Rudy Giuliani took the MoveOn.org ad calling General David Petraeus, David "Betray Us," and made it a campaign plus for him. He's gone after them hard and rightfully so. General Petraeus made our esteemed elected leaders look even more buffoonish than usual. He was calm, answered their questions with authority and acted as one would expect a high-ranking military man to act, with class and dignity. MoveOn attacked a good man for partisan political purposes and Rudy is now using it as a weapon:

As for the candidates on the Dems side, Richard Cohen takes them to task today:

Almost instantly, though, it got pretty hard to find a Democratic presidential candidate willing to dispute MoveOn.org. To his credit, Joe Biden did. "I don't buy into that," he said. "This is an honorable guy. He's telling the truth." But lonesome Joe, whose virtues have yet to come to the attention of the vast and apathetic electorate, was seconded only by Joe Lieberman, not a presidential candidate, and John Kerry, a man whose tomorrow is yesterday. When Clinton was asked about the ad, she avoided answering.

It may seem unfair to single out Clinton in this matter when the bunker in which she took shelter was crowded with her fellow quivering candidates. But Clinton is the front-runner, quite possibly the next president of the United States, so it is reasonable to focus on her and wonder if, as some allege, she does indeed have a spine. In this instance, it was nowhere to be found.

This was the opportunity for Hillary Clinton so show that she has what it takes to be commander-in -chief (shudder) of the U.S. military and she punted. A more astute politician -- such as her husband -- would have seen the advantage of defending a career Army officer and highly regarded leader and bent over backwards to make it known that they didn't agree with the offensive ad. Clinton failed and Rudy grabbed the ball and ran with it. That action may have cemented his cred with conservatives who abhor the MoveOn crowd and conservative Democrats who feel Hillary has wandered a little too far into left field for their tastes (note: link to NY Times piece for TimeSelect members until midnight tonight).

MoveOn has accomplished two things with this inane ad campaign, a campaign they will continue to run: they've alienated a good portion of the electorate and pushed them toward Rudy who could hold them with his unique blend of social liberalism and national defense conservatism.

Hillary Clinton just doesn't get it, and never will. There was an article a few days ago in Newsweek by Michael Hirsch (Battle for the Best and Brightest) that contains an interesting factoid, included almost as a throwaway line:

The more experienced Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has relied largely on her husband and a triumvirate of senior officials from his presidency-former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke and former national-security adviser Sandy Berger (who tries to keep a low profile after pleading guilty in 2005 to misdemeanor charges of taking classified material without authorization).

Sandy Berger stole top secret documents from the National Archives immediately preceding former President Clinton's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. He admitted to stealing and destroying those documents, and part of his plea agreement was that he would take a lie detector test and be questioned as to the veracity of his claim that no other documents other than the ones he admitted taking were disposed of or altered. Berger, a lawyer, has since refused to take that test, and resigned from the bar to avoid being questioned under oath during a disbarment proceeding.

At the time that Berger's misdeeds were discovered by National Archives staff, no federal police agency (ie the FBI) was called in. The only person called, in fact, was Bill Clinton's lawyer Bruce Lindsey. When a criminal act is discovered, one normally calls the police first, not one who could be seen as the lawyer for the accused. BeldarBlog has a good rundown on the entire case, with many links, for those who need a refresher. Captain Ed also has a good post up on this subject.

When this case first broke (and was still just an allegation of a criminal act), Berger was a top adviser to John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. He immediately quit, to avoid embarrassing the candidate. Years later, after pleading guilty, Hillary taps him to be one of her top advisers. Excellent judgment, Hill...

There are so many layers to this story that it may well stretch well into next year. The Wall Street Journal started the ball rolling and it's picked up so much speed that the Philadelphia Inquirer, New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle have no choice but to jump in. This Inquirer story shows that this is not a localized case but is nationwide in scope. In fact, the Times seems to be going full-bore into this story even though it may directly effect the electability of their candidate Hillary Clinton (who seems to be involved with a new scandal every day):

The records show that Components Ltd., a company controlled by Mr. Hsu that has no obvious business purpose and appears to exist only on paper, has paid a total of more than $100,000 to at least nine people who made campaign contributions to Mrs. Clinton and others through Mr. Hsu. The payments occurred in the spring of 2003, several months before Mr. Hsu emerged as a contributor to Democrats and more than a year before he started bundling checks from those same people for various campaigns. In all, he has raised more than $1 million for Democrats.

Yes, that says "$1 million for Democrats." And this only what the Times uncovered this week, how much in total remains a mystery but I would suspect not for long.

This editorial in the Washington Post reminded me that when the Supreme Court begins their session (on the first Monday in October) they will be deciding whether the District of Columbia's handgun ban is in violation of the 2nd amendment. In the meantime, national Democrats like Al Gore and John Kerry have run away from gun control as fast as they could even while they lose long held Democratic states like West Virginia.

This could be very, very bad for Hillary Clinton, or she might squeak by. The squeaking scenario entails that both of her husband's appointees to the court rule against the District. That's not a likely scenario. Far more likely is that both of the very liberal appointees, Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, rule with the gun control lobby either with the majority or in a minority.

Or slander and libel, for that matter. Since 2004, Sen. John Kerry and Clintonista/Soros outfits like Media Matters have claimed that the charges put forth by the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth are lies. Legally they described the charges, particularly those made in Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry by SwiftVets founder John E. O'Neill and Dr. Jerome R. Corsi, as slanderous and libelous. Attorney Bill Dyer of BeldarBlog helpfully reminded Senator Kerry in 2005 of his possible recourse against the authors, since undoubtedly their lies caused his defeat in 2004:

I'm quite sure you'll recall that many of your supporters, defenders, and admirers argued enthusiastically that fall, and even after the election, that you ought to sue Mr. O'Neill, Dr. Corsi, and their publisher, Regnery Publishing, Inc., for defamation - more specifically, for libel based on the book and slander based on their public comments in connection with it.

Fast forward to today, and even Massachusetts' liberal statute of limitations for defamation lawsuits has expired (a few days ago, on August 25). Yet no action from Senator Kerry, who still publicly claims that O'Neill's stated facts are "lies." Perhaps Kerry has forgotten about 2004 (unlikely), or he doesn't have the funds to file a lawsuit (even more unlikely). Luckily, the senator has friends out their like Dyer, who has offered to underwrite Kerry's effort to clear his good name, by helping Kerry sue Dyer himself for defamation, due to the fact that Dyer has republished much of O'Neill's book on his Web site:

When deciding who the best political minds of the last decade are, the list comes down to Karl Rove, James Carville and perhaps Paul Begala. Rove would sit atop this list because of his genius in the 2004 campaign alone. Rove figured that John Edwards was the more formidable candidate because he had no real track record and had a lot fewer areas to hit him. John Kerry, on the other hand, left so many openings that Rove devised a great strategy:

With his Southern base, charismatic style and populist message, Edwards, they believed, could be a real threat to Bush's reelection.

But instead of attacking Edwards, Rove's team opened fire at Kerry.

Their thinking went like this, Dowd explained: Democrats, in a knee-jerk reaction to GOP attacks, would rally around Kerry, whom Rove considered a comparatively weak opponent, and make him the party's nominee. Thus Bush would be spared from confronting Edwards, the candidate Republican strategists actually feared most.

In other words, Rove used the absolute Democratic hatred of President Bush to get the opponent he wanted. It's a beautiful plan in its simplicity, and the media obediently printed every single thing the Bush administration said about Kerry, thus making sure that the party would rally around the Massachusetts senator even knowing he was the worst candidate to run since Bob Dole in 1996. Kerry is Dukakis without the brains, and Rove and the GOP picked him apart piece by piece on Vietnam and his infamous "Winter Soldier" speech.

Well, Rove is doing it again and the Clinton camp is buying into it, they are taking every word Rove has said over the last week of his resignation tour about Hillary and using it to garner support, which will come from all areas of the Dem coalition. Hillary's spokesperson believes the hype:

"Considering that the Rove rhetoric closely mirrors what some Democratic candidates are saying, it's clear that the Republicans think she will win in 2008."

Rove knows full-well that Hillary is the single-most polarizing individual in the race and that she will not attract the needed "centrists" from the middle whose votes are mandatory for a win.

H/T: PW

A couple of months ago, I wrote a post that looked at the wild swings in the 2004 Democratic primary election. In short, the moral of the story is that fortunes change very quickly in politics. A few short weeks before the nation's first primary, Howard Dean was dominating the headlines, and John Kerry was placing third or forth in most polls. But momentum from victory in a single state (Iowa) propelled Kerry to a second win (New Hampshire), and, in turn, a veritable stranglehold on the nomination.

The media (and I include bloggers in that vast category) love to have a story to tell. Lately, that story has been the realization that Hillary Clinton will inevitably be the Democrats' nominee. In part, this comes from the fact that Clinton has run a sound campaign and continues to do well in national polls. But another aspect, it seems to me, is the fact that people are uncomfortable with the idea of uncertainty. As a country, we seem to just want to get the whole thing over with, hence our obsession and over-analysis of polls. But if history teaches us anything, it is that national polls are fickle. The value of state primaries is that they focus voters on the candidates themselves, rather than on the stories that we in the media write about them. They listen to them at diners and state fairs and schools, and, yes, debates. And while Mrs. Clinton may appear to have an insurmountable lead in national polls, Iowa, where the candidates have been spending the bulk of their time and energy, remains a toss-up.

At Sunday's Democratic debate, Barack Obama showed why he hasn't faded away. George Stephanopoulos gave each of the other candidates the chance to explain why Obama was too inexperienced to be president. But it was Obama himself, who turned the question to his advantage. "Nobody had more experience than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and many of the people on this stage that authorized this war."

This is not to say that Obama has not made mistakes. But what candidate hasn't? The fact remains that, like his two main rivals, Obama has a strong organization in Iowa, and very well may win the state, causing a chain reaction similar to, say, 2004.

Sen. Barack Obama has been criticized for his recent aggressive comments on Pakistan. A few months ago, he made another tactical error that may hurt him in 2008.

The Lantern, student voice of the Ohio State University, reported that "Barack Obama and Jon Stewart both declined OSU's invitation to speak at this year's (commencement) ceremony." The Buckeye crowd got former president Bill Clinton instead ... and Obama missed a chance to woo prospective Midwest voters.

Obama should have remembered the example set by President Bush in 2002. Dubya delivered the commencement address, making the necessary reference to the Buckeyes football team. "Today I had the honor of meeting Coach Jim Tressel," Dubya declared. "Most polite of him to share with me the really fine experience that the Buckeyes had up in Ann Arbor this year." Two years later, the Bush-Cheney ticket would win a key victory in Ohio (with its 20 electoral votes) over Kerry-Edwards.

Obama should figure out a way to get to Columbus, fast...

It used to be that the next step for a general was a presidential run. The most famous examples, arguably, are Civil War commander Ulysses S. Grant and World War II leader Dwight D. Eisenhower.

More recently, though, military alumni have had less success in presidential campaigns. Colin Powell decided against it in 1995, while Wesley Clark's campaign couldn't overcome Sen. John Kerry in 2004. More successful veteran candidates, such as Kerry and Sen. John McCain, still haven't achieved the goal that came so easily to Grant and Ike.

This may show that Americans are as good at compartmentalizing as our politicians. We can admire a Kerry or a McCain for their military heroism, but this doesn't mean we automatically vote for them. Our most recent former president, Bill Clinton, and our current commander-in-chief, George W. Bush, are far from military heroes, and yet they got elected anyway. Perhaps that is an encouraging sign for a country often accused of being too pro-military.

One of the benefits to being a presidential candidate is that you get to tout your personal story. (Of course, if you're Gary Hart, this could backfire.) Who might benefit from this in 2008?

The biggest winner could be Sen. Barack Obama, whose best-selling books "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope" highlight his experiences of being a diverse citizen of a diverse nation. John Edwards used his struggle against poverty as a child to appeal to voters in 2004, and seems to be continuing this in his 2008 campaign.

One caveat: Military stories don't seem to work. Despite Sen. John McCain's stressing of his years as a POW during the Vietnam War, Republican primary voters went for George W. Bush in 2000. And Sen. John Kerry, with all his medals, couldn't recover from the Swift Boat attacks in 2004.

That is, the nightmare that was last night's Senate all-nighter. The Levin-Reed Amendment was defeated, as expected, just a few minutes ago:

The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate and move toward passage. Four Republicans voted with the Democrats, but only one new backer emerged after the 24-hour Democratically orchestrated talkathon: Susan Collins of Maine who is seeking re-election next year. She joined three previously-known Republicans supporting a troop withdrawal plan: Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon.

In a related note, I'm glad to see that John Kerry was as on target as he ever has been. Yesterday, he claimed that the caucus demanding defeat had the 60 votes necessary to leave Iraq:

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) told The Hill Tuesday that he believes more than 60 senators would vote for a change in the Iraq strategy if they were allowed to vote their conscience on a measure to redeploy U.S. troops. At a press conference on the measure, Kerry said it is time for senators not just to tell their colleagues in private conversations that they oppose the course President Bush has chosen, but to vote that way, too.

Does a "vote their conscience" vote come before or after a quorum vote? And how are Senator prevented from taking part in that vote? Better check the Senate manual on that -- it probably involves Dick Cheney and muzzles. Kerry must be referring to those super secret conversations that he is always having with other Senators and various world leaders. That worked about as well for him in 2004, as I recall. Now, back to our regular programming...

Well it's 6AM here in Cincinnati. I checked C-SPAN before drifting off a few hours ago and they were in the midst of a long procedural vote to recall absent senators around midnight. It was really riveting stuff. NRO yesterday was wrong about the quorum by the way. After noting the absence of a quorum the majority can request all the senators appear and send out the sergeat-at-arms if need be.

Reid planned several votes on a motion to instruct Senate sergeant-at-arms Terrance Gainer to "request the attendance of absent senators," in an effort to keep members near the chamber.

On the first vote, senators rejected the measure 47-44. But it passed 41-37 on a second vote just after midnight. Having made his point, Reid announced there would be no more votes until 5 a.m. EDT and retired to a cot set up in a parlor adjacent to his office.

But at 6AM John Kerry and James Inhofe were going back and forth over the latest National Intelligence Estimate. John Kerry's hair by the way was as good as ever even after going all night. I don't think it's real.

Open Congress has a good report speculating on what's next for Harry Reid. We know there will be a cloture vote at 11am, which will fail. Then what? Probably a whole lot of nothing. This was entirely aimed at the Democrat anti-war left who have been climbing up the leadership's back to get something done. Now Reid can say he tried, but at heart I really believe that he does not want to own this war yet.

Recent calls for reinstating the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" has prompted members of Congress, talk radio and blogosphere to take action. This morning, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., spoke to bloggers about recent efforts by congressional Democrats to reinstate the policy.

"I think it's a very serious threat," he told the group of roughly a dozen bloggers. Pence came direct from the floor of the House, after introducing a bill, called The Broadcaster Freedom Act, which "will prevent the FCC or any future President from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine."

"This legislation ensures true freedom and fairness will remain on our radio airwaves, and I would encourage my colleagues to cosponsor and support this bill."

Calls for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine have been repeated by several prominent Democrats. Sen. John Kerry recently appeared on WNYC with Brian Lehrer, stating, "I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back." Watch the video of Kerry's interview.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois has recently said "It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine [...] I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision."

Pence believes Democrats are thinking about how to move their liberal agenda more effectively, and that the Fairness Doctrine to cut their critics in half, or taking their main critics off the air. Even if the Fairness Doctrine was defeated, there's nothing to stop a Democratic president in the future with Democrat appointments to the FCC and a Democratic Congress from reinstating it in the future. "If people in power think they can manage criticism they will do it," Pence told the group of bloggers.

Few people are probably aware of the fact that John Kerry has a primary challenger for his U.S. Senate seat. Ed O'Reilly, a lawyer hailing from Gloucester, Mass., launched his bid to oust Kerry in May. His campaign largely targets Kerry's vote in favor of the war in Iraq.

Local media has essentially predicted that O'Reilly has a snowball's chance in hell of defeat Kerry, but recent polls from a couple months ago did suggest that Kerry is in fact vulnerable.

A 7News-Suffolk poll from this past April said that 56 percent of Massachusetts registered voters want to give someone else a shot at Kerry's Senate seat. Only 37 percent say he should run again.

Could Kerry be ousted in the primaries? It could happen.

Just when you thought you'd heard enough about Massachusetts and New York because of the baseball season, the states keep adding politicians to presidential campaigns.

In 2004, it was Bay State senator John Kerry going up against President Bush. Now, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has left the Republican Party, prompting speculation that he might join fellow New Yorkers Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton and make a run in 2008.

It looks like the South has become the new center of American presidential politics, thanks to Bill Clinton and President Bush. Still, it doesn't make sense to count out the Bay State or the Empire State.