Darrell Hammond played Arnold Schwarzenegger, trying to lay out his agenda, and basically saying, “I vant to solve the problem and things of that nature”? (Here’s the transcript.)

Under Gray Davis, we see it all the time, taxes go up, up, up.. and jobs go away, away, away. To Nevada.. and Arizona.. and all of those places. But I will stop this! How? Specifically.. [ for clarification, his text now appears as a SUPER ] by keeping jobs in California.. and creating new jobs. Good jobs! Where people come to the place.. and work with the employer.. and he gives them the money for doing these things!

The answers felt like that. A lot.

Having said that, Sen. Clinton came across as less scripted, less stiff, and more personable than I expected. Clearly, she went into this event aiming to come across as pleasant and “normal”, not as a policy wonk versed in the minutia of pending legislation. Will it work? Well, at this early date, who was watching?

Hotline thinks they know when Hillary taped her presidential exploratory committee announcement; they suspect the day after Obama’s announcement.

In other news, Rudy Giuliani has signed Patrick Ruffini, who managed e-communications for the Bush campaign in 2004 and subsequently the RNC. Game over, man, game over. Seriously, congratulations to the candidate and his new campaign staffer.

Congressional Quarterly has completed a detailed profile of Obama, looking at his voting record over the past two years, in their traditional studiously nonpartisan and evenhanded fashion. A couple of highlights:

Obama’s voting record doesn’t reflect that nonpartisan streak. In his first two years, he sided with his party on 97 percent of the votes that pitted most of his caucus against most Republicans — a party unity score higher than all but five other Senate Democrats in the 109th Congress, and higher than those of any of the other likely Democratic presidential candidates now in the Senate, including Clinton.

In his legislative work, however, Obama has formed partnerships with Republicans — including Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, one of the Senate’s most conservative members — that have led to legislative successes. And he made a notable break with his party two weeks ago, when he was one of nine Democrats who voted against a leadership effort to kill a proposal by Republican Jim DeMint of South Carolina, another of Obama’s occasional legislative partners, for broader disclosure of federal funding earmarks… 

In a way, then, Obama the presidential candidate could face the best of all possible worlds: just enough Senate work to show potential as a legislator, but not enough to have his ideas or his effectiveness truly tested in a way that could provide ammunition for his opponents.

“Potential can be more useful than a record,” said Samuel L. Popkin, a professor of political science at the University of California at San Diego and an expert on presidential campaigns. “Records nail you to messy details that get in the way of looking forward and building coalitions.”

 Beyond Ideology

 

So far, Obama has spent much of his Senate energy on non-ideological issues, reflecting his view that most Americans don’t sort themselves into the same sorts of polarized ideological camps that Washington does. “I imagine they are waiting for a politics with the maturity to balance idealism and realism, to distinguish between what can and cannot be compromised, to admit the possibility that the other side might sometimes have a point,” he writes in his new book.

 

What that means in practice, though, is that many of his signature issues either have no powerful enemies or, if they do, are shielded by a solid base of support in both parties. They include “good government” bills such as his ethics proposals and last year’s laws, both cosponsored with Coburn, to create a database of federal spending and crack down on no-bid contracts in rebuilding the Gulf Coast.

It’s a positive profile, but you can start to see the outlines of a critique forming here, in the vein of Walter Mondale’s jab at Gary Hart in 1984: “Where’s the beef?” Who is Obama willing to make angry? Pledging to be nonpartisan and cooperative and polite and respectful and all of that is great, but where is Obama’s line in the sand? What issue is he willing to play hardball on?

I’m reminded of the frustrated question of Clinton speechwriter Andrei Cherny to John Kerry, after the Massachusetts senator had torpedoed an idea to make the central theme of his presidential campaign ‘national service’:

“You know you’re going to have to step out and take a risk at some point, right?”

Didn’t see this coming, but maybe I should have:

On the eve of her historic presidential announcement, Hillary Clinton lost the support of liberal big-ticket donor George Soros to the Barack Obama campaign, the Daily News has learned.

Soros’ switch was a stunner in the Clinton camp, which had hoped to woo him back amid a flurry of exchanges.

“There were e-mails and conference calls,” said one Democrat familiar with the shock that met the Soros defection. A spokesman for Soros stressed that he would support Clinton if she wins the Democratic nomination and noted he supported Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign.

Soros’ move was the latest sign that Clinton’s hold on big-ticket donors is not as strong as many thought. Team Hillary also recently lost Wall Street fund manager James Torrey to the Illinois senator’s camp.

This is not the end of the world for Hillary, but this removes any doubt anyone had about whether Obama would have access to funds to give her a real race.

UPDATE: On a related note, the Hotline notes Hillary won’t accept federal matching funds for either the primary and the general election, prompting David Weigel to respond, “We’ve known for years that Clinton has the potential to raise more money than God, and God certainly doesn’t worry about post-Watergate ‘good government’ laws. The larger issue is whether Clinton’s move compels every other serious candidate to ditch federal matching funds. If so, one of the next president’s first acts in office could be (blissfully) the dismantling of this ridiculous system.”

Man, I hate campaign finance reform. By the time you get used to the new rules, they’re obsolete.

Poor Bill Richardson.

A few posts below, I noted the odd, vague comments from Brit Hume back in 2004, when he said that Richardson was rejected as a possible running mate for Al Gore because he had done something “politically incorrect.”

Well, now some details are dribbling out from that noted right-wing rag, known for its relentless desire to smear any Democratic candidate that it can… the, um, Huffington Post, from Steve Clemons, a former policy advisor to Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico.

I will frame this as a “question” for Bill Richardson.

Have you behaved inappropriately or not in public settings with female members of your government administration, jokingly or not? Have you gestured to female public servants and political appointees — who work as colleagues with you — and made lewd gestures, specifically pointing to them and then pointing at your crotch with a room full of media and other politicos there in the room?

I ask this not to demean or undermine Richardson.

I ask it because I was not in the room when this particular incident occurred but many others were — and rumors have long swept around Santa Fe that Bill Richardson makes a constant festive joke out of demeaning women. These incidents don’t have to do with the comments by Lt. Governor Diane Denish that Richardson is a “touchy” and “feely” Governor. They have to do with questions about a far more crude kind of gesture that demeans professional women.

These concerns I have heard may be completely contrived, but after speaking with several senior level New Mexico officials, my sense is that it needs to at a minimum be addressed by the Governor who wants to be President. Some suggest that Richardson “can’t stop himself” or “doesn’t even realize what he is doing” or thinks that “this sort of thing is part of New Mexico’s political scene.”

Welcome to the race, Governor. Apparently some folks at the HuffPo would prefer another Democratic nominee.

UPDATE: Elsewhere, Mickey Kaus, in a brief, cryptic comment about Richardson, writes “skirts” in bold. Is this a hint, Mickey?

Howard Kurtz writes about the Is-Hillary-Shopping-Dirt-On-Osama’s-Old-Madrassa story, and indicates skepticism, until named sources come forward.

Thus, in the first media controversy of the 2008 campaign, two of the leading candidates find themselves forced to respond to allegations lacking a single named source.

“The allegations are completely false,” says Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs. “To publish this sort of trash without any documentation is surprising, but for Fox to repeat something so false, not once, but many times is appallingly irresponsible. This is exactly the type of slash-and-burn politics the American people are sick and tired of.” Obama, aides note, is a Christian and belongs to a Chicago church.

Clinton campaign officials were relieved that what they regard as an absurd allegation was not picked up more widely. “It’s an obvious right-wing hit job by a Moonie publication that was designed to attack Senator Clinton and Senator Obama at the same time,” says Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson. Insight, like the Washington Times, is owned by a company controlled by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. No one answered the phone at Insight’s office yesterday and its editor did not respond to an e-mail request for comment.

If Insight stands by its story, it would probably help if they replied to inquiries. If they don’t stand by their story, they ought to say so and say why.

As the Democratic Primary heats up, we’re almost certainly going to be hearing a lot about “rising inequality” and “a raw deal for working-class Americans” and “runaway greed in America’s boardrooms” and “two Americas” and “I served in Vietnam”— sorry, got carried away there. If you’re looking for a hot-button topic, CEO pay is one that gets blood boiling, often on both sides of the aisle.

Robert Samuelson, no corporation-hating lefty, says the “the public pounding of CEOs for their lavish pay packages is amply justified.” Debra Saunders calls it “the welfare state for CEOs.”

(One wonders when one of Obama’s rivals will make hay of a fact noted by the Chicago-based sharp guys at RealClearPolitics:

Obama’s wife, Michelle, earns $45K a year sitting on the corporate board of Treehouse (formerly Dean) Foods, whose biggest customer is – you guessed it – Wal-Mart. Not to mention that Treehouse appears to have a bit of an executive compensation issue.

 

According to the article by Greg Hinz of Crain’s Chicago, the CEO of Treehouse earned $26.2 million in salary and stock options last year, making him the second highest paid exec in the state, ahead of the CEO’s of corporate giants Motorola and Abbot Labs. And three other execs at Treehouse made over $10 million last year, all working for a company with only $700 million in revenues.

I come to bury CEO salaries, not to praise them. But after reading the Economist’s report, I thought of a metaphor that helps explain why companies throw gobs upon gobs of money at their chief executive: The hiring process for NFL head coaches.

Usually, when a team needs a new head coach, it’s because they’ve had a disappointing season or seasons, and they see no hope that the old coach was going to be able to fix it. So the franchise is in a jam. Fans are losing interest, seats are going empty, the media is ripping them. They can’t attract free agents.

The quickest and easiest way to restore confidence and optimism for the future is to find  a former head coach who has already won a championship. Generally, they need to be coaxed out of retirement, and they don’t come cheap – think Bill Parcells, Joe Gibbs, Mike Holmgren, Jimmy Johnson, Mike Ditka, George Siefert, Dick Vermeil.You can usually count the number of championship-winning coaches not under contract on any one time on one or two hands.

If a previous Super Bowl-winning coach isn’t available, the next-safest thing is to hire a veteran coach who has at least built winning teams in the past – a Marty Schottenheimer, a Tom Coughlin, a Dennis Green. (Tony Dungy may be jumping from this category to the one above.) There are few more of these guys, but again, they usually can command next-to-top dollar.

You can go with a highly-touted assistant coach from somewhere, or you can promote from within. (Lovie Smith has obviously paid off well for the Chicago Bears.) But generally, these choices are seen as a little riskier, and aren’t likely to persuade the fans, players, and the media that the team is going to get a lot better soon.

The problem is, coming in to manage a franchise that has been run into the ground and needs to be rebuilt from square one is not a terribly appetizing job. You know that the first year is almost certainly going to be spent on rebuilding; it may be two to three years before all of ‘your guys’ are in place, when you’ve got the right personnel for the offensive and defensive systems you want to run, etc.

So how do you persuade a big-name coach to risk his reputation, to leave the cushy network job behind? Most often, the only way is to throw money at him by the truckload.

(Bill Simmons wrote a fascinating examination of younger coaches and older coaches, and concluded the young, hungry guys might be a better bet.)

What applies to NFL franchises applies to the Acme Widget company. The CEO is the face of the organization in the way that a head coach is. A company that’s in trouble knows it can’t suffer too many consecutive disappointing years. Promoting from within or getting some little-known guy might work, or it might not. The safest way to ensure the company will get out of the slump is to get somebody with a well-established reputation, preferably by turning a company around someplace else. There are only so many of those guys out there, and Acme Widgets are competing with a lot of other companies eager to give them the big chair.

This isn’t to say that all of these guys deserve their massive bonuses, or that this won’t be a potent issue on the campaign trail. But an artfully contrarian candidate might be able to raise the inconvenient truth that executive pay, like everything else in this world, is set by supply and demand. If there were a larger supply of veteran chief executives who seemed a reliable bet to improve a company’s fortunes, there would be greater competition, and thus companies wouldn’t have to pay them so much.

Bad news for Newt supporters, if I’m interpreting his comments on Fox News Sunday correctly…

WALLACE: But you sound as if you think about running for president as a last resort, not as a first resort.

GINGRICH: Exactly. I mean, nobody’s ever said it quite that way, but you’re right.

I believe that, as a citizen, that if I can provide solutions, if I can develop new ideas — and we’re going to share these with all the candidates in both parties. If we can, as we have with the Center for Health Transformation, develop an entire generation of new ideas on health care, if we can do that on energy, on education, on national security, on immigration, that I’ve served as a citizen in a very effective way.

If, in that process, it becomes necessary to run, then I’ll run. But I — and I know this sounds naive, but the Contract with America preceded winning; it didn’t follow it.

WALLACE: Last resort, not first resort.

GINGRICH: Last resort.

Also in that interview, Newt gave Hillary Clinton odds of “6-in-10 or better” of winning the Democratic nomination.

With John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Bill Richardson in the top tier, and Tom Vilsack, Chris Dodd, and Smeagol Dennis Kucinich running as well*, the Democrats have a full house, a mix of veterans and new faces, inside-the-beltway candidates, outside-the-beltway candidates…

So if Joe Biden goes and wins the South Carolina Primary, it’s going to be hilarious. (As opposed to Hillary-ous.)

Think about it. Vilsack either wins Iowa, or causes it to be split so that no one gets out with an impressive win. Nevada goes for Edwards because the unions love him. (Or maybe Richardson displays some Western-state appeal?) Either Obama or Hillary win New Hampshire. And then South Carolina goes for Biden, lousing up the momentum of everyone else.

At this point nothing is certain, but we may not see a rerun of 2004, where Kerry had the nomination more or less sewn up after winning New Hampshire…

*And maybe Al Gore! And maybe Wes Clark! And maybe (oh, please! oh, please!) John Kerry! And…

Poor Bill Richardson. “And in other news, this other guy announced he was running for the Democratic nomination, too.”

In his interview with Stephanopoulos, Richardson made it clear that he will try to leverage this background by drawing a contrast between the extent of his experiences and those of his likely competitors for the nomination.

“The next president must be able to make us energy independent, must be able to make schools better, create jobs, give the American people, every American, a fair shot,” said Richardson. “To get that done, you need real-life experience. All I’m saying is, a lot of these folks can make speeches about all these things. I’ve actually done it.”

Richardson also is a resident of a western state, making him unique among the major candidates for the nomination.

Richardson’s unique in a lot of ways. Hispanic. Governor (not counting Vilsack). Represents a red state (again, not counting Vilsack). Varied resume.

Then again, there’s this unfair rumor thing that’s been floating around…

On Hillary’s web site, pollster Mark Penn has a column on why she can win. One part that stood out to me:

Some of the commentators look at the ratings of people who have not yet been in the crossfire, and say they might have a better chance. Recent history shows the opposite. The last two Democratic presidential candidates started out with high favorable ratings and ended up on Election Day (and today) far more polarizing and disliked nationally (see the CBS poll below). Hillary is the one potential nominee who has been fully tested, with the Republicans spending nearly $70 million in the last decade to try to defeat her. She is not just strong, but the strongest Democrat in the field. Hillary is the only one able to match or beat the Republicans after years of their partisan attacks on her.

“Not yet been in the crossfire”… I wonder which rival for the Democratic nomination Penn is referring to?

In other news, there’s been a lot of questions about the timing of this – why a Saturday?

A Saturday announcement means that the news of the exploratory committee is most likely the top story in Sunday’s newspapers, usually the most-read edition of the week. It could or should dominate the Sunday morning shows, for whatever that’s worth. It may step on Obama’s announcement from earlier in the week, even though the timing seems highly reactive.

For the second-tier candidates – the Tom Vilsacks, this Chris Dodds, the Tom Tancredos, the Jim Gilmores – announcing an exploratory committee is genuine news, since few people see it coming. For the lawmakers who have had presidential buzz surrounding them for years – the John McCains, the Rudy Giulianis, the John Edwardses, and most clearly, the Hillary Clintons – announcing the filing of papers for an exploratory committee is really more of a formality. Perhaps Team Hillary realized there was not much point in putting off the inevitable.

UPDATE: Over in the New York Post, John Podhoretz is impressed. “The simple phrase Hillary used to announce her presidential bid yesterday – “I’m in, and I’m in to win” – is the best political sound bite in years… In any case, the Obama Moment has passed. This is not to deny Obama’s formidable challenge to Hillary or the profound seriousness of his candidacy. But he’s a little like the winner of “American Idol” going up against a rock superstar who has spent decades in the spotlight.”

The great Patrick Ruffini looks at Newsweek’s latest poll, finds their sample was 26 percent Republican and 37 percent Democrat (!), re-weights it to compare to the 2006 election, and finds (surprise!) very different results.

I’m not going to complain if a poll has more Democrats than Republicans, but come on, Newsweek. A gap of 11 percent suggests you’re not even trying to get your sample to resemble the pool of voters who actually show up on Election Day.

In other weekly newsmagazine news, I picked up the international edition of Time magazine yesterday, the one with “Does Sending More Troops To Iraq Make Any Sense?” as the lead story. I counted about five and a quarter pages of ads – the first three pages, and both sides of the back cover.

I wonder if the international edition is doomed…

To the surprise of no one, Hillary’s running. (And the logo is “Hillary for President, not Hillary Clinton for President.”) Video here.

As she says, she’s not just starting a campaign, she’s beginning a conversation. Which is probably something like a “listening campaign,” which is how she began her campaign for the Senate in 2000.

“We all need to be part of the discussion, if we’re all going to be part of the solution.”

So no opt-outs, huh? We can’t choose to not be part of the discussion, nor to choose to not be part of the solution?

“All of us have to be part of the solution.”

Oh. I wonder if some part of that statement got cut off? “That’s why I’m setting up reeducation camps around the country, so all of you can get with the program.”

“Let’s talk about how to bring the right end to the war in Iraq and to restore respect for America around the world.”

“Let’s talk about how to bring the right end to the war within my party over my position on Iraq, and to restore respect for my position as frontrunner.”

“How to make us energy independent and free of foreign oil. How to end the deficits that threaten Social Security and Medicare.And let’s definitely talk about how every American can have quality affordable health care.”

Okay, my only observation during this point is that on the video, apparently the cameraman fell asleep, because her head is centered, then right, then left a bit, then up and then down. Maybe someone decided that the standard head-on shot could be softened by slow movements of the camera a few inches one way, then another way.

You know, after six years of George Bush, it is time to renew the promise of America. Our basic bargain that no matter who you are or where you live, if you work hard and play by the rules, you can build a good life for yourself and your family.”

I kept waiting for Hubby to pop up in the background and give her the thumbs up on his oft-used phrase, “people who work hard and play by the rules.”

“I grew up in a middle-class family in the middle of America, and we believed in that promise. I still do. I’ve spent my entire life trying to make good on it.”

I have lived my dream of spending eight years living in public housing, and wish to do it for another eight more.

“Whether it was fighting for women’s basic rights or childrens’ basic health care. Protecting our Social Security, or protecting our soldiers. It’s a kind of basic bargain, and we’ve got to keep up our end.”

You know, our soldiers are actually pretty good at protecting themselves. But I’m sure they can sleep easier, knowing Hillary Clinton is watching over them.

“So let’s talk. Let’s chat. Let’s start a dialogue about your ideas and mine.”

Let’s not.

“Because the conversation in Washington has been just just a little one-sided lately, don’t you think? And we can all see how well that works.”

Oh, come on. There have been two sides in Washington – on one side, the corrupt pork-barrel-loving free-spending big government greedheads who want open borders and to use the public trough as a way to line their own pockets, and then on the other side, we’ve had the Democrats. I take it back, Senator Clinton is absolutely right. The conversation in Washington has been one-sided; it could use some actual conservatism.

“And while I can’t visit everyone’s living room, I can try.”

Americans, please lock and deadbolt your doors.

“And with a little help from modern technology, I’ll be holding live online video chats this week, starting Monday.”

“I got the idea from my husband. Since leaving office, Bill has been raving about how much fun he has chatting for hours and hours with ‘young former constituents’ over the Internet.”

“So let the conversation begin. I have a feeling it’s going to be very interesting.”

Total agreement, Senator. Good luck.

UPDATE: Brian asks, “so when was this taped? The greenery in the background is not today in Chappaqua.”

Didn’t they have a warm spell lately? An early bloom? Or is Hillary in warmer climes? Or are we looking at evergreens in the background?

I think if Team Obama is smart, they will get out ahead of this story as soon as possible.

Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?

This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama.

An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.

“He was a Muslim, but he concealed it,” the source said. “His opponents within the Democrats hope this will become a major issue in the campaign.”

When contacted by Insight, Mr. Obama’s press secretary said he would consult with “his boss” and call back. He did not.

Sources said the background check, conducted by researchers connected to Senator Clinton, disclosed details of Mr. Obama’s Muslim past. The sources said the Clinton camp concluded the Illinois Democrat concealed his prior Muslim faith and education.

“The background investigation will provide major ammunition to his opponents,” the source said. “The idea is to show Obama as deceptive.”

Jonah wonders if Hillary’s people would really leak this to Insight magazine (no offense to the folks over there, but one wonders how eager Democrats are to give hot material to the conservative press). On the other hand, maybe this is a warning shot from Camp Hillary.

The word “madrassa” is an explosive one in our politics. Okay, bad word choice there. It is a word that evokes strong visual images, few of them good. A lot of Americans are having strong feelings about Islam these days, and for many it is a suspicion of the faith itself, after the violent reactions to the Danish cartoons, the Pope’s speech, the Dubai Ports World deal, the threatened death penalty for Abdul Rahman, the Afghan who converted to Christianity… If the madrassa in question is tied to the Wahhabi sect, as the story suggests, this story will be huge, and it will shift Obama from the “likeable” category to “untrustworthy” category for a sizeable number of Americans.

I just bet a Muslim friend that if this story gets legs, the words “Manchurian Candidate” will be used in discussions about Obama, unfair as it might be.

This story may be more smoke than fire – but it’s the sort of thing that a candidate can’t let fester for long.

UPDATE: Two thoughts from (ah, I nearly said “TKS”!) Hillary Spot readers that I should have addressed.

Hillary Spot reader Steve writes, “The most probable path I see this taking, is one that strengthens Obama. In your post you mention the Afghani convert sentenced to death. If Obama admits that he was Muslim but converted to Christianity, he instantly becomes an apostate and moves up on the list of people Islamists hate. It is not hard to imagine the charismatic Obama giving a heartfelt narration about his coming to Jesus and rejection of his former faith. This whole story could work to ingratiate him with Christian conservatives and right-wing anti-Islamists if he becomes the target of a Sharia fatwa.”

While Gregory asks, “This is a pretty [gutsy] gamble on Hillary’s part, don’t you think?  The chance she sees, I’d wager, is it could end Obama.  But with Hillary’s prints all over the hot potato, the risk is also that it might blow up in her face.  After all, the Democratic base considers itself politically correct, and the whiff of race/religion-baiting in this story will make Democrats feel uncomfortable.  I have to wonder, if this story has legs, how long will it be before Hillary, already percieved as, well, a [rhymes with witch], comes to be seen as…a bigot?  Lots of sins are forgivable among Democrats, but intolerance is not forgivable.”

Boy, this race didn’t take long to get interesting, did it?

There’s been a lot of talk of sacrifice among our aspiring commanders-in-chief.

John Edwards, recently:

“My own view about it is we ought to ask America to be patriotic about something other than just war. We ought to ask Americans to be willing to conserve; to be willing to sacrifice.” 

Hillary Clinton, very recently:

“I believe America can confront any problem if we’re willing to make some tough decisions… We’ve not been asked to make any tough decisions. The president hasn’t called for sacrifice from any of us. We’re not asked to even turn the lights off and conserve energy in order to limit the amount of money that is flowing to regimes that are antithetical to our interests.” 

Barack Obama, a few months ago:

“Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of ‘thou’ and not just ‘I,’ resonates in religious congregations all across the country.”

For “sacrifice,” I think that incumbent politicians should term limit themselves to a single additional term. Also, there should be a ban on private non-commercial jet travel, and limousine service in large metro areas, for the duration of the war. And a 100% excise tax on movie tickets and DVDs . . . 

I seemed to remember thoughts in a similar vein from Glenn, so I went waaaay back into the archives, and found these gems:

OKAY, ONE MORE: I just saw Dick Gephardt on NBC. Every time I see him he repeats the same two points: Americans need to pay more in taxes, and accept less freedom. We all need to sacrifice. Hey Dick — what have you sacrificed? Er, besides your eyebrows, I mean?

And another, from right after 9/11:

In all my grief and horror as the story unfolded on the television Tuesday, I couldn’t help but notice how Peter Jennings kept talking about how “Things would [have to] change in this country” in the wake of the attacks, that “we” would have to accept less freedom and like that. It made me angry. The reason is that the “we” is spurious – Peter Jennings and Dick Gephardt don’t mean that _Peter Jennings and Dick Gephardt_ will have less freedom. They’ll still fly first class; they’ll wait in the VIP lounges; they’ll continue to have access to the airwaves to say what they deem to be sayable. They mean that the _rest_ of us will have to change. What they mean is that the _differential_ between their lives and our lives “will have to” increase. I’m old enough to remember when air travel was something rich people did. When I was a lad, my grandfather was not CBS, nor NBC nor ABC – to spread his socialist opinions he had to resort to haranguing the neighbors. Free enterprise and the free exchange of ideas put everyone who wants to in the sky and on the net. Drive up the cost of travel in the name of security, and the cost of communication in the name of security, and travel and “publication” become, once again, the purviews of the elite. . . . 

War and crisis are good for business if you are in broadcasting or government. For that reason, we mustn’t expect official media to defend any rights but their own in the coming struggle.

(Hard to believe that the BlogFather once had that much snark in him, huh?)

Anyway – these comments illustrate that politicians love the word ‘sacrifice,’ so long as it is generic, and doesn’t really get that specific. It’s a concept easy to endorse in theory, when one pictures oneself making a small sacrifice, and the greater share of the burden on those we deem most ‘deserving.’

If an aspiring president laid out exactly who they expected to make the sacrifices, and what those sacrifices would be, they might find a little less applause.

On my reading pile this year is finishing up Applebee’s America: How Successful Political, Business, and Religious Leaders Connect with the New American Community, by Clinton strategist Doug Sosnik, Bush strategist Matthew J. Dowd, and former AP political correspondent Ron Fournier.

The fact that I didn’t finish it last year probably reveals that I have found it uneven so far – fascinating political tidbits, followed by dry, vague descriptions of religious or business trends that didn’t keep my interest.

Interspersed throughout the book are short descriptions of conversations the authors had with ordinary voters, usually at some Michigan-area Applebee’s. Those snippets of conversation reminded me that I am very, very different in my thinking from “average” Americans. You almost certainly are as well; the average American doesn’t read political web sites or blogs.

In fact, lots of voters out there base their voting decisions on ephemeral, vague, intangible feelings about a candidate, rather than his or her stands, policies, beliefs, etc. A couple examples:

HOWELL, Mich. — Debbie Palos is a prochoice nurse and the daughter of a Teamster who cast her first two presidential ballots for Clinton. Her friend and neighbor Lynn Jensen supports abortion rights, opposes privatization of Social Security, and thinks President Clinton was the last president “who gave a hoot about the middle class.” … Both opposed the war in Iraq.

Yet they both voted for President Bush in 2004.

“I didn’t like doing it, but the other guy was too radical for me,” says Jensen, a thirty-three mother of two…

“I don’t think much of Democrats anymore,” says Palos. “Besides, I may not agree with President Bush on everything, but at least I know he’s doing what he thinks is right.”

That sound you hear is the heads of former Kerry strategists exploding, as they learn that they failed to persuade longtime Democrats and Iraq war opponents that their man “is doing what he thinks is right.” Another conversation, later in the book:

More than a year after the election, Palos still struggled to answer the question, “Why did I vote for Bush?”

“I don’t know.” …

She was disappointed with the president. He hadn’t performed well after Katrina, “and this war hasn’t exactly turned out as he promised.” Yet there was something about him that still struck a chord.

“It’s just the whole measure of a man,” she said. “When I voted for Clinton, I did it on gut instinct. I look at a person, and I try to see through their eyes to their values.

“Who knows if I know everything on policy,” she added, “but I can get a sense of who a person is.”

Another example:

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — George Heier is sipping a cup of coffee at his usual table, between the bar and the bathrooms and within sight of the front door. “I like to see my friends coming in,” he says.

Even the politics is unfamiliar in his new hometown, Blue Springs, Missouri. “Hell, they’re all Republicans out there,” he says with a laugh. The Roosevelt Democrat and veteran of D-Day opposed the war in Iraq and President Bush’s domestic policies yet voted with the majority in his new community. “I backed Bush because I liked him, and even though I didn’t support what he stood for, at least I knew he stood for something.”

Another example, same vein:

“Even when we don’t agree, you know what I believe and where I stand,” Bush said at his 2004 nominating convention. Watching the convention from her suburban Chicago home, Bonnie Kohn rubbed the goosebumps out of her arms after that line. A Democratic-leaning voter, she had been on the fence about the 2004 presidential race. “I decided right then and there that even though I couldn’t put my finger on it, there was something about that guy that made me feel safer. Something gut level about him made me trust him. He had me thinking that we were all in this together,” she said months later. Polls suggest that there were many more like Kohn who opposed the war but voted for Bush because they thought he had the Gut Values to keep them safe.

It’s worth keeping in mind as we see the argument that Obama is too liberal to win the nomination, and/or the presidency. In this case, a certain number of antiwar, Democratic-leaning voters who often preferred the liberal stand on issues voted for the Republican, almost entirely based on hard-to-measure emotional connections with the President.

If George W. Bush could connect with voters like Palos, Jensen, Heier and Kohn, I think there’s a good chance that Obama can establish that same gut values connection.

UPDATE: For those of us who are a little more policy-wonkish, James Pethokoukis, a senior writer at U.S. News & World Report has written a great summary of Barack Obama’s views on trade, taxes, and entitlements. He calls it “a sneak preview of Obamanomics.”

Fascinating post by Chris Bowers, over at the left-of-center MyDD, expressing frustration about polls that tell us what Americans believe, or how they feel about a subject like Iraq, but comparably little about why they feel that way.

He looks at an open-ended question from a poll his site conducted last year, asking people why they supported or opposed the Iraq war, back in March 2003. The key graphs:

Despite its flaws, this poll offers some important insights. First, most people who support / supported the war did not mention Iraqi freedom or WMDs. The most common rationale, making up nearly half of all responses, centered around the idea that invading Iraq was a form of self-defense against terrorism / appropriate reaction to 9/11 (see support reasons 3-6). Even the generalized, amorphous rationales of support reasons 7-11 are roughly equal to the WMD and Iraqi freedom rationales combined. This poll appears to indicate that most people who support / supported the war just wanted to do something in response to 9/11 to protect themselves from future terrorism, even if that terrorism didn’t have WMDs. Even people who supported the war didn’t buy into, or at least care quite as much about, either freedom in Iraq or any weapon stockpiles Hussein may or may not have had.

On the other side of the coin, people who opposed the war overwhelming did not do so just because they didn’t believe there were WMDs, or because of the general paucity of allies in the invasion. In fact, the most common responses centered a general opposition to war, or at least pre-emptive war (opposition reasons 1, 3, 7, 10 and 11). Another common response was that people felt lied to, as seen in rationales 5, 8 and 9, where people felt the war was being conducted for reasons other than those most commonly stated. After that comes the idea that the war was either not being conducted properly, or at least was not connected to the “war on terror” and 9/11, as seen in responses 4 and 12. Only then comes the idea that there weren’t actually any WMDs.

Recognizing the challenges of putting together poll results on an open-ended question, these results reinforce certain gut instincts about the post-9/11 electorate attacks. I suspect the base of the Republican party – probably heavily represented among war supporters – is still significantly focused on terrorism, even five years after that infamous Tuesday. And I suspect that a significant chunk of the Democratic party’s base voters is essentially pacifist; “war is not the answer” is their answer to almost any foreign policy crisis.

It’s probably worth keeping this in mind as we watch Hillary Clinton attempt to gradually morph into a critic of the Iraq War; she’s always going to have a significant gap between her stances and the preferences of her base voters.

Maybe some loon’s book wasn’t as far off as some people thought.