Nov. 1, 2006 | 10:01 a.m. ET

The five nastiest ads
(MSNBC Corresondent David Shuster)

Candidates across the country are pulling out all stops to attack their opponents. Watch the nastiest ads of this political season and vote below:

NBC VIDEO Five nastiest campaign ads Nov. 1: Candidates have been slugging it out on America's airwaves -- with millions of dollars spent on negative ads. MSNBC's David Shuster reports. MSNBC

Oct. 31, 2006 | 2:32 p.m. ET

The viral revolution
(Tony Maciulis, MSNBC senior producer)

Tony Maciulis Senior producer • E-mail

After some much-publicized candid camera moments on the campaign trial, we were quick to dub this “the YouTube election.”

And, without a doubt, YouTube and other video sharing sites are changing the political game rapidly.  There is George Allen’s “macaca” moment, Senator Burns nodding off at a hearing, and Harold Ford balking in Memphis, just to name a few.

Gone are the days when a candidate could make a mistake or test a stump speech in a small district without the fear of national humiliation.  Any cell phone at any venue can become a weapon for the opponent.

But the Internet is changing the political landscape in a very positive way, as well.  The Web provides an opportunity for every American to participate in the political process.

First, both parties have made use of the Web to make inroads in previously neglected districts.

For Republicans, that came in the form of a “netroots” campaign through websites like GOP.com.  That site has a social networking section called “My GOP,” just like the popular site “My Space.”  Operatives use it to identify registered Republicans in every district and then connect with them, whether in the virtual or the real world.

Democratic bloggers have made a real push to get more would-be Dems into the game.  This election, Democratic candidates are running in 425 congressional races, up from 400 two years ago.

With just 15 seats standing between “minority” and “majority” in the House, this kind of effort is invaluable.

And the Web also provides a chance for unknowns or third party candidates to attract attention.

The 5^th District in Oklahoma is considered “safe” for Republican candidate Mary Fallin, but there is a third part candidate on the ticket—Matthew Horton Woodson, an Independent with some, well, unique views on 9/11.

I discovered him, and his “Send Me a Buck” campaign, on MySpace.  You’ll find lots of other candidates there, as well, all hoping for some help from their cyber buddies.

And it isn’t so crazy.  Iraq vet and Democrat Paul Hackett came really close to beating Rep. Jean Schmidt in the solidly GOP Ohio District 2.  Almost his entire war chest came from bloggers.

Of course, the gold standard today is still Howard Dean’s amazing Web campaign in 2004.  He raised nearly $25 million in online donations from people who each gave $100 or less.

Joe Trippi was correct, the revolution will not be televised.  But it will be viral!

Oct. 27, 2006 | 11:39 a.m. ET

Democrats must keep cool

Hilary Rosen

It is hard when each day you see a whole new crop of nasty attack ads coming from the Republicans.  It does bother me that Democrats have never been very good at the 11^th hour attack, but it doesn’t bother me too much.  I don’t want to win at any cost – (unless of course the alternative is a corrupt Supreme Court decision deciding the presidency).  This election season has been heated because the stakes are high.  And given how badly the war is going, it is literally a matter of life and death.   But in this final stretch we all need to breathe and be careful.    Mistakes will be made by those who are too desperate to get the last bit of dirt out or get in the last word.  Voters want grace, leadership and skill and they will judge it often by how a candidate AND their supporters act in the final days before an election.

FREE VIDEO Campaign ads get downright nasty Oct. 26:  Campaigns in the most competitive races are carpet-bombing the airwaves with negative political ads. MSNBC’s David Shuster reports. Hardball

I liked Harold Ford’s reaction to the racist ad put up against him by the Republican national Committee.  His opponent was trying to have it both ways and said the ad should come down.  But the RNC kept it up.  Instead of jumping on the bandwagon and screaming and yelling about racism, Ford merely asked “if my opponent can’t get the powers that be to take down a 30 second ad, how is he going to be able to do anything for Tennessee?”  Cool.

We are days away from a sea change in the national conversation.  Democrats need to stay vigilant over the next week, but we also must stay cool.

Oct. 25, 2006 | 5:45 p.m. ET

The elephants in the room

David Shuster MSNBC correspondent • Profile

Thirteen days until the congressional elections, and there was more evidence today that even the White House has grudgingly accepted that voter perceptions of Iraq will determine who controls Congress.  In the midst of the worst Iraqi violence and the greatest number of U.S. troop casualties in 12 months, today a sober President Bush stepped into the East Room of the White House and admitted that most Americans have been saying for a year that the Iraq war is not going well. 

"I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation in Iraq," Bush said.  "I'm not satisfied either.  And that is why we are taking new steps to help secure Baghdad and constantly adjusting our tactics across the country to meet the changing threat."

But the only change from President Bush today seemed to be his words, not his Iraq policies.  The president did not offer a new strategy for stopping the loss of American lives or preventing an all out Iraq civil war.  The when it comes to civil war, the president declared something that all U.S. lawmakers and policy analysts agree on:  "Americans have no intention of taking sides in a sectarian struggle."

The president did give one nugget to Republicans who are getting bludgeoned by Democrats over the occupation when he said, “America's patience is not unlimited.”  And he spoke of pressuring the Iraqi government to produce "benchmarks" that could help measure progress.

What exactly is a benchmark?  The President described it this way:  "What we are asking (Iraqi officials) to do is to say when you think you are going to get this done, when can you get this done.  So the people themselves in Iraq can see that the government is moving forward with a reconciliation plan and plans necessary to unify this government."

That assumes, of course, that the government is able to move forward with such a plan.  And war critics argue the president is engaged in wishful thinking.

FREE VIDEO Fourth quarter offensive Oct. 25: Republicans come out fighting with tough ads as the midterms near.  Will the Democrats fight back? “Hardball’s” David Shuster reports. Hardball

In any case, one of the proverbial elephants in the room today was the language President Bush used previously about Iraq.  In June of 2005 he said, "There's not going to be any timetables."  That same month he said, "Don't bet on American politics forcing my hand, because it's not going to happen."

Now, of course, the president is facing the prospect of losing both houses of Congress.  And Mr. Bush is caught between his own party getting bludgeoned over the Iraq war and suggestions his administration is at least trying to sound flexible because of domestic politics.  So the President explained the new pressure on the Iraqi government this way:  "There is a significant difference between benchmarks for a government to achieve and a timetable for withdrawal." 

If Republicans were hoping their party leader would provide a little more breathing room on Iraq, they were disappointed.  The president heartily embraced Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, even though Maliki today rejected the imposition of benchmarks. Moreover, President Bush left open the possibility of permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, meaning the U.S. may never leave.  And the President once again stood by his embattled secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld, declaring "I'm satisfied with how he's done all his jobs.  He is a smart, tough, capable administrator."

Despite all of the controversies over Iraq, the President said he believes his party will keep control of Congress.  Referring to pundits predicting big Democratic gains, the President remarked, "You know, we got some people dancing in the end zone here in Washington, D.C.  They got them measuring their drapes.  They're going over to the Capitol and saying, 'Well, my new office looks beautiful;  I think I'm going to have this size drape there or this color.'"  The president seemed to be referring to minority leader Nancy Pelosi.  And a few Democrats today suggested the remarks smacked of sexism.  A Republican suggested that was ridiculous.

Yes, election season has made the parties as feisty as ever.  Republicans would dearly love to have an election based only on security issues and keeping taxes low.  But polling in most states indicated that the Iraq war is the number one issue for voters.  And in Virginia, where differences over Iraq are at the heart of a U.S. Senate race, the latest polling was dramatic. Until recently, much of the focus on Republican Senator George Allen has been over his “macaca” moment and alleged use of the n-word, not Allen's support for the Iraq war.  Democrat Jim Webb has a son serving in Iraq.  And the Webb campaign has been ratcheting up their commercials pledging for a change in course.  And now, for the first time in this campaign, the latest polling courtesy of Bloomberg/LA Times shows Webb beating Allen.

Allen supporters note that another poll just days ago showed Allen slightly ahead.  In any case, in races across the country the debate over Iraq is here to stay.  The question is, will voters agree with President Bush who said today the U.S. is winning the war in Iraq or, will voters reach a different conclusion and make the Republicans pay?

Oct. 24, 2006 | 7:46 p.m. ET

Election fever at the Knoxville airport
("Hardball" correspondent Norah O'Donnell and "Hardball" producer Jen Yuille)

Everyone is talking about the Tennessee Senate race, even the ticket counter agents and TSA agents at the airport. We told them what liquids we were carrying in our bags and then the conversation quickly turned to politics.

One of the agents had asked if we had attended the big Ford rally earlier. We explained to him that we actually interviewed Harold Ford. That caught everyone's attention. The other agents

NBC VIDEO Ford: Opposition is 'desperate' Oct. 24: Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tenn.) repsonds to an attack ad against him which some are calling racist. MSNBC

came out of their office, all eager to engage in the political discussion. They told us how Ford has been attending all of the University of Tennessee football games, holding tailgates and encouraging college students to register to vote. One woman explained that she is a Democrat but that the race has become so nasty that she doesn't know which way she is going to go on November 7. She said that she got a big laugh out of Ford when he confronted his opponent at a Corker event last Friday. The three of them said they are probably the only three Democrats in East Tennessee.

The conversation then shifted to 2008. Norah grew up in Texas and she asked her fellow Southerners what they thought about a Senator Hillary Clinton run in 2008. All the women said they liked her and they'd vote for her. Just an unscientific sampling from the South!

Oct. 24, 2006 | 7:36 p.m. ET

Year of the online videos

Jennifer London Correspondent

In 2000, the big trend was campaign websites - every candidate had to have one. In 2004, blogging and online fundraising was all the rage. And this year?

Call 2006 the year of online videos. Video sharing sites like You Tube have become so popular and populated with politics that a simple search yields close to 15,000 video postings in the political category alone. And with more than 20 million people visiting You Tube a month, it’s clear that video sharing sites are having an impact and perhaps even changing the political landscape.

Remember the old political mantra “stay on message?” It has never been more relevant thanks to video sharing sites.

FREE VIDEO You-Tube-Politics Oct. 24: Political ads that are making their way to the Internet are playing a major role in the upcoming election.  NBC’s Jennifer London reports. Hardball

Oct. 24, 2006 | 6:32 p.m. ET

Anything can happen in Pennsylvania

Lisa Daniels MSNBC Anchor

I am writing this blog as I sit in a satellite truck across from Love Park in Philadelphia. We’re here for MSNBC's Day of Politics. There is no better place to be if you’re a political junkie. Some of the tightest - most exciting - races are in Pennsylvania. And if you have doubt it, just look at how much money has been spent on races in this one state by both political parties.

An interesting day. First, a visit from Joe Sestak—the Democratic challenger in the 7^th Congressional district. He is looking to unseat Congressman Curt Weldon - a 10-term incumbent. Before the interview, my producer Alice Rhee and I talked to him about what matters—his five-year old daughter who is being treated for a malignant brain tumor. I use these pre-interviews to get to know the candidates a little bit more. To find out what makes them “tick.” I generally try to save my political questions for the interview itself.

In this late stage—two weeks before the elections—it’s especially hard to get an answer out of politicians that makes “news”—i.e., that clarifies their positions. They know what they want to say. They’ve heard the questions before. They know what their answers will be.

I asked Sestak to respond to the headlines on the front page of this morning’s Philadelphia Inquirer:  “Weldon campaign tied down, struggling.”  My question - does Sestak believe those headlines are more a function of his candidacy, or rather, due to the latest headlines regarding the FBI’s inquiry into Weldon’s daughter? Sestak said he believes it’s both.

Later in the day  Democratic challenger Bob Casey stopped by. The latest MSNBC-McClatchy poll shows Casey 12 percentage points ahead of incumbent Senator, Rick Santorum. Despite the huge lead, Casey has been criticized by some as running a campaign whose only platform is “I am not Rick Santorum.” Casey vehemently denied it. He says his record as state treasurer should speak for itself.

My own personal view - both candidates seemed relieved that the bulk of the campaign is behind them. I’m sure that’s one thing all these candidates share. But with two weeks to go before the election, as they say in politics.. anything can happen!

Oct. 24, 2006 | 3:37 p.m. ET

Schwarzenegger: 'I’ll be back'

George Lewis Correspondent • Profile

It’s a gorgeous, sunny 73-degree day in Santa Monica, Calif., the city where an immigrant named Arnold Schwarzenegger got his start as a bodybuilder at the local Gold’s Gym.  Now running for a second term as California Governor, Schwarzenegger looks like he’s got a lock on the election, with a double-digit lead in most polls over his Democratic opponent, Phil Angelides.  And even in places like Santa Monica, a place so liberal it’s been called the People’s Republic of Santa Monica, Schwarzenegger has successfully wooed over half of the independents and a fair number of Democrats to his side.

It hasn’t always been smooth sailing for Schwarzenegger, whose poll ratings a year ago were in the high thirties after he backed a series of losing partisan initiatives and fought with powerful labor unions representing teachers and nurses.  Some pundits wondered whether he’d wind up as a one-term governor, like his pal Jesse Ventura in Minnesota.

But in Hollywood, if your career is fading, you can always get a makeover, and that’s exactly what Schwarzenegger did.  He went for a political makeover.  In recent months he’s backed legislation favored by the Democrats, such as measures to combat global warming and hike the minimum wage. He’s appeared in a non-stop series of photo ops with key Democrats as he signs their pet bills into law.  One of the Democrats appearing with Schwarzenegger in a recent photo was his opponent’s campaign manager!

NBC VIDEO Schwarzenegger's political makeover Oct. 24: NBC's George Lewis reports on the California governor race, where it appears that Arnold Schwarzenegger will terminate his Democratic opponent. MSNBC

In mostly Democratic Hollywood, a number of major players have jumped on the Schwarzenegger bandwagon, with heavyweights such as Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg contributing to his re-election campaign.

It apparently turned the trick for Schwarzenegger.  A recent MSNBC/McClatchy poll showed him with extremely broad support, winning over half of the independent vote and even 17% of the Democrats.  If you talk to these so-called “Schwarzenegger Democrats” on the Streets of Santa Monica, you find them saying that they like his centrist approach and that they feel he’s an effective governor.

The Democrats have tried to link Schwarzenegger to President Bush, a highly unpopular figure with California voters.  But the tactic hasn’t worked, with no dent in his huge lead.  Schwarzenegger jokes about it, telling Jay Leno on the Tonight Show: “I think to link me to George Bush is like trying to link me to an Oscar.”

Some observers say there’s a possible lesson for candidates nationwide -- that voters fed up with partisan bickering like candidates such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, reaching out across party lines to get things done, even if it is motivated by the desire to win more votes, and in Schwarzenegger’s case, a desire to make good on that old movie line of his:  “I’ll be back.”

Oct. 24, 2006 | 3:04 p.m. ET

New Jersey: Competitive for the wrong reasons

Ron Allen Correspondent • Profile

I’m standing outside the PATH subway station where commuters are dashing for trains to New York. I used to take the same train to get back and forth from high school in New Jersey. Not much has changed with the trains since then, nor has much changed with political campaigns in my home state. Races are mean, aggressive, and corruption is usually a central issue.

That’s how Thomas Kean, Jr. has made this a race. The semi-incumbent Robert Menendez is a former seven-term Congressman, who was appointed to the Senate when Jon Corzine left the seat to run successfully for governor. Menendez never has run for statewide office. He has a big war chest in a deep Blue state that hasn’t sent a Republican to the Senate since the early 70’s. Winning should be a snap.

But Tom Kean has something else going for him -- his family name. Dad was a popular two-term moderate Republican governor. He won more accolades running the 9/11 commission.

Menendez has fought back by tying the younger Kean to all things George Bush, especially the Iraq war.   What’s striking about this campaign is how nasty the TV ads are. I see them bombard my own TV in New York City. Suffice to say the Kean has essentially called Menendez a crook. The Democrat responds with ads pummeling President Bush, Republicans and Kean by association for all that’s wrong in DC.

Look for the barrage to continue.  This is the state where the GOP hopes to take a Democratic senate seat. Some Republican heavy hitters have come through --  McCain, Bush senior, and Cheney to name a few.

The question is how much more money will the GOP invest here to offset the Blue advantage.

The voters here in Hoboken, Menendez territory, believe he’ll weather the storm. The national party hopes he doesn’t shoot their efforts to take the senate in the foot.

It’s been a long time since New Jersey has played a prominent role in the nation’s midterm elections. With ethics and corruption issues out front, Jersey is competitive for many of the wrong reasons.

Oct. 24, 2006 | 1:55 p.m. ET

Battle for the Heartland

Kevin Tibbles Correspondent • Profile

They call Indiana the “Crossroads of the Nation,” and these days there’s a battle raging for the hearts and minds of the Heartland.

Indiana hasn’t voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in over 40 years, but this time around at least three of this state’s fire-engine red districts are being hotly contested.

In the second, challenger Joe Donnelly reminds voters of the scandal in Washington as he goes up against incumbent Chris Chocola.

“In the words of some of the farmers in Rochester,” Donnelly says. “Joe, go to Washington and clean out the barn.”

If that’s to happen, Donnelly must sweep aside Chocola who suggests he’s seen it all before.

“We’ve been written off before...I think we’re in a position to surprise people again,” Chocola counters.

What is notable this time round, is the amount of attention being paid to Indiana  from inside the beltway.  Both the president and vice president have trundled through the 9^th district to stump for incumbent Mike Sodrel.  The Democrats have rolled out Bill Clinton and Illinois Senator Barack Obama in support of challenger Baron Hill.

And, in a state where coffee shop issues usually revolve around farming, toll roads and time zones, these days the talk, at least on the campaign trail, is of security, scandal and Iraq.

In the 8^th District, Congressman John Hostettler accuses his competitor of trying to look too much like him.  That competitor, Brad Ellsworth, counters he’s out to change the way Washington works, not copy it.

In the end, the voters in this Midwestern-Middle American state may help decide to takes control.

As Hostettler says, “Hold tight and be ready for the fireworks!”

Oct. 24, 2006 | 1:47 p.m. ET

A Barack Obama moment

Ron Reagan MSNBC Political Analyst • Profile

In case you hadn’t noticed, we’re having a Barack Obama moment. The junior senator from Illinois is everywhere: he’s on the weekend chat shows; he’s stumping for fellow Democrats; he’s even got a book on the best seller list.

These are the sorts of things politicians do when they’re seriously considering a run for the white house.  Obama was seen as future presidential material even before he electrified the democratic convention in 2004. He’s intelligent, articulate and he’s got a great personal story. He’s young but not too young, forthright without seeming confrontational, even handsome but without the blow-dried anchorman look.

But Obama has only two years in the senate under his belt. The conventional wisdom has long been that he should wait till 2012 to make his move. Now that wisdom is being questioned.

Fifty-two senators have run for president since John F. Kennedy’s election. None have won. That’s 0 for 52. The skills valued and cultivated in the senate—conciliation and compromise—don’t seem to lend themselves to presidential ambitions. All those awkward, go-along-to-get-along votes take their toll, politically and perhaps psychologically. Ask a senator for the time, he’ll tell you how to make a watch. Ask about his vote for the Iraq War and you’ll get a tap dance.

Obama seems made of sterner stuff (he’s been vocally opposed to the Iraq misadventure from the get-go). Some folks are wondering whether six more years in the senate will spoil him.

On the other hand, there is also realistic concern as to whether he could actually win his party’s nomination. And even if he did, could a novice on the national stage with little foreign policy experience really take on the likes of John McCain?

Another possibility, of course, is that Obama runs in the primary not to win but to position himself as a likely vice presidential candidate. This could be the best of both worlds: Obama sets himself up as a leading contender for the top spot in 2012 or 2016, at the same time escaping the senate curse. 

Either way the question remains, will Barack Obama do something for the country before his years in the senate do something to him?

Oct. 24, 2006 | 11:44 a.m. ET

Pulse of Connecticut voters

Chris Jansing MSNBC Correspondent • Profile

I’m at the Goldroc Diner in West Hartford, Conn., talking to customers and some local newspaper reporters about the fascinatingly unpredictable Senate race here.

Last night was the third and final debate and the reviews are all good: lively, spirited, smart, funny, substantive. But will it change any minds?  Ned Lamont, who became an overnight sensation when he beat incumbent Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary, is hoping for a boost. He needs one badly - down 17 points in the latest poll. He just put another $2 million dollars of his own money into the campaign, for a total of almost $13 million. Lieberman’s raised $15 million and the Republican, Alan Schlesinger, less than $200,000, which is one reason why he can’t hit double digits in any poll.

What’s really interesting here is how Lieberman has surged ahead in spite of his support for the Iraq war, in a race considered a referendum on the war. In fact, while polls show the war is an important issue here, it isn’t dominant. And voters I’ve talked with are skeptical any individual senator will affect what happens next in Iraq. They also tell me they remember Lieberman - and his seniority - saving the Groton submarine base from what looked like certain closing.

A local newspaper reporter came by to talk with me after watching our morning coverage. Residents here clearly love the interest this race is generating (and TV stations love the money they’re making from the political ads). But the campaign that kicked off with a stunning upset, may be heading for a status quo finish. 

Oct. 24, 2006 | 11:00 a.m. ET

The tsunami is coming

Bob Shrum

There’s no way to spin a tsunami except in advance. Karl Rove is busy trying to convince people that it’s not coming or that retread arguments like terrorism and taxes are a seawall that will protect Republicans against it in the midterm elections. But come November 8^th, I believe the Republican majorities in the House, and even the Senate, are likely to be under water. The domestic political equivalent of Cheney’s absurd claim that we’re making progress in Iraq -- the pretense that nothing fundamental has changed in Washington -- would only carry the White House from defeat to derision.

The amazing thing about elections is that they count the votes -- usually. And the voters get to decide why they’re casting their ballots. The Republican ads featuring Osama bin Laden -- how I wished they’d captured him for real instead of on film -- represent worn-out appeals that no longer have the credibility to persuade Americans that Democrats, as Bush crudely put it recently, don’t want to win the war on terror. The country knows all too well that Bush is losing in Iraq, and now maybe even in Afghanistan, while North Korea tests nuclear weapons, Iran develops them, and terrorist cells have proliferated across the globe. Similarly, beating the tin drum of taxes has little or no resonance with the American people. A decisive majority in this election can’t be built on an appeal to repeal estate taxes for those poor souls who have over $10 million. It might have been clever to call it “the death tax,” but this trick is all but dead right now.

The Republicans and Rove may not have noticed what every poll is reporting -- that the top issues are Iraq, stagnant wages, outsourcing and healthcare. They may not have noticed, as they celebrate the rise in the Dow Jones average, that there are now two economies—the economy of stock quotes and GDP stats—and the economy of standards of living that haven’t risen since Bush raised his hand and took the oath as he entered an office that was handed to him by a one-vote margin on the Supreme Court.

The Republicans have also seen their ultimate political safety net -- a claim to superior moral values -- shredded by Mark Foley’s e-mails, the House leadership’s cover-up, Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay, and Bob Ney. The party of moral values stands revealed as the party of moral bankruptcy. Gay-baiting about same-sex marriage -- sometimes from within some congressional closet; have all the doors been opened yet? – is becoming as ineffective as it is unworthy.

So the more lurid the Republican attack ads are, the wider the Democratic margin in the polls seems to be. In November, I believe America will send a clear message: the era of unaccountable government is over; the time for corrupt government has passed; the politics of fear and smear, which nearly failed in 2004, has finally had its ugly day.

I know that as a good Democrat, I’m supposed to keep expectations low. But I can see the tsunami coming. When I said it a year ago on “Hardball,” people were skeptical, but more than ever, I’m convinced the House will be Democratic; I think Republican members who don’t even think they’re in much danger may lose their seats. What about Senate Republicans? The sanctimonious Rick Santorum, the misnamed Jim Talent, the hapless Mike DeWine, the Conrad Burns who singed his own chances by ridiculing firefighters—what a collection. Add to it Bob Corker, whose best hope seems to be that his fellow Tennesseans are lying when they say they’ll vote for an African-American; George Allen, whose best hope seems to be that his fellow Virginians can’t read or hear what he’s said; and Lincoln Chafee, whose best hope seems to be that Rhode Island can’t figure out that this “moderate” votes to preserve the right-wing grip on the Senate. Ditto for Tom Kean Jr.—as he is assiduously called—the son of a former governor. Junior, voters are deciding, is wrong on Iraq, wrong on Bush, and wrong for New Jersey. The Senate was a long shot, but I like these odds.

On November 8, with a new Democratic majority in the House and perhaps the Senate, I can’t wait to hear Rove’s spin as he frantically dog-paddles the waters of the tsunami.

Oct. 24, 2006 | 9:44 a.m. ET

Election season ends as it began -- Bush doesn’t get it

Hilary Rosen

A few of us started off this election season at “Hardball” with some hopeful views.  When I look back on the Hardblogger archives, it is obvious that I had joined a chorus of those who thought we were doomed to do nothing but complain  until the 2008 election, and I thought I was prepared to wait it out.

But the voters had more faith in the system and more impatience for the status quo than I had hoped.  Despite the most aggressive dominance of one-party control that I have ever seen in my 30 years in Washington, DC, community dissent has risen above power and money.  People from all walks of life across this country have expressed a dissatisfaction often bordering on outrage at the direction of our country.  For sure, the leading crisis for those views is the failing war in Iraq.  But it is clear from the current election polling in so many congressional districts that concern about the domestic agenda is also on voter’s minds.

It is not trite to say nor can it be repeated enough that we are living in a country with great gifts – in our land, in our prosperity and in our constitutional democracy.   But surely our greatest gift must be in our people – in the natural empathy that our citizens have for each other.  And when we feel the election tide swelling as are experiencing it right now, it is because the people of this country know that we are more connected and interdependent than ever before and we need leadership that listens to all of us, not just half of us.

President Bush’s threats and fear mongering in the closing weeks of this campaign are and will continue to be nothing more than an attempt to drive a wedge deeper into this country.  Each day we hear of a new Congressional district he or Vice President Cheney is visiting to scare those who would consider voting for a Democrat because Democrats want to let terrorists roam free and our citizens to be taxed into bankruptcy.  Of course it isn’t working.  The President’s inability to understand that people inherently want leadership that brings us together rather than dividing us further apart will be his failing in this election.  And I predict it will be  the single most dominant reason for a failed 43^rd Presidency. 

Mr. President, the partisan Democrat in me is glad you are so miscalculating your bully pulpit opportunity as this election winds down.  But the American in me is still saddened by your failure to rise to the challenge and inspire America to embrace its greatest gift.

Oct. 24, 2006 | 7:30 a.m. ET

Battleground America: The Challenge

Chris Matthews Host of 'Hardball' • Profile

The Challenge! 

That is what the 2006 elections are: an historic challenge to the policies of President George W. Bush.

The Democrats are telling the American voter to choose them over the Republicans.  They are telling us to reject the Bush war policy in Iraq, to reject President Bush himself. 

The Republicans are warning voters to beware of the Democrats who they say will be weak on terror, strong on raising taxes.   They say it’s safer for the country to “stay the course.”

Local issues and the candidates themselves will play a role in these elections.  But don’t underestimate the influence of national issues like Iraq and voter attitudes toward President Bush.   Watch for the trend the Thursday before the election.    Experience tells me to count on that trend accelerating through election day. 

Election eve is a fascinating time in any case. Every two years the authority to the federal government reverts back to the people, to you and me.  For a brief period of late-autumn daylight the power to tax, to regulate, to wage war, to outlaw behavior, all the power of government, leaves Washington and heads back to the citizens.   Then, throughout the day, each of us individually, and together as a country, decide with whom to invest that power.  Do we give the Republicans another chance or the Democrats a shot?  Do we give George W. Bush a vote of confidence or a boot in the backside? 

And here’s the interesting question: do we vote the way our parents did?  Do we back the same political party with the same predictability we pray at the family church, buy the familiar gasoline, pick up the inherited family toothpaste?  Or do we make a switch, to register a new allegiance or to stiff, to stick it to, a long-trusted politician or party?  Do we use our ballot to say, “This war in Iraq is a disaster?” or “We’re still waiting to feel the good economic times our leaders have been so busy regaling?”

Oct. 23, 2006 | 5:41 p.m. ET

Obama in 2008?

David Shuster MSNBC correspondent • Profile

Like many of you, when I first saw Barack Obama's answers yesterday to “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert, I just about fell out of my chair. 

Obama is the Democratic Party's great young hope, and there he was, dangling the prospect of running for president in 2008.  There was no politically correct restraint like, "I'm focused on 2006, period."  He didn't hide behind the often ambiguous phrase "not planning," as in, "I'm not planning to run."  Instead, Obama was clear. 

"After November 7," he said, "I'll sit down and consider..."  When Tim Russert asked Obama, "But it's fair to say you're thinking about running for President in 2008?"  Obama answered, "It's fair, yes."

Obama's response was dramatic in several respects.  Not only is he a young, dynamic, commanding political figure.  But he also seemed to rule out a 2008 presidential run just 10 months ago.  Asked by Russert in January, "So you will not run for President or Vice President in 2008?"  Obama responded, "I will not." 

On Sunday Obama brushed off his previous pledge with, "Well, that was how I was thinking at the time.  And, and, you know, I don't want to be coy about this, given the responses that I've been getting over the last several months, I have thought about the possibility."

In recent weeks, it's been hard to miss Barack Obama.  The Junior Senator from Illinois, 45, has landed on the covers of Men's Vogue and Time magazine.  He has made dozens of appearances promoting a new book, and he recently charmed Oprah Winfrey.  When the talk show queen asked Obama if he would announce his presidential campaign on her show, Obama cooed, "Oprah, you are my girl."

Political experts say the gushing over Obama could be just the beginning.  My colleague John Harwood notes that Obama, "has a different profile, somebody who is positive in his own right.  He presents optimism and enthusiasm.  Democrats are going to be hungry for that in 2008."

Two years ago, Obama took the political world by storm with a riveting speech that was one of the highlights of the Democratic National Convention.  The son of an African immigrant spoke in a soaring voice about America as the beacon for freedom and opportunity.  With the crowd in Boston sensing the sudden emergence of a new African-American political superstar, Obama intoned, "I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that in no other country on earth, is my story even possible."

Following the usual protocol for freshman senators, Obama started his career in the Senate very quietly.  He avoided media appearances, rarely granted interviews and kept an extremely low profile.   However, all of that began to change earlier this year.  And since the summer, Obama has been criss-crossing the country giving speeches and raising money for Democratic congressional candidates.  He has even helped actor George Clooney bring attention and legitimacy to concerns about the crisis in Darfur. 

Along the way, Obama has captured the imagination of Democratic Party activists.

The leading public and private advocate for an Obama presidential run is fellow Illinois senator, Dick Durbin.  And party strategists, including some advising John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Bill Richardson agree that Obama could leapfrog much of the potential 2008 Democratic field and become the top challenger to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

However, Obama has no executive experience and he has never been tested on the national stage.  He has been in the U.S. Senate for only two years; he has not sponsored any bold legislative initiatives or ideas.  And his views on some top issues remain unclear and at times contradictory.  For example, a few months ago Obama suggested that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would cause more harm than good.  Now, Obama says a U.S. troop withdrawal should begin within 60 days.

Asked by Tim Russert if he is ready to be president, Obama replied:  "Well, I'm not sure anybody is ready to be president before they're president. You know, ultimately, I trust the judgment of the American people that, in, in any election, they sort it through. And that's, you know, we have a long and rigorous process, and, you know, should I decide to run, if I ever did decide to run, I'm confident that I'd be run through the paces pretty good, including on Meet the Press."

However, running for president is even more challenging and difficult than just being "run through the paces."  Your entire life is turned upside down.  Every comment made by you or a campaign staffer is put under a spotlight, and your temperament is tested in ways far more expansively than most candidates could ever possibly imagine. 

Is Barack Obama ready for all of that and more?  Maybe, maybe not.  But in the meantime, Obama's media appearances are being carefully choreographed.  It's all part of an effort to position Obama in case he decides to run.  Possible fundraisers, campaign organizers, and 2008 rivals have noticed, and they are all preparing for what could be of the most dramatic and intriguing presidential contests in years. 

Oct. 23, 2006 | 12:40 p.m. ET

Madame Speaker

Hilary Rosen

No Bush bashing today. I am going to learn from my leader, soon-to-be-Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi. It is time to look forward, not backward. 

Much has been written lately about the tough lady leader who has pushed the Democrats into unity over the past year.  But not enough has been written about the heart of the person who will bear a huge responsibility for restoring the optimism of a divided nation.

NBC VIDEO High hopes for Pelosi Oct. 24: NBC’s Chip Reid profiles Rep. Nancy Pelosi and her influence on the Democratic party. MSNBC

I’ve known Nancy Pelosi for almost 25 years, since I worked for then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco.  She was a dear friend of Dianne’s and an even closer friend of former Reps. Phil and Sala Burton who she followed into Congress.  Sala took Phil’s seat after he died.  Phil was a thunderous, brilliant lion who, though I learned so much from him, scared me.  Sala was a brave, intuitive woman who treated me like a beloved granddaughter. And though I know she treated many the same way, I worshipped her.  Nancy did too.  No one was a better friend than Nancy to the Burton family when Phil and then Sala were sick.  And when Sala was dying, she anointed Nancy to be her successor.  I was caught between my loyalty to the growing cadre of AIDS activists who wanted openly gay supervisor Harry Britt to win the seat and my loyalty to the Burton machine.  Nancy was very kind and never pressured me.  And when she won, she showed grace and friendship instead of resentment. 

She worked hard for the people of San Francisco.  She was as aggressive as any member of Congress to represent the broad array of interests in her district.  But I will never forget her doggedness in those early days of the AIDS crisis when few people were listening, much less using their precious chits with the Appropriations Committee to begin funding critical research and care for people with AIDS.  Since then I have worked with her on issues as diverse as housing, economic development and artist’s rights.  She consistently brings a personal touch and a legislator’s skill to the table.  Those who see her simply as an unwavering liberal have never clashed with her.  She has progressive views for sure but she is practical and hard nosed when a broader coalition of views is needed to win. 

I think those who hope or expect Speaker Pelosi to falter under the pressure, or fail to show the strength required of a new speaker when the majority changes hands, are going to be sorely disappointed.

Looking at the way she has campaigned for the past few months on behalf of House Democrats gives the country a glimpse of this formidable leader who will soon be the most powerful elected woman in US history.

She doesn’t waste her time complaining about how things are.  She encourages people to believe that it can be different.  And I dare say I am starting to feel the optimism she exudes.  Not for the election - I’ve been optimistic about the election for a long time.  Rather I am hopeful a balance in the country is about to be righted.  Other perspectives and progressive values will finally see the light of day again.

For those who haven’t heard what Pelosi has been saying about her fist 100 hours in office, here goes:

Day One: Put new rules in place to “break the link between lobbyists and legislation.”  I’ve had my doubts about the merits of spending time on this issue, but given the past year with Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay and the K Street project, a corrupt project developed to enrich republican lobbyists and increase republican campaign contributions; I am convinced that this issue must be addressed.

Day Two: “Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.” Doesn’t this seem so obvious?

Time remaining until 100 hours: “Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour; cut the interest rate on student loans in half; allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients; broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds, etc.”  These are issues that affect people’s lives rather than issues that give red meat to a right wing base.    She committed to  “Pay as you go, meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.”  I am confident that we will finally be hearing about our lives being discussed on the floor of the House by someone who actually cares about them.

Throughout her time in the House, Nancy Pelosi has been able to connect with the human needs of Members of Congress and mesh them with the political needs of the Democratic caucus.  She jokes about the skills learned herding her family of five kids and an independent minded husband.  What she doesn’t say is how those kids (they aren’t kids anymore) revere their mother – there is no more meaningful personal testament.   So when the Republican attempts at caricaturizing Pelosi as either a dragon lady or a foolish liberal fail, Americans will be left with a woman who will be more than ready to bear the weight of our expectations on her small strong shoulders.

Oct. 20, 2006 | 5:34 p.m. ET

Iraqi insurgency and the jihadist Tet?

Lt. Col. Rick Francona Military analyst

For at least the last two years, government officials and military officers have shied away from comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam – with good reason.  There are few parallels between the two situations.  New York Times columnist Tom Friedman recently called the current violence in Iraq “the jihadist equivalent of the Tet offensive.”  I am sure the leadership – both civilian and military – at the Pentagon cringed when President Bush said that Friedman might be right.

The Tet (lunar new year) Offensive of 1968 was a concerted effort by the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army to strike a decisive blow at South Vietnamese and American forces.  Militarily, it was a defeat for the North Vietnamese and effectively destroyed the Viet Cong as a fighting force.  However, it created what military strategists call the “significant emotional event” that turned the tide of public opinion in the United States against the war and led to the eventual withdrawal of American forces from Southeast Asia.  The creation of a “significant emotional event” is an acknowledged tactic for an insurgency, along with attempts to influence the media.  Most successful insurgencies do not succeed on the battlefield – they succeed in the national psyche of the occupying country.

Other examples of a “significant emotional event” involving deployed U.S. forces:

• The bombing of the Marine barracks at Beirut airport in 1983 by Hizballah in which 241 American servicemen were killed.   Less than four months later, President Reagan ordered the Marines to withdraw.
• The battle in Mogadishu, Somalia, in which 18 Army Rangers were killed in a day-long firefight with forces of guerilla leader Mohamed Farrah Aidid.  Although the raid technically achieved its objectives, the loss of two helicopters and the mistreatment of the bodies of American troops caused President Clinton to withdraw the troops a few months later.

Foreign militaries and insurgents alike took note of these events.  Prior to the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein provided copies of the book Blackhawk Down (which chronicled the Mogadishu battle) to his senior commanders.  Knowing full well his forces could not effectively fight American troops force-on-force, he believed that using such tactics might either delay the battle long enough or cause enough American casualties to achieve some negotiated settlement.

President Bush, his spokesman Tony Snow and Multinational Forces-Iraq spokesman Major General William Caldwell have all stated that they believe the timing of the increase in violence is not coincidental.  All three have commented that the insurgents may be trying to influence the upcoming U.S. elections.

It could be – we have seen numerous examples that the insurgents, be they Iraqis or foreigners, are well versed in the American media’s impact on public opinion.  They may be increasing the level of attacks on American forces – this has been the bloodiest month for U.S. troops in two years – rather than attacking each other.  Their likely goal: creating that significant emotional event that will either turn American public opinion against the war or influence the upcoming election, or both.

Oct. 19, 2006 | 5:28 p.m. ET

Testimony will come out

David Shuster MSNBC correspondent • Profile

In most investigations in Washington, D.C., when a witness is asked to testify and feels that he or she doesn’t really have anything that would damage anybody, they usually say so publicly.  That’s why the situation involving former House clerk Jeff Trandahl is so intriguing.  There he was today, walking into the House Ethics Committee hearing on the Foley affair, and the usually talkative Trandahl was stone.  Hours later, after he finished testimony, Trandahl was stone silent again.  Then, his lawyer issued a statement saying only that Trandahl “has cooperated fully with the investigation.”

That is not the mark of somebody who knows little or has information that won’t damage anybody.  That’s all a big sign pointing to trouble for somebody.  The question is, who?