Hillary Clinton picked up a key endorsement from Indiana Senator Evan Bayh this week and some are saying that this could greatly help her acquire a number of votes in more conservative states as Bayh, a moderate Democratic from a heavily conservative state, could help sway moderates and center right voters towards Clinton.

According to The Politico, Bayh is quoted as saying the following about Clintom:

"Deep down she cares more than anything else about progress - and that progress in our system can only come by forging consensus...Her national security approach will be more effective than the current administration, because it will be more comprehensive."

The question is will it be possible for Clinton to pick up votes from center-right voters? It depends. If the voters see her health care plan as an intrusive form of big government, no moderate or center right endorsement will change certain members of the voting public's opinion of her as a radical leftist. Ultimately, to pick up these voters Clinton will have to disassociate from traditionally leftist policies such as high taxes and an intrusive government. At this time, it does not appear she has done much in this regard.

I don't know what to think. On the one hand, Bush AG appointee Michael Mukasey seems to be a stand up guy with a great resume and a solid career in civil service. On the other hand, Charles Schumer likes him. Phil reported earlier that there isn't likely to be much resistance to Mukasey, but conservatives still aren't sure whether they like this or not. On the anti- side we have Calabresi at Time:

But in dropping Olson and going with Mukasey, Bush has opened himself up to attack from the right. Conservatives are worried about Mukasey's 1994 denial of asylum for a Chinese man who said his wife had been forced to have an abortion under that country's one-child law, which they say indicates he's weak on pro-life issues. And though he has consistently ruled with the Administration on a number of important and high-profile terrorism cases, Mukasey broke with them in an early, crucial ruling, saying that American citizen Jose Padilla had a right to a lawyer, no matter what his status in the war on terror. Mukasey is also very close to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, whom social conservatives distrust.

On the pro- side we have Peter Wehrner at the Corner:

In case you haven't heard, President Bush announced the nomination of federal judge Michael Mukasey as his next (and hopefully last) attorney general.

Mukasey was appointed by Ronald Reagan, has a rep as a law and order guy and yet the Dems will probably not oppose him. Why? Because they likely suggested him among others to the White House as being acceptable. Highly unlikely the WH is looking for yet another fight with the Senate and looked for a compromise candidate.

How could Mukasey, a strict law and order guy, a right winger in most things, be a compromise candidate? Well, as a judge in the Jose Padilla case he stood up to the Bush's then AG (that would be Alberto Gonzales) and told them they needed to follow the law in prosecuting people. He was apparently suggested by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and since Schumer would be a key senator in the confirmation process, that is the telling clue.

The fact the WH is avoiding a fight over this nomination is telling as well. They really don't have the forces to take on a unified Dem team but fortunately for them, they don't have to. The national Dems keep backing away from the big fights: defunding the war and/or impeachment because they don't have the votes in the Senate. Maybe they're right but some people think they should try. There's still 16 months of this Administration and so far they have reduced America to being something less than a super power, ravaged the military, the treasury, and can't even clean up after a hurricane. They're so incompetent it boggles the mind but at least they've stopped fighting over the AG. Let's hope this one can restore some professionalism at the Justice Department. It's long overdue.

Ted Olson has had an outstanding careers as a lawyer, Solicitor General of the United States and other positions in which he has helped the conservative cause. That would be exactly why the Democrats fear him.

Olson is expected to be the nominee for the vacant Attorney General position last held by the politically inept Alberto Gonzalez. He would be an excellent candidate for that position as he has played the political game before and would not be stupid enough to be taken down by the Democrats for something that should not even have been considered a scandal in the first place.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised a fight and it appears the GOP may just find a backbone on this one and fight for a good nominee.

Olson is hated by the Clintons as his late wife wrote a scathing book about Hillary -- "Hell to Pay" -- that was among the best of that genre. She also wrote of the last days of the Clinton administration and was merciless as well. Then, while traveling to L.A to appear on Bill Maher's show, she was killed as four terrorists slammed the plane she was on -- Flight 77 -- into the Pentagon.

Imagine if a Democratic president nominated a highly-qualified candidate for a position who has lost his wife in a terror attack. Imagine the fawning media coverage that candidate would receive. There's no way a Republican-led legislative body would vote against that candidate because the media would destroy them. Unfortunately for Mr. Olson, he's a Republican so he'll receive no mercy from Senator Harry Reid or the media.

Why is it that when it comes to governing, President Bush is the only one expected to "compromise." We've seen this concept of "compromise" get brought up particularly when it comes to judicial nominations. "Bush should nominate moderate judges, not conservative judges," we are often told by the left. Oh really? Were they urging Clinton to nominate moderate judges, not liberal judges? No, of course not.

It's a double standard. And the left knows it.

It's time for honesty. Bush reached out to Democrats during his first term. They stabbed him in the back. Everything from the No Child Left Behind Act, the Patriot Act, to the liberation of Iraq were approved in a bipartisan way, only to have the Democrats turn around and oppose these issues in order to make them campaign issues during the 2004 presidential elections.

When it looks like you are losing, that is not the time to compromise. When you have been the undefeated world champion of political victories, you don't have to listen to anybody. Karl Rove believes that he must convince the voters that the Iraq invasion was not a mistake. The names of conservative judges rather than moderate will be submitted to Congress. When the Democrats complain, he will blame them for not compromising. That is the plan.

While the Democrats talk about working with the president in a bipartisan way, Republican operatives are telling people the plan is to destroy Pelosi. By making her look bad, Hillary Clinton will look bad.

I always felt that the Republicans looked forward to running against Hillary Clinton for president. However, her success in New York and her growing popularity are beginning to scare the Republicans. It is also interesting that France could be selecting their first female prime minister. Her victory could be a prelude to Hillary's in 2008.

On Wednesday, President Bush resubmitted a number of judicial nominees who had been previously obstructed by Senate Democrats... much to their dismay.

The White House on Wednesday submitted Terrence Boyle of North Carolina and William James Haynes II of Virginia to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.; Michael Brunson Wallace of Mississippi to the 5th Circuit in New Orleans; Peter Keisler of Maryland to the District of Columbia Circuit; and William Gerry Myers III and Norman Randy Smith, both of Idaho, for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco.
[...]
"Democrats have asked the president to be bipartisan, but this is a clear slap in the face at our request," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Judiciary Committee. "For the sake of the country, we hope that this is an aberration because the president feels he must placate his hard-right base, rather than an indication of things to come."

Contrary to the claims of Schumer, Democrats haven't "asked" President Bush to be bipartisan, they've demanded he adhere to their liberal standards. Sorry. No sale. This action of the President is in fact a test to see how genuine Democrats are when they say they'll be bipartisan. Every single one of these nominees has to be given a vote. Every. Single. One.

If Democrats continue to block these nominees, then they were never sincere about bipartisanship, and never will be. The truth will come out, and it may just be over the issue of judges. This is a test of the Democrats and their sincerity about bipartisanship. I am sure they'll fail it miserably.

If the "Democrats want our cooperation, they'll give the president's judicial nominees an up-or-down vote," McConnell said.

Vice President Dick Cheney told the same group Friday that Republicans' loss of Congress in last week's election won't dissuade Bush from continuing to nominate strict-constructionist judges to the federal bench.

"Advise and consent does not mean giving the president a free pass to pack the courts with ideologues from the right or left," Leahy said. "The American people want the Senate to be more than a rubber stamp."

One of the biggest setbacks for the Bush administration in losing the senate is the ability to put nominees on the federal bench. And of course the biggest of them all would be an opening on the Supreme Court.

John Paul Stevens, a reliable liberal vote, is only rumored to be in ill health. But nevertheless a Stevens retirement will trigger pandemonium on capitol hill. Bush will have a chance to switch a liberal vote to a moderate or conservative vote. But getting that nominee through the senate is a lot harder with 51 Democrats. They no longer need to filibuster, they can vote the nominee down outright if they hang together. And most Democrats voting for a Bush nominee will be fragged by their base.

There's considerable speculation about Gates's nomination to be the SoD. Much of it has centered around his past jobs in various administrations and in particular his role in the IranContra affair. He has shown a 'poor recollection' of his involvement in that scheme when nominated as Director of the CIA in '91. But there's something else that worries me.

He was around (deputy director of CIA) at the time the U.S. was arming the Taliban in Afghanistan, with the goal of drawing Russia into its own Vietnam. It worked and one of the people we supported was OBL. In addition, much of the money and arms was funneled through Pakistan's secret service, which is where many of today's jihadists came from.

Pakistan has been linked to training and funding the future bombers. It was US funds that were used to set up the infamous religious schools. All this started in the CIA while Gates was there. might be worth asking him about? Gates may have engineered the quagmire in Afghanistan which bankrupted and demoralised the Soviet Union and now inherits Rummy's swamp?

In his 1996 memoir From the Shadows, former Director of Central Intelligence Robert Gates revealed the $500 million in non-lethal aid which was designed to counter the billions the Soviets were providing their puppet regime. Some American policymakers were eager to lure the Soviets into a Vietnam-like entanglement. Gates recounts that at a key meeting on March 30, 1979, Under Secretary of Defense Walter Slocumbe wondered aloud whether 'there was value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, "sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire."' Former US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said in a 1998 interview with the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur,: 'We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.'

John Bolton has served his term as Ambassador to the UN with distinction and should be rewarded with a confirmation by the Senate. That's not going to happen it appears:

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the expected chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a Democrat-led Senate, said on Wednesday he thought Bolton's nomination was "going nowhere."

"I never saw a real enthusiasm on the Republican side to begin with. There's none on our side," Biden said.

The visceral hatred to Bolton astounded me from the beginning. He was one of those who had the guts to say the emperor had no clothes when discussing the scandal-tainted UN and the less than ethical leader of that august body, Kofi Annan. For some reason, the Democrats still look at the UN as an organization that matters. The moral leadership of the UN has eroded to the point of total irrelevance.