Barack Obama promises a "new politics." Jerome Armstrong wonders:

Is anyone shocked that the Obama campaign re-opened their PAC and started using it to dole out contributions in the early states? If this is not PAC-cynicism of the FEC regulations, nothing is:

in recent months, Obama has handed out more than $180,000 from the nearly dormant PAC to local Democratic groups and candidates in the key early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, campaign reports show.

This is a pretty serious issue that Obama is going to have to confront. Maybe it's not a violation of the letter of the law (because since when is the letter enforced?), but it sure is a violation of the spirt of the law-- especially for a candidate that vows to not accept PAC money.
. . . Obama is stretching the rule to claim that his presidential campaign and his PAC activities have "no affiliation", especially given that 68% of the PAC's contributions are going toward officials in the states where his is campaigning 80% of the time.

I always thought the "lobbyists"/PAC nonsense from Edwards and Obama was phony. Now we see that Obama thought so too.

Colorado Congresswoman Diana DeGette has just endorsed Hillary Clinton for President and will co-chair her campaign's Health Care Task Force.

"Hillary Clinton has the strength and experience we need in the next President of the United States," said Rep. DeGette. "Under her leadership, we will finally provide quality, affordable health care for every American. These challenging times call for a leader with Hillary Clinton's ability to hit the ground running on her first day in the White House."

Diana rocks. Seriously. She's the best. This is good news for Hillary. And for those who really care about stem cell research, health care and kids. She's also a former criminal defense lawyer and personally opposes the death penalty.

If the point is that money corrupts politics, well duh. But the choice of example by the Washington Post bothers me a great deal:

Clinton's success in this unlikely setting is based almost entirely on her friendship with one man, McAllen developer Alonzo Cantu. A self-made millionaire who once picked grapes on the migratory farm labor circuit, Cantu persuaded more than 300 people in Hidalgo County, where the median household income in 2006 was $28,660, to write checks ranging from $500 to $2,300 to the senator from New York. Cantu offers a simple explanation for what he's doing for Clinton. "To me, there's two things that will keep us from being ignored," he said. "Money and votes. I think we've shown we can raise money. That will get us attention, or at least get us a seat at the table, get us in the room."

Gawd forbid a self made Latino, an American citizen, involve himself in the political process by raising money. Does the Washington Post think this is a unique or even an unflattering story? In a way it is, to them.

Look, I am for complete public financing of political campaigns myself. But until that is even remotely a reality, Latinos, just like everyone else, will and MUST participate in the political system as it exists. To single Cantu out, as the WaPo does, is patronizing at best, racist at worst.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have introduced health care plans. Hillary says Obama's plan leaves 15 million people uncovered and only provides mandatory coverage for children.

That appears to be the case. Here's Obama's plan (pdf.) There is a mandate that applies only to children.

Nor has Obama been consistent in his statements on universal health care.

Hillary maintains her plan not only covers everyone but also, like Obama's, cuts costs. Her plan is here (pdf).

Both plans are improvements over our current system. I agree with Hillary that mandatory coverage should include everyone, not just children and 15 million uninsured is too many.

Senator Barack Obama's attempt to woo the Beltway Elite is a fool's errand. He is their darling now as Hillary Clinton's main opponent. But if he wins, they will turn on him on a dime. Heck, Fred Hiatt did not even wait:

It's also true that, more responsibly than Clinton, he acknowledges a fiscal challenge for Social Security. But where he used to accept that all possible remedies must be on the table to achieve a political compromise, he now opposes benefit cuts and proposes to solve the problem with, yes, a tax hike on the rich.

Of course, Obama's attempt to woo the Beltway Elite by speaking irresponsibly about Social Security will NEVER be enough for the Hiatts and Russerts of the world. But Hiatt's attack on Obama should be a lesson - the Beltway Elite and the GOP believe "bipartisanship" and "compromise" means Democrats doing what they say.

Will Obama ever learn this? For his campaign, it remains the key question - can Obama ignore the Beltway Elite? So far he has not been able to.

Barack Obama is not a supporter of medical marijuana. He is a supporter of more research to determine if it helps reduce pain.

When a voter asked Obama if he was for the legalization of medical marijuana, Obama said that he wasn't in favor of legalization without scientific evidence and tight controls.

..."My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana then that's something I'm open to ..... (my emphasis).....He added that he was concerned that the reasons for the use of marijuana would grow and create a "slippery slope."

There is a plethora of research showing that medicinal pot reduces pain and relieves disease symptoms.[More....]

The much touted WaPo Iowa poll gives us a clue:

Which of these is more important to you in a candidate for president: (strength and experience) or (a new direction and new ideas)?

Strength New direction

33 55

These words mean next to nothing in real life but they have become the narrative for the coverage of Iowa and I think most Iowa caucus voters will think of it that way.

These buzz words are emblematic of two candidates now - Hillary Clinton means strength and experience. Barack Obama means new direct and new ideas. Forget the fact that the phrases mean nothing. They are standins for a Hillary Clinton referendum.

For reasons unfathomable, John Edwards seems to believe that attacks on Hillary Clinton's trustworthiness and candor will make him the alternative to Hillary. He has left Barack Obama unscathed. In the face of these results, it is hard to imagine what Edwards is thinking:

Who is the most honest and trustworthy 11/18/07 7/31/07
Barack Obama 31 30
John Edwards 20 24
Hillary Clinton 15 14

Edwards is losing ground here? Not really. HE is losing SUPPORT. The attacks he is engaging in give him no benefits whatsoever.

And the end game seems set to me - Two choices - "strength and experience" (Clinton) vs. Change (Obama). Where is the Edwards choice? He ceded it to Obama. In my view, he is finished.

Via LGM, Mark Halperin seems intent on making sure that the 3 people who do not already consider him an idiot do. Consider this:

For instance, being all things to all people worked wonderfully well for Bill Clinton the candidate, but when his presidency ran into trouble, this trait was disastrous, particularly in the bumpy early years of his presidency and in the events leading up to his impeachment. The fun-loving campaigner with big appetites and an undisciplined manner squandered a good deal of the majesty and power of the presidency, and undermined his effectiveness as a leader. What much of the country found endearing in a candidate was troubling in a president. When George W. Bush ran in 2000, many voters liked his straightforward, uncomplicated mean-what-I-say-and-say-what-I-mean certainty. He came across as a man of principle who did not lust for the White House; he was surrounded by disciplined loyalists who created a cheerful cult of personality about their candidate. As with Mr. Clinton, though, the very campaign strengths that got Mr. Bush elected led to his worst moments in office. Assuredness became stubbornness. His lack of lifelong ambition for the presidency translated into a failure to apply himself to the parts of the job that held less interest for him, often to disastrous effects. The once-appealing life outside of government and public affairs became a far-less appealing lack of experience. And Mr. Bush’s close-knit team has served as a barrier to fresh advice.

That the Media is incompetent seems to be Halperin's well hidden point. He makes it by comparing the worst President in history to Bill Clinton? He makes it by comparing the Media and the GOP's obsession with the President's sex life and the Iraq Debacle?

Please, no more Mr. Halperin. You have effectively made your case. You are an idiot. We get it. We know that you do not understand "what it takes" to do legitimate and relevant journalism.

Update [2007-11-25 9:40:1 by Big Tent Democrat]: Paul Krugman adds an important point:

Out-of-Touch Rudy Giuliani today called for fewer regulations and increased tax cuts for corporations as a means of responding to outsourcing jobs.

Businesses have a right to make a profit, he said. The solution, he said, is lifting some regulations on businesses and lowering the corporate tax rate.

Just what we need, more corporate welfare.

The media is loving talking up Barack Obama's chances in Iowa. But nationally, Hillary is easily maintaining her big lead over him among Democratic supporters -- those most likely to vote in a primary or caucus. In fact, she's up 7 points from September. From the latest Harris poll:

More than half of Democratic Party supporters in the United States think Hillary Rodham Clinton should become their presidential nominee next year, according to a poll by Harris Interactive. 52 per cent of respondents would back the New York senator in a 2008 presidential primary, up seven points since October. Illinois senator Barack Obama is second with 29 per cent, followed by former North Carolina senator John Edwards with 11 per cent.

She has a three point lead over Rudy Giuliani.

Republican candidate and former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney is under attack because a former prosecutor he appointed to the bench set bail for an inmate who had just finished serving a manslaughter sentence. Prosecutors, in an effort to keep the inmate in jail after finishing his sentence, charged him with crimes arising from two incidents occurring more than a year earlier. One incident involved him spitting on a guard and in the other, he hit a guard with a cast that was on his arm.

The inmate, Daniel Tavares, Jr., moved to Washington State after his release where he resided with his wife whom he met through a prison pen pal program. The wife brought a gun into the home, even though as a felon, Tavares isn't allowed to possess a gun. Tavares is now charged with and has confessed to shooting and killing a newleywed couple in WA over a $50 debt.

A "Willie Horton" campaign moment (1988 ad here)is brewing against Romney. In response, he has called for the Judge to resign and pushes the death penalty button.

More...

For better or worse, Hillary Clinton's political image is largely dominated by her tenure as First Lady. It seems fairly clear that Hillary was a key, if not the key, advisor to President Clinton on many many issues. And while Tim Russert's questions on documents from the period is not really an attempt to shed light on this, it is rather more of the same gotcha nonsense, it does inadvertently get to a lot of questions about Hillary.

In today's WaPo, Michael Kinsley writes:

[First ladies] must have a better understanding of how the presidency works than all but half a dozen people in the world. One of those half a dozen is Hillary Clinton, who saw it all -- well, she apparently missed one key moment -- and shared in all the big decisions. Every first lady is promoted as her husband's key adviser, closest confidant, blah, blah, blah, but in the case of the Clintons, it seems to be true.

That seems true to me. But here's the thing - my recollection of the Clinton years had Hillary supposedly playing the liberal in the lion's den of Centrists role in the Clinton Administration. I'll never forget the reaction of Peter and Marian Wright Edelman to welfare reform. Peter resigned his post and Marian Wright Edelman made sure everyone understood how she felt personally betrayed by HILLARY, not Bill. Hillary was to be the liberal conscience of the Clinton Administration. How time changes images. Now Hillary's supposed liberal past is long forgotten. For those who favor DLCism, this is a sign of Hillary's good sense. For those who disfavor it, it proves hillary is a corporatist sellout DLCer. This is a central question about Hillary Clinton. Who could best answer this question? I believe Bill Clinton would be that person. I think it would help us all, and probably mostly Hillary Clinton, if he and Hillary were to discuss her role and views on the Clinton Administration and the issues faced at the time. Release of documents to add to this telling would be even better. I think it is time to tell the story - not of the personal lives of the clintons - but the public policy lives of the the Clintons. Tell us what Hillary did, said, advised and thought. To me it is the most interesting and relevant question of the entire campaign.