“At the Hillary Rodham campaign on N. Main Street, there is a hostage situation, Rochester Police Capt. Paul Callaghan just told me. “We have called the bomb squad.”
“We have evacuated the area, and the local school that is a few blocks away is in lockdown,” Sgt. Callaghan said. The school is St. Elizabeth’s Seton, which is a K-8 school.
Regional tactical unit made up of Rochester, Dover, Durham police department has been called, and as I spoke with him at 1:52 he said “The state police explosive disposal unit just arrived on scene right now.”
He couldn’t say how many people were being held hostage or who they think the hostage-taker is.
In an interview today, Dennis Kucinich said he viewed health care as “a basic right, not as a privilege based on ability to pay.”
So I asked him whether food, clothing and shelter were also basic rights that ought to be guaranteed by the federal government.
“Oh, yeah,” he said. “I don’t think we should have people starving.”
How would he provide those basic needs? He wants a new Works Progress Administration to ensure that all Americans will jobs.
But wouldn’t a federal guarantee of subsistence spell the end to local charities? No, he said, they’d have a role, and the government would subsidize them.
What would he do with someone who simply refused to work? That person would still be eligible for free education funding and health care. But there would be a test for work. Those who could work would have to, those who couldn’t would get government aid without working.
But he insisted that government would not take over everything.
“Government can’t do everything in society, I understand that,” he said. “. . . I don’t look at government as Big Daddy.”
Asked what government shouldn’t do, and wouldn’t do in a Kucinich administration, though, all he could come up with is snooping. “Government should stay out of private lives,” he said. But he couldn’t say what area of government activity other than that involving the Patriot Act he would curtail.
I asked Dennis Kucinich today about his admission that he’d seen a UFO while at Shirley MacLaine’s house. Does that mean he believes there is intelligent life on other planets?
“You know, what I’ve been working on is to try to determine if there’s intelligent life in Washington,” he joked. But then he got serious.
“What I saw were three craft that were unlike anything I’ve seen before in my life,” he said. But as to whether they were alien spacecraft, he isn’t sure. “I keep an open mind to these things,” he said.”
Is there intelligent life out there?
“I don’t know. I don’t know what I saw.”
In an interview today, Dennis Kucinich told me he would not accept Hillary Clinton as his running mate if he won the Democratic presidential nomination.
Discussing his recent mention of Ron Paul as a possible vice presidential pick, I asked if having opposed the Iraq war from the beginning was a prerequisite for any potential running mate. He said yes. I asked if that ruled out Hillary Clinton.
“Absolutely,” he said. “That (how our military is used) is one of our defining issues.”
And he reiterated that he would not support Clinton or Edwards for President were either one to get the nomination.
“I’m not going to support anyone who supported the war, period.”
Rudy Giuliani’s attempt to hold Mitt Romney indirectly responsible for a Massachusetts ex-con’s alleged killing of a Washington state couple is clumsy and unfair. It’s not unfair because Romney’s appointment of Judge KatheTuttman is faultless. It’s unfair because Giuliani is using it in combination with the murder rate in Massachusetts during Romney’s term as governor to blatantly paint Romney as soft on violent criminals. But Romney was not soft on crime.
Romney certainly was not as aggressive a crime-fighter as Giuliani was. But on the whole Romney was a law and order governor who boosted the state police force, increased the size of the state police lab, reformed the judicial nominating process so better judges would reach the bench and denied every request for a pardon or sentence commutation.
In an editorial board interview with this newspaper on Monday, Giuliani attacked Romney for overseeing a rise in violent crime during his four years as governor. He also said Romney should take responsibility for appointing Judge Kathe Tuttman, who in June ordered the release without bail or electronic monitoring of Daniel Tavares, a convicted murderer who had served 16 years for stabbing his own mother to death. Tavares has been arrested in Washington state for allegedly murdering a newlywed couple there.
First, violent crime in Massachusetts dropped while Romney was governor. Murders and robberies rose, but it is hard to see how Romney, who offered state police officers for use by the city of Boston to help reduce crime there, is to blame. I asked Guiliani on Monday if former New York Gov. George Pataki could take credit for the drop in New York City crime during the mayor’s tenure there. He said yes — because Pataki helped with some anti-crime measures.
(Ironically, Democrats in Manchester this fall tried to defeat Giuliani-backer Mayor Frank Guinta by using the same tactic Giuliani is using on Romney. Using cherry-picked data, as Giuliani is doing, they blamed Guinta for a supposed rise in the city’s murder rate.)
Second, Judge Tuttman made a bad decision, but I’ve read nothing to indicate that she was a soft-on-crime judge overall. As the Globe and the Herald report, the state botched its case for keeping Tavares locked up, making it harder for Tuttman to justify denying his release. The state did not ask for a dangerousness hearing, so Tuttman was left to decide only whether Tavares might skip the state.
The Herald, no fan of Romney’s, editorialized, “Without evidence that Tavares posed a threat, Tuttman could only consider whether he was a flight risk.”
Obviously Tuttman erred on the question of whether Tavares was a flight risk. It should’ve been obvious that a convicted killer facing new charges of assaulting prison guards might think twice about sitting around waiting for a new trial.
Does her bad decision make Romney soft on crime? Hardly. But Romney deserves whacking over her appointment anyway. As Michael Graham pointed out, when Romney appointed Tuttman he boasted that he was appointing a woman. He seemed to be more concerned about political correctness than anything else. Giuliani should be criticizing Romney for basing his judicial selections on political considerations. Instead, he’s unfairly portraying Romney as soft on crime.
A new Zogby poll finds that Hillary Clinton would be defeated by every one of the “top five” Republican presidential candidates, but that Barack Obama would win against all of them.
The poll shows John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee — yes, Mike Huckabee — beating Cinton. Have the respondents even heard of Mike Huckabee? If not, which seems somewhat likely, they must really dislike Sen. Clinton.
The poll also shows that Barack Obama would defeat McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Thompson and Huckabee. John Edwards, it found, would defeat every Republican but McCain.
Now, you have to take these polls with a grain of salt, but this does throw, if not a wet blanket, at least a wet washcloth over Clinton’s claims of inevitability and electability. If I were Edwards or Obama, I’d make sure the Democratic and unaffiliated voters in New Hampshire saw this poll. I think a lot of the New Hampshire Democrats who say they back Clinton are doing so because they think she’ll be the strongest candidate in the general election, not because they are smitten by her otherwise. Obama needs to chip away at that impression, and this poll would make a good small tool to help do that.
The state Democratic Party sent a Thanksgiving press release today that included this whopper of an item we all should be thankful for:
“Gov. Lynch and our Democratic majorities brought much needed fiscal accountability to Concord by developing a budget that increases services while saving costs.”
They passed a state budget that grew by 17.5 percent and raised a host of fees and taxes and yet still doesn’t pay for the education funding mandate they passed. How in the name of Captain John Smith does that amount to “fiscal accountability” and “saving costs”?
Sen. Hillary Clinton is pounding home the theme that she has “experience” and her leading rival Sen. Barack Obama does not. But what kind of experience?
Sen. Clinton was elected to the U.S. Senate in November, 2000, taking office in January, 2001. She’s had less than seven years’ experience as an elected official.
Sen. Obama was elected to the Illinois state Senate in November, 1996, and to the U.S. Senate in November, 2004. Clinton has four years more experience than Obama does in the U.S. Senate, but Obama has four years more experience than Clinton does as an elected official.
Clinton has a great deal more experience being a first lady, first in Arkansas, then in Washington. It is safe to say that Obama will never have more experience as a first lady than Clinton does. But he has more experience serving in an elected office. (Illinois has the 8th-largest senate districts in the country. Obama served 210,000 people while he was a state senator.)
For now, she has successfully painted herself as more experienced than Obama. She benefits from being a household name and from Obama’s reluctance to call her on the issue. But really, how many Americans consider being first lady a meaningful method of preparing one’s self for the presidency or a meaningful measure of experience in public office?
In his education speech at Central High School this morning, Sen. Barack Obama said he would fund early childhood education programs because “studies show that from the time of conception to the first day of kindergarten, children’s development progresses faster than at any other stage of life. By the age of three, 85% of the brain’s core structure is already formed. Eighty-five percent.”
From “conception”?
Then why is he pro-choice?
The question tonight, and for the next two months, is how aggressive will Barack Obama get. Obama said in Manchester on Monday, “Despite the egging on of the national press, I’m not interested in kneecapping Hillary Clinton.”
Well, why not? Is he afraid of weakening the candidate he thinks will win the nomination?
Democrats (and all Americans) want a leader, not a lecturer. Clinton’s lead began to shrink after her opponents started attacking her. Pointing out her flaws not only works, it’s fair and necessary. There’s nothing wrong or immoral or underhanded about contrasting yourself with your opponents.
If Obama starts pulling his punches now, if he shows that he really doesn’t have the killer instinct, he’ll wind up looking like a caricature of Fred Thompson. (How badly does he want this job, anyway?)
If he isn’t assertive enough to take on Hillary Clinton, how aggressive will he be when dealing with the Russians, the North Koreans, the Iranians or the Chinese?
Obama has a real problem showing assertiveness. John Edwards has established himself as the alpha male of the group, but he’s John Edwards. Democrats don’t view him as the most electable, and he has other flaws that compare unfavorably to Clinton. For all the talk of Clinton being the only woman in the field, no one questions whether she would be aggressive or dominant as President. That question nags Obama. He’s tall and has a deep voice, but otherwise he doesn’t project dominant or aggressive qualities. Of the top contenders, he is the most submissive, and I’m convinced that quality is hurting him terribly.
If he really wants to win the nomination, he has to make himself the top dog. He can’t do that with eloquence alone. He has to challenge Hillary Clinton directly and take her down. If he doesn’t have the instinct to do that, he’s done for. It’s not a matter of being mean or abandoning “the politics of hope.” It’s a matter of showing Americans that you’re tough enough to hold the most difficult, demanding and important job in the world.
Wow. The instant Hillary Clinton came out against driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, her opponents whipped out the whacking sticks. Here are the quotes:
“I support Governor Spitzer’s decision today to withdraw his proposal. As president, I will not support driver’s licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration, including border security and fixing our broken system.”
– Hillary Clinton, after New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer dropped his proposal to grant driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, citing overwhelming public opposition.
“It’s flip-flopping cubed. She was for it before she was against it, before she was for it, before she was against it. It’s been weeks now, and she still hasn’t offered up a serious, principled answer to the question.”
– Chris Dodd campaign spokesman Colleen Flanagan.
“When it takes two weeks and six different positions to answer one question on immigration, it’s easier to understand why the Clinton campaign would rather plant their questions than answer them.” — Barack Obama spokesman Bill Burton.
“She decided the kitchen was too hot, so she got out. It was a stunning reversal by her and it underscores her unreliability, that her position will change from week to week … It’s amazing to me that the gears of this vaunted political machine are really starting to show.”
– Obama senior advisor David Axelrod
(Dodd and Obama campaign e-mails whacking Clinton for her flip-flop arrived in my in box four minutes apart yesterday afternoon.)
Notice who is missing from the fray? John Edwards, the candidate who probably attacked Clinton the most on her flip-flop early on. Edwards’ silence has to be the result of his own straddling of the issue. It’s hard to attack Clinton for finally taking one side of the issue when you are still on both sides.
“He supports licenses as part of a path to citizenship. He doesn’t support the Spitzer plan because it doesn’t include a path to citizenship,” Edwards’ deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince said last week.
That stance hasn’t changed. So maybe Dodd and Obama will pile on Edwards tonight, too. It’ll be the boys ganging up on the girls. Or at least the two candidates who spend the most time primping.
The stage lights are hours from being lit, and already the piling on has begun. This debate should be fun.
Comment from Ron Bryson in Danbury: “The Privilege Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms, Shall Not Be Infringed”: You may recall that in concluding a YouTube interview last May, the former Senator engaged in a segment called “right or privilege.” During this segment, the interviewer peppered Edwards with a series of questions asking if he considered each a right or a privilege. In response to the proposition of “owning a handgun,” and following a pregnant pause, came the former Senator’s one word answer: “privilege.” Also surprising is what Edwards feels constitutes a “right.” To see the interview, visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQFhdFfl6rM
So NH, What do you think?
The new CBS News/NY Times poll (pdf) shows some cognitive dissonance among New Hampshire Democrats regarding their presidential candidate preferences.
Asked which quality they find more important in a candidate — having experience or having fresh ideas — likely Democratic primary voters say they prefer “fresh ideas” 50 percent to 38 percent.
Asked if they would support a candidate who favors keeping U.S. troops in Iraq longer than they (the voter) would like if that candidate had a good chance of winning the presidency, 50 percent of likely N.H. Democratic primary voters said they were “not willing” to do that, while 39 percent said they were.
Yet these same voters support Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama by a large margin: 37 percent to 22 percent. No other candidate even rates in the double digits. (John Edwards pulls 9 percent in a poll with a margin of error of 4 percent.)
Why do N.H. Democrats support Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama? Experience.
Despite their statements that they prefer fresh ideas and won’t vote for a candidate who supports keeping U.S. troops in Iraq longer than they would want, what they really desire is a seasoned candidate who can beat the Republican nominee next year.
Asked why they support the candidate they do, the No. 1 answer (18 percent) was that the candidate had the “right/good experience.”
Asked if Clinton has prepared herself well enough to be President, 77 percent said yes, only 19 percent no. Asked if Obama had prepared himself well enough to be President, only 42 percent said yes, 53 percent no.
So while Democratic voters in New Hampshire say they want someone with fresh ideas and who is as anti-war as they are, what they mean is they want someone with experience who can win the general election.
Evidently, Obama’s outsider image is actually hurting him in New Hampshire because the voters he’s going for want a seasoned Washington veteran, aka an insider.
