The Gaggle : Meet the Candidates

Fineman: Live Blogging the Democratic Debate

Howard Fineman — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:47:55 GMT

HANOVER, N.H. -- I am here in the student union at Dartmouth waiting to see if Hillary Clinton has chance to smother this Democratic presidential race before it begins. I just came from a dinner with a top strategist from a major campaign (not Hillary's) who put her chances if of winning the nomination at 8-out-of-10. And yet, having been through this drill more times than I can count, I find it hard to believe that this race will end before it really has begun. Somebody is going to challenge Clinton for real. The physics of politics and media make it inevitable. The question is whether the main challenger is Sen. Barack Obama or, as seems increasingly possible, somebody else.

Right now the Democratic and Republican parties have changed personas. The Democrats usually tear each other limb from limb; the GOP generally has an orderly coronation. Right now, Hillary is approaching the throne all but unscathed; the Republicans have only begun to go after each other in earnest. The GOP has no ideological unity; the Democrats have a lot.

If Obama wants to win this nomination, he had better get after it. Let's see if he does so, and if the Democrats return to form. That is what I will be looking for as the debate begins. Let's go!

9:01 -- Obama is first out of the box on Iraq. If he was going to confront Clinton directly on the war in Iraq, this was his chance. He didn't really do it. If he thinks that she should not vote for more money for the war without a timetable for withdrawal, he should have said so directly—to her. Instead, it is John Edwards who is taking the fight to Clinton, forcing her to try to clarify her position on the continuing presence of combat troops in Iraq after a substantial withdrawal. All three of them are trumped on the war by Bill Richardson—who is more popular on the Dartmouth campus (among others) that people realize. He is the absolutist among the leading candidates.

9:19 -- It is left to former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska to go after Hillary frontally on war policy, attacking her for voting for an anti-Iran resolution in the Senate. He congratulated senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd for voting against the measure, criticized Hillary—and then dismissed Obama for having missed the vote altogether. It ain't about Obama so far.

Now we are getting to the REALLY serious stuff. Would Israel be justified in attacking Iran if Israel knew that Iran had nuclear weapons? Would you guarantee that Iran would not get nuclear weapons? Those are the tough questions that Tim Russert asks. HIllary dodges, Obama dodges. Obama passes up another chance to confront her directly. Edwards goes on the attack against Hillary again—criticizing Hillary for her Iran vote in the Senate, and ignoring Obama altogether.

9:45 -- It's Hillary time—she is the center of the debate at this moment. Russert, true to form, aims directly at her in a way her colleagues won't. Why should we think she has the judgment to be president, given her botched health care plan in 1993 and her vote on Iraq? Dodd demurs; Biden says her political problems are not her fault—it's the "Clinton-Bush" thing. "A lot of the old stuff comes back," says Biden, meaning that she carries too much political baggage. Then Russert turns to Obama: why run with so little experience in office? This should be a big Obama moment. He answers calmly, but without much detectable urgency or passion. He can bring people together. He can take on the special interests. He will tell the truth to the American people, as he did when he came out against the war.

10:00 -- I was told before the debate by one of Obama's top advisers that the candidate had a cold, that he wasn't feeling well, that he had gone to ground for a couple of hours. That wasn't just spinning to lower expectations. You can hear it in his slightly husky voice. On the topic of gay rights and gay marriage, he speaks out against those who are "fanning the flames of division." That is what they do in Washington, he says, where folks have the "kind of experience" we don't need. Did he mean any of the Democrats on the stage? Almost certainly not. It was one of those half-hearted punches that didn't seem to be aimed at anyone.

10:15 -- Could Hillary Clinton be any better prepared? Russert asks about Social Security financing; she knows that this is a topic Russert knows in his bones, and has talked about often. The debate briefly turns into Russert-Clinton, which is sort of a win for Clinton. She refuses to agree in advance to raise the payroll tax cap, currently at $97,500. That sounds statesmanlike but a little dodgy; Edwards then hits it out of the park, talking about a "protective zone" of income between $97,500 and $200,000. His proposals sounded carefully thought through—whether you agree with it or not—and was much more specific than what Obama had to say on the topic. Hillary is talking too much about what her "husband" did; she isn't being specific enough—Edwards wins the round.

10:30 -- With a half hour left I haven't seen Hillary lose this, even though her defense of Israel's attack on Syria didn't sit well with the crowd. From where I sit, Edwards has emerged so far the most forceful challenger to her (other than Tim Russert).

10:35 -- asked to say in 30 seconds whether "turning the page" means the Bushes or Clintons or both, Obama circles the airport and never quite lands. Why not say that we have had enough of BOTH? Hillary moves in to take advantage once again, saying that "I thought Bill was a pretty good president." I am beginning to wonder how much Obama wants this. Yes I know Bill Clinton remains popular with Democrats, but why can't you honor him and also say that it is time to move on to a new generation and a new style and synthesis? I just don't get the murky, tentative language and hesitancy. Maybe there is a strategy here—patience, patience. But, although it is only September, it is awfully late in the process given how fast the primaries and caucuses will follow each other.

There WILL be a chief challenger to Hillary. There has to be. Obama will have the most money of the challengers. He is a winsome character. Now he is suffering the indignity of having to defend the fact that he didn't go to Jena, Louisiana.

10:40 -- I guess if there is a news headline, a substantive one, it is the refusal of the three "top" candidates to declare that all American troops will be out of Iraq by the end of their first terms. That probably is the reality with which President Bush is leaving the country.

10:45 -- Does Hillary have a three-point answer to every question? Apparently yes, because it allows her to dodge specific answers while still sounding leaderly and judicious.

10:46 -- Good answer from Obama on torture. Classy—and the reason people still find him attractive.

10:47 -- I gotta go back out to the Dartmouth Green for Hardball. I go with the tentative conclusion (unless something spectacular happens in the last 10 minutes) that Obama didn't do much for himself, that Hillary didn't hurt herself and that Edwards showed that if Obama isn't going to be the main challenger, he is ready to be.

Not in the Mood to Mash

Andrew Romano — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:07:07 GMT

Last Wednesday, September 12, Yahoo! News, the Huffington Post and Slate magazine co-sponsored the "first-ever online-only presidential mash-up" marking the dawn of a new era in the American political process. Or, you know, not.

The plan was actually kind of cool: Yahoo! would give citizen editors (you, me, the odd, nervous fellow next door) access to raw footage of the eight Democratic presidential candidates separately answering debate questions on Iraq, health care and education and then allow them to splice, dice, overdub, caption and spread their new Frankenvideos as they saw fit. The interviews taped Wednesday and, after a brief delay--Yahoo! initially prevented users from doing anything but arranging the clips, playlist-style, by candidate or topic--they went live the next day on Jumpcut, Yahoo's video editing site, with Arianna Huffington offering to highlight the best submissions on the Huffington Post’s homepage. (Co-sponsor Slate, like Newsweek, is owned by the Washington Post Company).

So, one week later, what have the master masher-uppers of America done with all that raw video? Not much. Thirteen of the 25 entries on Jumpcut's "Democratic Debate Mash-up" page were posted by Patrick Michaels, a bearded vlogger who goes by the handle "presidentkucinich2008." Nearly all of Michaels' submissions are clips of "leading candidate" Dennis Kucinich (surprise) talking at length about, say, veganism or global warming--with little (if any) editing, let alone "mashing up." Of the remaining 12 videos, seven don't even use footage from the debate: two are interminable, text-heavy anti-Hillary ads; the other five are pro-Romney spots created by someone named "emotionsnpoetry" who seems inordinately fond of crude, Photoshopped images of the Democratic candidates (plus Fidel Castro, Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter) cavorting at shirtless pool parties or competing in donkey-drawn chariot races.

That leaves five "real mash-ups." (Note the scare quotes.) The first, "Poetwarrior Explains Everything" by poetwarrior62, fails to live up to its billing, merely playing the song "I Can Explain Everything" by T-Bone Burnett over muted clips of Hillary, Romney, Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter. "Stevegarfield" shortens Dodd's answer on marijuana legalization (he's in favor) into a five-second soundbite--not exactly rocket science. By default, then, the "best" submissions belong to "mikevogel," who puts Hillary's rather robotic laugh on repeat until it starts to sound like a cackle and twice splices Charlie Rose's question about No Child Left Behind with the massively popular YouTube clip of Miss Teen South Carolina butchering the English language on live TV. I can imagine future anti-Hillary Web pranksters lifting the former, while the latter uses a "dumb blond" to, you know, make some sort of point. Which is more than I can say for the rest of this lot.

Still, it ain't saying much. The Huffington Post seems to agree; to date, they haven't posted any clips on their homepage. (Arianna has yet to respond to my email and phone messages; I'll post her thoughts here if/when she gets back to me.) The lesson for future debates: try the mashups, but don't ditch the TV. In July, CNN and YouTube combined "new media" techniques with an "old media" platform, allowing users to question the candidates by video during a live cable broadcast; most critics agreed that the show was a success. Maybe "online-only" events will work in 2012. But at this point, most people don't even seem to know that they're happening--the "Poetwarriors" of the world excepted.

UPDATE: Just talked to Arianna Huffington. She says that "creating mash-ups was an extra bonus if people wanted to do it. The big thing for us was how many people were going to watch it, and could we get people who would not sit through an hour and half debate to watch. Mash-ups are a lot of work."

That said, Huffington has assigned two editors to sift through the mash-ups that have been arriving in the Huffington Post inbox since she first called for submissions last Thursday. Apparently, these are separate from--and, hopefully, better than--the Jumpcut submissions. They're certainly greater in number -- "in the hundreds," says Huffington. Huffpo will reveal the 12 best on Monday. And I'll be back to review them.

P.S. Huffington also mentioned that the Yahoo!/Slate/Huffpo event garnered 2.9 million "streams" (views of the video) in its first day online, with each user accounting for 4.6 streams -- meaning that about 630,000 people watched. Compare that to the 2.6 million who caught the CNN/YouTube debate. Sure, the internet is powerful -- but TV is still king.

Hundreds Of Boxes. Thousands Of Revealing Documents And Still Nothing That Can Explain 'Curly Sue'

Holly Bailey — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:15:52 GMT

Fred Thompson once joked with reporters that he's an "open book," and he wasn't kidding. Unlike many prominent former senators--Al Gore, John Edwards, Bill Frist--Thompson put his eight years of Senate records up for public review two years ago. The collection, on file at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, includes more than 400 boxes of personal letters, campaign memos, photographs and internal-strategy files on everything from his investigation into Bill Clinton's 1996 fund-raising to dealings with reporters. As NEWSWEEK reported this week, there are plenty of documents about politics and policy, some that GOP voters might not like.

And then there's the interesting stuff.

Example No. 1: in files related to Thompson's personal biography, your Gaggler found an official U.S. Senate "memorandum" on Thompson's clothing sizes, apparently jotted down by a very dutiful staff member. Now there's been some confusion lately over exactly how tall the former senator turned actor is. USA Today, for example, reports Thompson is 6 feet 6 inches, but columnist Robert Novak measured him in a recent column at 6 feet 7 inches. Sadly, his Senate files don't clear up the mystery, but the undated memo does reveal that back during his Senate days, Thompson's shoe size was a 13a. He wore a 48XL jacket and had a 40-inch waist. His arms were 36 inches long, and he wore pants with a 32- inch inseam. In other words, he's a BIG guy and would be one of the biggest presidents ever. (Abraham Lincoln was just 6 feet 4 inches and, while his memo on clothing sizes hasn't turned up, he appeared supermodel skinny in his official photographs.)

But your Gaggler's favorite part of the Thompson files are his letters--boxes and boxes of them. The files include dozens of thank you notes Thompson wrote to fellow senators for gifts they gave him, like the "cream of wheat" he received from Conrad Burns and the Alaskan salmon Frank Murkowski bestowed upon him. In 2001, Thompson wrote fellow Sen. Wayne Allard to thank him for giving him a lambskin rug. It's a typed letter, but at the bottom, Thompson added a handwritten note: "I'll think of you when I wear it!" Thompson sent joking memos to fellow Sens. Joe Lieberman and Chuck Grassley, admonishing them for eating his stash of Goo Goo Clusters, a slab of chocolately goodness perhaps most famous for its commercials during the Grand Ole Opry. In 1995, Thompson's staff sent a letter to Rep. Jack Kingston, who had forwarded Thompson a friend's audition tape in hopes that he'd pass it on to his then-girlfriend, country star Lorrie Morgan. "As a general rule, the senator does not give tapes to Ms. Lorrie Morgan," the letter says.

There are even notes from Thompson to journalists and vice versa, including letters from NBC's Tim Russert, CBS's Dan Rather and CNN's Wolf Blitzer asking for interviews. But CNN's Larry King was clearly the most persistent, sending Thompson three notes in spring 1997 begging for an interview about his campaign-finance investigation. "I realize you are preparing for very important hearings," King wrote. "However, the country is anxious to know you better! Please join me soon!" (In fairness, your Gaggler must mention Thompson also archived a November 1997 letter from NEWSWEEK's then-Washington bureau chief Ann McDaniel, inviting the senator to sit down with her and other reporters. He agreed two months later, but according to a Thompson's staffer note on the letter, the magazine was too busy with the Monica Lewinsky scandal and canceled. Our bad!)

In November 1997, the Washington Post's Bob Woodward wrote Thompson to apologize personally for a line in a story he wrote that said his campaign-finance hearings were "running out of steam without producing many tangible results." Woodward wrote that the "construction of the sentence" implied that those were his thoughts, when in fact they were the words of a Justice Department official. "There, at times, has been mention of eating crow," Woodward wrote. "I want to eat a full plate. (I only wish it were warmer.)"

In 2001, New York Times columnist William Safire wrote Thompson to ask what he had meant when he said "the ox is in the ditch" when it comes to postal reform. "Once again, you remind me that the rest of the country doesn't necessarily use the same phrases as a country boy from Tennessee," Thompson replied, confessing he'd actually never seen an ox in a ditch--or frankly, an ox. "As usual, I have no idea where this comes from. All I know is that when the ox is in the ditch, it is a very serious matter--very serious. A big ox, a small ditch, a big load and a hot day--well, you can see the problem."

Governor Gilmore Will Do His Best to Squeeze You In. How Does Any Time, Any Day This Week Work for You?

Holly Bailey — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:07:31 GMT

Let's face it: Being a second-tier presidential candidate blows. It's hard to raise money. You have to travel on the cheap, unlike some of the other presidential hopefuls who navigate the primary states on charter planes and luxury buses. It's not even guaranteed that you'll get much face time during a presidential debate. Some candidates think the way to momentum is to get the media's attention, but even that's not easy, in spite of the fact reporters happen to love them a gabby presidential hopeful.

Case in point: Former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore, who has tried to rev up his campaign by offering up tough-talking one-liners about how he's the only real conservative in the race. The former Republican National Committee chairman generated a little buzz a few weeks ago by deriding the top three GOP frontrunners as "Rudy McRomney" because he claims they don't share the "core conservative principles" of his party. During the first debate, Gilmore used his brief moment in the spotlight--he's averaged about five minutes of talking time at the debates, about half what the frontrunners get--to mention the address of his campaign Web site, in hopes of generating some buzz. "Gilmore for President dot com," the governor said during the South Carolina debate three weeks ago.

Is it working? Probably not, considering his aides sent out not one, but two middle of the night e-mails to reporters here in New Hampshire offering up the former governor for interviews. The first message, sent through an e-mail CNN set up for the campaigns to send out debate responses to the credentialed reporters here, hit the Gaggle's inbox at 12:15 a.m.--three hours after the debate ended. The e-mail's subject line: "Gilmore interview?" It included contact info for the former governor's press guy. Clearly that message didn't generate an electrifying response because the campaign sent out another message at 5:46 a.m. "Jim Gilmore interview?" the subject line read. It included two e-mails and a cell phone for Gilmore's main press guy, as well as a second backup media contact. "Thank you for your consideration," the aide wrote. At least they were nice about it.

President Thompson, I'm Ready for My Close-Up

Holly Bailey — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:49:44 GMT

If voters on the right think Rudy Giuliani's love life is too racy, what will they think about Fred Thompson? The former Tennessee senator, who is considering his own run for the GOP nomination, was a swinging single during most of his eight-year tenure in the Senate, making him a favorite of gossip columnists, who often referred to him as the "Tennessee Stud." Just weeks after winning his first campaign for the Senate in 1994, Thompson was spotted waltzing with country singer Lorrie Morgan, who dated him for more than a year. "He's a wonderful man. He's very special to me - he really understands me," Morgan said at the time, telling reporters they had even considered marriage. But alas, it wasn't meant to be. By 1996, they were splitsville. One reason: she didn't like dressing the part of a conservative Republican. ("Get that basic black dress out of the closet," Morgan wrote in her 1997 autobiography, "Forever Yours, Faithfullly." "And no cleavage, baby!") But Hollywood Fred, as he is sometimes known, was no lonely heart. Over the years, Thompson was linked to plenty of other woman around Washington, including GOP pollster Kellyanne Fitzpatrick (now Conway) and fund-raiser Georgette Mosbacher. In 2000, his love life got a little messy, spilling onto the pages of the New York Post's famed Page Six. His then-girlfriend (and future wife) Jeri Kehn complained to Page Six that "all these women" were constantly gunning for her man. "They just won't leave him alone," Kehn told the paper. "I can't get up to get a cocktail at a party without coming back and finding some girl sitting in my chair." Kehn, who inisisted she was dating Thompson, singled out one lady in particular: then-Time magazine columnist Margaret Carlson. "She won't get the hint he has a girlfriend," Kehn complained. "She calls his apartment all the time. I mean, what is the deal with these woman? Don't they have any pride? It's a joke all over Washington that Margaret has a huge crush on him. And Fred clearly is not interested." Mee-ow! At the time, Carlson refused to comment, but Thompson, clearly unhappy with Kehn's outburst, issued a terse statement to The Washington Post. "I don't generally comment on these matters," he said. "But as it relates to statements made about my friend Margaret Carlson, there's not a bit of truth to them. I should be so lucky." Thompson married Kehn in 2002, and they now have two young kids. Apparently Carlson, who is now a columnist for Bloomberg News, still likes Thompson, in spite of the dustup. Carlson, who did not respond to an e-mail from Newsweek inquiring about the matter, was spotted on "Hardball" with Chris Matthews last week, swooning over a potential Thompson candidacy. "He's handsome, he's charming, he sounds like a president-. He's smart, he's articulate, he knows his line, he can hit his mark," Carlson said, predicting that he'll jump in to the 2008 race soon. "For the press, he would be the new McCain because he does seem honest and open."

I'd Consider Asking Rudy Giuliani To Be My Running Mate, But I Don't Want Him To Drag Me Down In The Polls

Holly Bailey — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:54:46 GMT

Oh, Mitt Romney. You've gotta feel for the guy. The former Massachusetts governor has raised a bunch of money, hired some of the best campaign strategists in the business and, his opponents begrudgingly admit, has gotten some pretty terrific endorsements from big-dollar contributors. Earlier this month, mega-donor Bob Perry, a guy who contributed $10 million to GOP campaigns in the last election, signaled his support for Romney by sponsoring a fundraising reception on his behalf in Dallas. (It was a significant "get" because Perry had briefly flirted with John McCain--and had even contributed money to the senator's PAC.) But in spite of all this, Romney just can't seem to get any momentum going on his bid for the White House, at least not in the polls. The latest Gallup Poll out this week was beyond depressing for Romney backers. His support in the GOP primary race sits at just 3 percent. That puts Romney on even par with Sen. Sam Brownback, a guy who has little money and even less name recognition. More of a bummer: Romney came in well behind Newt Gingrich, who ranked at 8 percent, and former Sen. Fred Thompson, who, without even lifting a finger, ranked at 12 percent in the poll. (For the record, Rudy Giuliani was tops in the Gallup survey with 31 percent support, followed by McCain, who had 22 percent.)

So if you're Romney, what do you do? For one, you stick to the schedule. Romney's calendar has been packed with events to raise campaign dough (or not, if you believe his campaign's efforts to downplay expectations about the first-quarter fund-raising reports due April 15). You also keep busy in the primary states, like South Carolina, where Romney is today. And you might score points by suggesting, weirdly, that you'd be willing to choose a guy who's running ahead of you in the polls as your vice presidential pick. Questioned today at a campaign event about possible running mates, Romney said it was really too early to say. But he then volunteered he'd consider asking Gingrich, or even Jeb Bush, to be his No. 2. Bush, Romney acknowledged, is a guy many Republicans had hoped to see on the ticket next year. "I love him," Romney said of the ex-Florida governor, according to the Associated Press. "If his name weren't Bush, he'd be running for president, I'm convinced." And, in a nod (translation: pander) to his surroundings, Romney also said he'd consider South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and Sen. Jim DeMint. Afterwards, according to AP, Romney told reporters on the scene that the names he threw out should be considered by anyone who wins the nomination but acknowledged a slight bias. "When I'm in South Carolina, I'm not going to fail to mention some of the ones that are the closest," he said.

Thanks So Much For the Interview, Reverend. These Handcuffs Actually Feel Kind Of Nice

Richard Wolffe — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:18:57 GMT

How did the New York Times get that blunt interview this week with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the preacher now in a very public dispute with Barack Obama?

According to the Times' piece, Wright, Obama's longtime friend and mentor, detailed how the senator privately disinvited him from the launch of his presidential campaign last month in Springfield, Ill. Wright told the Times that Obama had said, "You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public."

Great get, as they say in the newspaper biz. But to get it, the Times had to play by Wright's rules.

Wright's Chicago mega-church, Trinity United Church of Christ, imposes strict requirements on journalists who want to speak to the pastor. Reporters must sign two sets of legal papers on behalf of their news organizations before any interviews in order to be allowed inside the church.

The church has a list of what it calls "policies and procedures for use with outside media sources" or OMS for short. The paperwork states that the journalist will "fact-check the article" with the reverend's daughter, Jeri Wright, who is his media services director. The journalist also agrees to "give a full and fair idea of what to expect from the story." In addition, the journalist promises to give the church "any quotes derived from the interview process, prior to publication" and promises that all published quotes "are original quotes and will not be altered by the OMS in any way."

The second agreement, entitled "official waiver for use with outside media sources," states that "any infraction" of the church's OMS policies and procedures would lead to the reporter's "immediate removal" from the church and the confiscation of all interview notes and photos.

A church spokesperson told Newsweek the papers were designed to "protect our church and its pastoral staff and congregation."

Times reporter Jodi Kantor agreed to the restrictions and signed the papers. The newspaper's assistant managing editor Craig Whitney told Newsweek that Kantor did not consult with her bosses before cutting the deal. But he said, "What she signed was consistent with our standards on dealing with sources."

"Looking back on it, I think she didn't sign anything she should not have," Whitney said, "except the waiver." The waiver allows for the confiscation of interview notes, but Whitney said the reporter believed that applied to the legal papers.

(Newsweek also requested an interview with Wright, but declined to sign the papers. The church withdrew its cooperation.)

But even though the New York Times agreed to obey Wright's restrictive rules, it looks like the reverend still wound up regretting his decision to mouth off to the press about Obama. After the Times story appeared, Wright's staff said they are cutting off reporters, period. They said they will no longer grant interviews or answer any questions from journalists, contracts or not.

I Know Al Franken. Al Franken is a Friend of Mine. Norm, You're No Al Franken

Howard Fineman — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:58:05 GMT

As a reporter, I pride myself on keeping my opinions to myself and my personal distance from the people I cover. Until today, that wasn't a problem in the case of my friend of 20 years, Al Franken. But now that he has said that he is running for the U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota currently held by Norm Coleman, I have a duty to the voters there to tell them what I know about him that is relevant to their decision about him -- and then to get out of the way and not say or write another word about his (or that) campaign.

If you know Al's humor, you know that it's about making you laugh against your will and your better judgment. His jokes can be WAY outside the box of good taste -- which is the point. Sometimes his humor is about the excesses of ego -- his own. It's the humor of a character who is utterly lacking in self awareness. There is a cult following to this day surrounding the mincingly endearing Stuart Smalley, so oblivious that he thinks it's his duty to lecture Michael Jordan on confidence.

But Al gets most of his laughs -- and launches most of his zingers -- by deploying remorseless logic to a situation, reducing it to an absurdity that creates shock and laughter. He has lightning-quick reactions to contradictions, hypocrisy and cant -- and finds humor in exposing other people's idiocies. He has, quite simply, one of the sharpest minds I have ever encountered -- and you're talking to a guy who has covered George W. Bush since way back in 1994. Bada-bing.

Al was a math geek, but a wrestler, too -- and that is the other key thing about him. He likes to mix it up. He is passionate about his politics, and always has been -- even when he was using his political sensibilities primarily to find material for "Saturday Night Live" and his hilarious routines with Tom Davis, among others.

The combination of logic and combat can get Al in trouble--when he doesn't keep them both under control, or keep them from influencing each other too much. He can make somebody else look pretty stupid, which is funny, until it is not. His humor in general is about not knowing when to stop, but of course he can't t run a campaign that way, let alone be a U.S. senator that way.

But put to their best uses, his mind and spirit can be more than valuable. I'll give you an example. On Thanksgiving weekend in 2002, our families got together, as we often do, in New York City. (Al is as devoted a husband, father and friend as you will ever meet, with a wonderful wife and two talented and accomplished kids.) At a diner on the Upper West Side, Al laid out his idea of how we should handle the problem of Saddam Hussein and his cache of WMD. Al's idea was to flood the country with more weapons inspectors -- under U.N. auspices, probably, but most of them our forces if necessary. Saddam was tied down by sanctions and the world's disapproval. We could have forces there under the peaceful banner of inspections -- and keep a lid on things indefinitely.

I didn't have a good answer then for why that was a bad idea, and I don't now. It was pretty logical.

Oh. My. God. McCain is Such A Loser. Is Not! Romney is Totally Lamer. And Brownback? Like, Ewwww.

Holly Bailey — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:00:28 GMT

Is this a presidential election or a bad replay of high school? Mitt Romney formally announced his bid for the White House this morning in Michigan, the state where he was born and a location that--coincidentally, of course--happens to be a major political battleground in 2008. The former Massachusetts governor announced in Dearborn, just outside Detroit. But not even this could guarantee Romney the spotlight. On Monday afternoon, John McCain's campaign--the Arizona senator being one of Romney's key rivals for the GOP nomination--announced that his supporters would hold a news conference in Lansing, Mich., about a half hour away from Dearborn, where several elected officials in Michigan would endorse the senator. That e-mail was followed by a second news release announcing that McCain had landed several key endorsements in Massachusetts, a.k.a. Romney country. Of course, Romney was sort of asking for it. A few weeks ago, the governor zinged McCain by announcing his endorsements in Arizona. But this isn't the only bickering. Yesterday, Sam Brownback's campaign e-mailed reporters trashing Romney for "misleading voters" on his abortion position. "Mitt Romney's flip flops are enough to make John Kerry blush," Brownback campaign manager Rob Wasinger said in the release, which included a timeline of Romney's varying statements on abortion dating back to 1994.

What got Brownback all hot and bothered? According to the Kansas senator's campaign, an unnamed Romney aide apparently e-mailed a group of right-to-life leaders last week arguing that Romney's conversion on abortion politics was no different than what Brownback had gone through. "Just like Sam Brownback, Mitt was once pro-choice but changed his views upon being elected to office," the Romney aide wrote, according to the Brownback campaign. " When Brownback was elected to office, that is when he also had a conversion and voted with the pro-life movement." Brownback, his campaign insists, has always been pro-life and has never voted otherwise. Romney has tried to explain his shift on abortion by likening his situation to the political shifting that Ronald Reagan went through on the issue. But if Brownback's fiery response is any indication, Romney probably has a wee bit more explaining to do.

Mitt Really Wanted To Be Here, But He Thought It Would Be More Fun To Speak To You By Video From Someplace Else

Debra Rosenberg — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:56:52 GMT

The whereabouts of Ann Romney, first lady of Massachusetts, are not usually the stuff of urgent news releases. But this morning the Family Research Council was eager to alert reporters that Mrs. Romney would headline the group's Liberty Sunday telecast called "Defending our First Freedom." The conservative group held a number of these live nationwide "simulcasts" during the '04 campaign to fire up the faithful over issues like gay marriage and "activist" judges. The latest event, to be held this Sunday at the Tremont Temple Baptist Church in Boston, will focus on the legal battles over marriage in Massachusetts. Though it will take place just down the street from the gold-domed Beacon Hill State House where her husband presides, Mrs. Romney may have something more in mind than showing off her hostessing skills. Gov. Mitt Romney is widely expected to jump into the '08 presidential race--and the unofficial kickoff is Nov. 8, the day after next month's election. Showing up at Liberty Sunday is a way to gain some street cred with the GOP's evangelical base--people who might not know what to make of a Mormon governor and his wife. Mrs. Romney will appear with FRC president Tony Perkins and introduce a video message from her husband. Others making video appearances include: Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family; Gary Bauer, American Values; Chuck Colson, Prison Fellowship Ministries; Alan Sears, Alliance Defense Fund; and Don Wildmon, American Family Association. So while it might be Mrs. Romney's first big simulcast appearance, odds are it won't be her last.

I'll Bet You're Wondering How This Will Affect Me, Al Franken

Howard Fineman — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:28:11 GMT

Karl Rove & Co. have had their eyes on the Upper Midwest for years, viewing it as the next region in which a crumbling Democratic establishment can be replaced by a post-Reagan-Bush Republican Party. That's the main reason why they chose the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul for the 2008 GOP convention, which will generate coverage that will dominate Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa -- three states Rove targeted in 2004. A bonus: the GOP can have fun taunting Twin Cities' newest Democratic favorite son, comedian Al Franken, who returned to his home town of Minneapolis last year to scout out a probable Senate race in 2008 against GOP incumbent Norm Coleman. "It's the Republicans' anti-Franken Strategy!" declared Billy Kimball, Franken's radio and comedy producer. As for Franken, he was in Washington Friday night for the East Coast premier of a documentary about...Al Franken. "When I lived in New York City they had their convention there. Now I moved to Minnesota, and here they come. They are stalking me!" he says, and then turns civic booster. "It's a great place to have a convention. I wish the Democrats were coming, too."

Barack to the Future

Holly Bailey — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:52:09 GMT

Barack Obama insists he's not running for president, but it's getting harder by the day to find people who believe him. Just two weeks after a rock star-like appearance at a political gathering near Des Moines, the Illinois senator is headed back to Iowa this Saturday, where he plans to campaign for a Democratic congressional candidate in Davenport. His aides were quick to downplay the trip, noting that Davenport is located just over the Mississippi River from Obama's home state. "You could throw a rock from there and hit Illinois," one insisted. But even the local Quad City Times didn't buy it, writing of the visit: "What, already?"

The trip comes on the heels of Obama's visit to Sen. Tom Harkin's annual Steak Fry, a legendary gathering viewed as one of the most important platforms in Democratic presidential politics. Former Sen. John Edwards, who is considering a second go at the Democratic nomination in 2008, headlined the event last year, while Bill Clinton has spoken there three times. More than 3,500 people showed up last week to see Obama--a number that organizers said ranked second only to Clinton's crowds, which exceeded 10,000 back in 1996.

There, Obama insisted again that he has no presidential ambitions, yet he was accompanied to the event by Steve Hildebrand, a longtime Democratic operative who ran Al Gore's Iowa campaign in 2000. (An Obama spokesman says Hildebrand, who is not on Obama's payroll, was merely doing the senator a favor by introducing him around.) "My only attentions right now are focused on '06," Obama said. "Whoever is looking toward 2008 without focusing on 2006 makes a mistake."

But even Obama's focus on 2006 has tongues wagging. According to Federal Election Commission records, Obama has contributed nearly $650,000 of his own campaign and leadership PAC funds to other candidates and party committees--more than any other senator, including the party's presumed 2008 frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton. That doesn't include the "millions" Democrats estimate Obama has raised for the party and its candidates by headlining fundraisers around the country. "He's a star," marvels one Democratic party official. "Only a few people attract that kind of buzz, and their last name is usually Clinton."