The Washington Post reports that Republican candidate Fred Thompson's good buddy since the mid-90's, Philip Martin of Tennessee, who also supplies the plane for Thompson's campaign trips, has a criminal past:

Martin entered a plea of guilty to the sale of 11 pounds of marijuana in 1979; the court withheld judgment pending completion of his probation. He was charged in 1983 with violating his probation and with multiple counts of felony bookmaking, cocaine trafficking and conspiracy. He pleaded no contest to the cocaine-trafficking and conspiracy charges, which stemmed from a plan to sell $30,000 worth of the drug, and was continued on probation.

So, he gets a deferred in state court for pot, violates probation, pleads "no contest" (same effect as a guilty plea) to coke (more than a kilo's worth, if my memory serves me correctly as to what coke sold for back then) and gets continued on probation with no jail time?

Sounds like he cooperated big time. [More...]

What with calling Hillary Rudy and promising leadership starting a year from now, Obama has been pretty busy. It turns out the politics of his moment on Kyl Lieberman required he skip the vote to go to New Hampshire. Via Alegre, CNN reported that:

I have an important point to make on that Iran vote... Obama claimed "he did not get enough notice to return to dc to make that vote but 2 Democratic Senate sources tell CNN that all senators were advised the night before that the vote would come up the next day and Senator Obama should have known that vote was coming."

If this is true, Obama has some explaining to do. Apparently Obama did not think leading on opposing Kyl Lieberman mattered at the time.

As Atrios remarked a week or so ago, for candidates who hold office now, the best way to demonstrate leadership is to LEAD in the office they hold now. On Iraq, FISA, Mukasey and other issues, one candidate has taken the lead consistently - Chris Dodd. The frontrunners who sit in the Senate, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have been incredibly cautious, and sometimes counterproductive (remember Obama on playing chicken with the troops on Iraq). Today, Obama pretends he has been presenting bold leadership, when his has been a crass, empty and conventional campaign. But he thinks we have not noticed:

Much has been said about the exchanges between Senator Clinton and myself this week. Now, understand that Hillary Clinton is a colleague and a friend. She’s also a skilled politician, and she’s run what Washington would call a “textbook” campaign. But the problem is the textbook itself. It’s a textbook that’s all about winning elections, but says nothing about how to bring the country together to solve problems. As we saw in the debate last week, it encourages vague, calculated answers to suit the politics of the moment, instead of clear, consistent principles about how you would lead America. . . .

Who is Obama kidding here? We have seen your performance in the Senate, Senator Obama. To call it vague and calculating is an understatement.

More...

Does this candidate sound like Rudy?

There is no doubt that Iran poses a threat. It has armed terrorists beyond its borders, maintains an illicit nuclear program, and its leaders have issued belligerent threats that are a concern to us all. . . . We do need to tighten sanctions on the Iranian regime, particularly on Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which sponsors terrorism far beyond Iran's borders.

This guy?

U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.

And so on. It so happens that I agree with a lot of what I am quoting from Obama. I strongly disagree with any calls for resolutions of any type from the Senate on Iran. Kyl-Lieberman was a horrible mistake.

But when Obama said Hillary was like Rudy on Iran, that was a lie. It would be a lie to say Obama is like Rudy. Here's my new request from our Presidential canidates - I am setting the bar low - no more bald faced lying. Be more nuanced in your misstatements.

The New York Times has a new, five page article article on Rudy Giuliani's Bernie Kerik problem, explaining how it casts doubt on his credibility, his leadership potential and his judgment.

I've written about this so many times, most recently here, but there are some new tidbits in the article, so let's review. For a theme, think, "The Red Flags Rudy Didn't See."

The principal flag, while not being the first one, dates to 2000, before Rudy made Bernie police commissioner. It concerns Kerik's lobbying activities for Interstate, a construction company with reputed mob-ties and millions in city contracts that employed both Kerik's brother and Larry Ray, his good friend and best man at his wedding.

Initially, Rudy said he didn't know about Kerik's ties to Interstate or Ray at the time.

“I was not informed of it,” Mr. Giuliani said then, when asked if he had been warned about Mr. Kerik’s relationship with Interstate before appointing him to the police post in 2000.

In 2006, Rudy got called to the grand jury investigating Kerik. He acknowledged that Ed Kuriansky, then the city's investigations commissioner, had told him he briefed Rudy on the matter. But, Rudy told the grand jury, he didn't recall that Kuriansky had told him specifically about Kerik's ties to Interstate or Larry Ray.

More....

Some seem to like this type of campaigning. I think it is abhorrent:

While Rudy Giuliani may embrace Hillary Clinton's policy of not talking and saber rattling towards Iran, Barack Obama knows that policy is not working.

What can one say now. The Obama campaign is simply telling falsehoods now. I'll say this, Obama has certainly seen the light, he won't be ushering in a New Era of Politics after all.

This is gutter stuff. h/t Adam B.

The Edwards ad ripping Hillary has wowed some folks in the blogosphere. I thought it was weak, because it seemed to lack any real substance to it. Matt Yglesias agrees with me:

Substantively, though, I'm not in love with this particular critique of Clinton precisely because it's not a substantive critique.

And it seems Team Edwards agrees:

Edwards campaign sources want to emphasize that Edwards did make a policy argument during the debate . . . but that the MSM isn't interested in policy arguments.

Apparently, neither is a good deal of the Netroots.

Say what you will, give the Clinton campaign professionalism props. After a few days of her campaign, imo, insinuating that gender DID have something to do with the criticisms levelled at her, she now turns a nice phrase denying that:

Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that her status as the Democratic presidential front-runner _ not her gender _ has led her male primary rivals to intensify their criticism of her. "I don't think they're piling on because I'm a woman. I think they're piling on because I'm winning," Clinton told reporters after filing paperwork to appear on the New Hampshire primary ballot.

So Obama, erm, piles on today on this, a mistake imo, and walks into this one. This line also is a winner for Clinton:

"I anticipate it's going to get even hotter, and if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. I'm very much at home in the kitchen," she said.

Not baking cookies one assumes.

Unlike, Ezra, and possibly Atrios, I think it is clear that the Clinton campaign is playing the gender card to some extent. But I think the real question is is she playing it unfairly. As Ezra notes, no reasonable person can doubt that as a woman (as Obama does in different, and, imo, more profound, ways as a African American), Clinton faces unfair challenges as a candidate. Indeed, the entire Hillary Clinton image, as conjured up by Limbaugh and Republicans for 15 years has been wrapped up in her being a bitch; a castrating "devil woman." She is constrained in how she can respond to negative attacks because of this.

That said, this ridiculous "doubletalk" broadside from Edwards, and particularly absurdly from the vacillating Barack Obama, fueled by the absurd Pumpkinhead Russert, is more a function of her being a frontrunner than a woman.

But Hillary opponents beware, I think Hillary's play of the gender card will win this absurd political argument. I was surprised to see Obama jump into the fray. Edwards was doing the dirty work for him. Yet again, Obama makes a political mistake. In my opinion of course.

Via Cosbo, John Edwards continues to pound Hillary Clinton on her "doubletalk" while doing no talking himself on the issue. Where do you stand on the issue Senator Edwards? Are you for or against dirvers licenses for undocumented aliens? What do you think of the Spitzer Plan? At this point, even a little doubletalk on the issue from you would be welcome.

On a related note, I agree with Kos that challenges to the Democratic frontrunner on the issues is not only more than welcome, it is tardy. But make it on the issues. Alleged "doubletalk" is NOT a substantive issue. Here are some examples of issues that I think are substantive:

Why is Senator Clinton not pressing her colleagues to end the Iraq War by not funding it? Why does she continue to falsely claim the Senate needs 60 votes to not fund the Iraq Debacle?

Why did Senator Clinton vote for Kyl-Lieberman? Does she not agree with Senator Dodd that the Bush Administration can not be trusted?

Will Senator Clinton lead on a filibuster of the FISA telco amnesty? Not just vote for filibuster, will she LEAD it?

To name a few examples.

First, let me make clear my view that Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment was a huge mistake, both on policy and politics. Senator Chris Dodd got it right at the debate:

So what to do now? Pretend that Kyl Lieberman provides a LEGAL basis for Bush to attack Iran? Absolutely not. And yet, Senator Barack Obama, in a crass and harmful political stunt, is doing exactly that:

Democrat Barack Obama introduced a Senate resolution late Thursday that says President Bush does not have authority to use military force against Iran . . . Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the Illinois senator drafted the measure in an effort to "nullify the vote the Senate took to give the president the benefit of the doubt on Iran."

This is simply a false statement from the Obama campaign. Obama apparently is willing to pretend the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment authorizes the President to attack Iran, when it does not, in order to extract politcal gain as a result of Senator Clinton's huge mistake. That is despicable. More.

I was reviewing the comments to my earlier post, the Final Word on the Pile-On, and was struck by how many people are opposed to one candidate or another because they aren't sufficiently left or progressive.

Which reminded me of what I wrote last month about my ideal candidate, following which I noted that no candidate is going to match my positions on issues or even focus on those I care most about.

That would require a candidate who vows as President to impose a moratorium on executions, close Guantanamo, try accused terrorists under the Code of Military Justice or in federal courts, insist Congress abolish mandatory minimum sentences, put a lockbox on my social security benefits and provide mandatory health care, including affordable and compassionate nursing home care, for the elderly.

And of course, a candidate who as President would end the war in Iraq and promise not to get us into other wars preemptively or under false pretenses.

There just is no such candidate who has a chance of winning in this presidential election.

More...