Maybe now this story will gain some traction in the media. It's been way too lenient on the connection between Bernie Kerik and Rudy Guiliani. There were headlines for one day and then no one asked the tough questions, the ones about what Rudy knew about Bernie and his alleged ties to mob associates and a company with alleged ties to mob associates and when he knew it.

The New York Times reports that publisher and former Fox News talk show host Judith Regan has filed a 70 page lawsuit against News Corp and Harper Collins in state court in Manhattan over her abrupt firing during the firestorm over her planned publication of O.J. Simpson's book about how he might have killed Nicole Brown Simpson. The text of the lawsuit is here.(pdf)

Regan alleges in the lawsuit that a Fox executive told her to lie to federal investigators about her relationship with Bernie Kerik in order to protect Rudy Giuliani. She says another Fox exec told her not to turn over relevant documents.

Among the reported details of the Regan-Kerik affair:

Ms. Regan had an affair with Mr. Kerik, who is married, beginning in the spring of 2001, when her imprint, Regan Books, began work on his memoir, “The Lost Son.” In December 2004, after the relationship had ended and shortly after Mr. Kerik’s homeland security nomination fell apart, newspapers reported that the two had carried on the affair at an apartment near Ground Zero that had been donated as a respite for rescue and recovery workers.

Fox claimed it fired Regan for alleged anti-semitic comments.

Then there's this from the December 15, 2004, New York Post:

Now that Senator Barack Obama has regained his footing in the Presidential race, it is time for him to go for the win - by demonstrating leadership on the issues NOW! Obama has shrewdly allowed John Edwards to take the path of self immolating personal attacks on Clinton (now he won't say he will support Hillary if she is the nominee, he is self destructing), while reaping the political benefits of those attacks. But Obama has a chance to do more now. He has a chance to define the terms of this contest. He can lead now on the issues. Particularly ending the war in Iraq by not funding it.

Matt Yglesias writes an excellent post that implicitly describes Obama's opportunity:

[S]omeone like Webb or Obama or Dean or Clark who can plausibly claim prescient judgment about what's become an extremely unpopular war is just in a much fundamentally stronger position to go up against a candidate (at either the presidential or congressional level) who's be a die-hard war supporter but not someone who was personally involved in the well-known Rumsfeld-era cavalcade of ineptitude.

Certainly, but it will take more than pointing to the 2002 AUMF vote. It will take leadership NOW. Strong leadership from the Senate. Strong leadership that insists the Congress not fund the war without timetables for withdrawal.

I am a Centrist. I believe the Democratic Party is a centrist Party. I wish the Democratic Party would fight for its centrist ideals. Like ending the the war in Iraq. Like not going to war in Iran. Like bringing balance to our tax system by reversing the extreme and radical Bush tax cuts. Like doing something about global warming. Like protecting equal rights for all Americans. Like protecting the right to choose. Like offering health care to all Americans. And so on. These Democratic principles stand in the center of American public opinion, held by a strong majority of Americans.

The Republican Party is an extreme party whose views are completely out of the mainstream of American thought. The views espoused by the GOP must be marginalized and beaten at every turn. It is because of this that I strongly dislike this view articulated by Sen. Hillary Clinton:

During this campaign, you're going to hear me talk a lot about the importance of balance," she began, after acknowledging that the Bush Administration had gone too far toward deregulation in most areas. "You know, our politics can get a little imbalanced sometimes. We move off to the left or off to the right, but eventually we find our way back to the center because Americans are problem solvers. We are not ideologues. Most people are just looking for sensible, commonsense solutions."

I think the views may be correct but it is poor politicking. Clinton needs to espouse her views on issues. Her problem solving views, not give silly buzzwords that implicitly relegate her Party to the extremes. It ignores that there is an extreme political party in the United States. The Republican Party. It ignores that there is a pragmatic, centrist problem solving party, the Democratic Party. This fight is not beyond politics. It is the CENTRAL political fight going on in this country. I wish Democrats, including Hillary Clinton would get that.

There's no question Barack Obama is to be credited for his role in enacting legislation in Illinois to require mandatory taping of interrogations to reduce wrongful convictions.

But, he is not a death penalty opponent.

Obama wrote in his recent memoir that he thinks the death penalty "does little to deter crime." But he supports capital punishment in cases "so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

A Chicago Tribune profile of Obama last spring (May 2, 2007, available on Lexis.com) contained this paragraph:

A critic of the state's broken capital punishment system, Obama spent two years working with Republicans to broker a series of reforms aimed at making it more difficult for the innocent to face execution. Still, Obama found himself on various sides of the death penalty debate. Five months into office, he voted to expand the list of death-eligible crimes to include the brutal murder of a senior citizen or a disabled person. Four years later, he opposed adding murders that were part of "gang activity" to the list, saying the term was a "mechanism to target particular neighborhoods (and) particular individuals."(my emphasis)

More...

Ezra discusses a Hillary Clinton quote, via Joe Klein, that describes her views on the relationship between political rhetoric and policy. Like Ezra, I find it persuasive:

Obama has added a fillip of honesty by telling his audiences that [his energy] program might result in higher energy prices. I asked Clinton why she hadn't been similarly honest, and she immediately turned it around: Obama wanted to spend the proceeds of the pollution auction — perhaps as much as $50 billion — on alternative-energy research and development. "I have committed to putting money from that auction into programs to ... cushion the economic impact on working and poor families," she said. And then she added scornfully, "So if you want to go and get some debating point telling people this is going to cost you money, then I don't think you've thought through the policy as carefully as you could ... This is going to be a tough transition. It's got to be done politically. One of the ways to make it politically palatable is to rebut the Republican talking point that ... it's another huge tax increase on Americans. You know what? It isn't."

Politics is more than "straight talk." (I believe it has little to do with straight talk.) It is about presenting your policies in ways that will succeed politically. To govern, you must win. To enact your policies, you must persuade the public.

The strange thing to me is, as I have repeated often, Obama can not only do this, he can probably do it better than anyone. But he chooses not to. It baffles me immensely.

John Edwards is announcing a plan to help veterans with PTSD today in New Hampshire.

Under Edwards' plan, veterans could seek counseling for post-traumatic stress disorder outside the Veterans Health Administration system; the number of counselors would increase; and family members would be employed to identify cases of PTSD.

PTSD among vets has increased 70% in the last fiscal year. There is currently a backlog of 600,000 claims.

Edwards said that despite his opposition to how the war has been waged, the enlisted men and women deserve the nation's support when they complete their service. "Warriors should never be ashamed to deal with the personal consequences of war."

The five point plan will cost $400 million, which Edwards proposes to fund "through closing tax loopholes and more efficient tax collection."

As promised earlier, Obama on MTP:

SEN. OBAMA: . . . [O]n Social Security, for example, she has maintained, it appears, that if we just get our fiscal house in order that we can solve the problem of Social Security. Now, we’ve got 78 million baby boomers that are going to be retiring, and every expert that looks at this problem says “There’s going to be a gap, and we’re going to have more money going out than we have coming in unless we make some adjustments now.” . . .

Ah, the Social Security "crisis." More.

My impression of Senator Barack Obama's appearance on Meet the Press (the transcript link will be added when available) was that it was adequate. It was a typical Russert gotcha fest that Obama took in stride and handled with aplomb. Except for one issue. Social Security.

The exchange with Russert on Social Security was particularly damaging because Obama has made a point of calling out Senator Clinton for not speaking forthrightly on the so-called Social Security "crisis." But Russert pulled out quotes from Obama where he said "all options would be on the table," compared it to Obama's most recent rhetoric that appeared to rule out certain options. Obama went back and forth on what was "on the table" and what was not on the table, and how he would deal with Social Security. Ironically, Obama seemed to endorse some type of consensus approach remarkably similar to what Senator Clinton has described.

In the end, Russert asked Obama 'so, all options are on the table?' Obama did not say no. In that exchange, Obama proved why Senator Clinton has taken the right POLITICAL approach on Social Security - a serious approach gets you nowhere in today's political climate with a Media that perpetrates the myth that Social Security is in crisis and a Republican Party that will pounce with mendacity and distortions. Obama gave answers today that CAN be used against him, both by Republicans and his Democratic primary opponents. And discussion of the issue itself has been forwarded not at all. Yet again, Obama should learn the lesson that he does not have the power to change politics. He is just a politican. An extremely talented one to be sure, but still just a politician.

The Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner took place in Iowa Saturday night. It's hard to credit anything any of the candidates say when you read stuff like this:

Obama's raucous supporters dominated the cheering battle, with yell leaders in each of his seating sections coordinating choruses of "Fired Up" and "Ready to Go" -- the call-and-response lines he often uses to close his rallies.

Supporters of Obama and Clinton made up more than half of the crowd, and Edwards also brought a big contingent. They were easy to spot -- Clinton's backers wore yellow T-shirts, Obama's red and Edwards' white.

Each candidate entered the darkened arena in a white spotlight and walked through the crowd to the podium in the center of the floor, giving the event the feel of a prize fight.

The lead quote from Chris Dodd:

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd promised the crowd that if he was president "You will get your Constitution back. No more Guantanamos."

Then why didn't Dodd show up to vote against Mukasey?

More....

Rudy Giuliani got heckled in Loveland, Colorado this weekend.

The Boston Globe has a very long feature on Rudy as part of its series on all the candidates. Here's what you need to know:

His endorsement of police "stop and frisk" policies, crackdowns on jaywalkers, and roustings of homeless people provoked outcries. The city's liberal establishment was in a perpetual state of outrage, as were leaders of the city's African-American community, nearly all of whom found the mayor's office closed to them.

....Giuliani fought to limit artists, protesters, porn shops, labor demonstrations, street preachers, and sidewalk vendors. In one case, the court blocked him from banning advertisements on city buses that said New York magazine was "Possibly the only good thing in New York Rudy hasn't taken credit for."

He attacked the reputation of a dead man:

More....

A New York Times editorial today explains why the Bernie Kerik indictment impacts Rudy's bid for the presidency.

The men have an extraordinarily close bond. Mr. Giuliani plucked Mr. Kerik from obscurity to make him correction commissioner. He made him police commissioner even though he may have been briefed about Mr. Kerik’s ties to the company suspected of links to organized crime. Mr. Giuliani also made him a partner in his security business and promoted him for the Homeland Security Department post.

Two important questions are precisely what are the mistakes the former mayor thinks he made in trusting Mr. Kerik, and how can voters be sure that he would not make them again as president, when the stakes for a disastrous appointment would be so much higher.

The second question is the most important one. The answer is we can't be sure, and Rudy must be judged by his past actions. He ignored too many red flags about Kerik. Perhaps it's a case of willful blindness, of being the ostrich burying his head in the sand. Perhaps it's classic arrogance. Perhaps Rudy is just a bad judge of character.

Either way, Rudy put personal loyalty to Kerik above the good of the nation in recommending Kerik to Bush for the Homeland Security job. Rudy doesn't deserve another chance. He doesn't get to say "trust me." There's no do-over on this one.

I have been a Chris Dodd supporter for many months now. The reason why was simple - he was leading on the issues I cared most about.

And, too be fair, he still is on many. But I can no longer ignore a very troubling development about the Dodd campaign - it has been much less about issues and more about attacks of late. His nod to bigoted opposition to Eliot Spitzer's drivers licenses for undocumented aliens initiative was, on the issues, easily his lowest moment of the campaign for me.

But more troubling than that for me is his campaign team probably thinks it was one of his best moments - because he got to zing Hillary Clinton. It appears that the Dodd campaign believes that is a winning formula for him. What else could explain this?