Hardblogger.MSNBC.COM Click here for recent postings

• January 26, 2005 | 9:07 a.m. ET

Baghdad diary day 4 (David Shuster)

Baghdad, Iraq—At this hour, all of the NBC armored vehicles are pinned down at the Baghdad International airport. Insurgents attacked a U.S. military convoy this morning  on the same road we traveled yesterday... and the road is now closed.  A few minutes ago in our NBC bureau, I heard a thud off in the distance.  My colleague Mark Mullen directed me to the window on the western side of our hotel.  The plume of smoke, also near the airport, indicates the insurgents have struck again.

For the moment, my plans to travel to the green zone this afternoon have been put on hold.  But, these road closures are not unusual... and I'm told they don't last very long.

From our perch near the top of the NBC hotel, we've been watching (and hearing) U.S. black hawk helicopters buzzing this part of Baghdad for the last few hours.  One transport helicopter crashed this morning in Western Iraq and details are still coming in. The noise of the helicopters sounds like your typical low flying police or big city traffic helicopter that flies awfully close to your house or apartment.  Many of you have probably had the experience of hearing something flying directly above you at what sounds like tree top level. Your place shakes for a few seconds and you run to the window to take a look.  It's the same experience in Baghdad. 

The difference, of course, is that you have to be a little more careful with the helicopters here.  One of our camera men  is trying to get some videotape of the buzzing blackhawks.  But because of the sensitivities that military pilots have towards somebody standing on a roof pointing something at them, our camera man has to be exceedingly careful where he stands to get the pictures.  The last thing anybody in our office wants is for a U.S. blackhawk pilot to open fire on our building.

The violence in this city has been aimed not just at U.S. forces but also at candidates on the ballot in sunday's election.  Sunni insurgents have been targeting leaders of the Shia majority.  The efforts to derail the elections have prompted most candidates to rely almost entirely on a "faceless campaign."  Door to door campaign events or rallies would be extremely dangerous.   So, most candidates and parties are trying to get their message out almost entirely through radio and TV ads... and via posters plastered everywhere. 

More on the election later today/tonight.

Questions/comments: 

• January 25, 2005 | 3:37 p.m. ET

Baghdad diary day 3 (David Shuster)

Baghdad, Iraq— It was approximately 2:30 p.m. local time when we began to see the outskirts of Baghdad.  From an altitude of 29,000 feet, the city below looked unremarkable... and for some reason (sleep deprivation?) the view made me think of Houston.  Anyway, the pilot soon put the aircraft in a sharp corkscrew, reminding all of us that this was definitely not your typical sprawling city.

Digital Globe Baghdad International Airport from the air

Today, there were no shoulder fired missiles streaking into the sky and no mortar attacks on the airport.  So, our landing was uneventful. But before I take you through Baghadad International (and the memorable armed convoy  to our NBC bureau) let me back up a a bit.

The day began at 3:30 a.m. local (8:30pm eastern Monday) when a dozen of us from NBC met in the lobby of the Intercontinental hotel in Amman.  I'm sure you can identify with the desire to get to an airport early, especially when you have extra bags/cases to check.  Imagine your family trying to check 70 cases of gear. That's what our NBC contingent had this morning.  Unfortunately, the early the start didn't help much.  The Amman ticket counter was a zoo...  Our local fixer tried to convince the airline to allow all of us (and the boxes of TV equipment) on the 7 a.m. flight to Baghdad.  No chance.  Most of us had to wait around for the 11:45 a.m. flight.  I wish I could say that the Amman airport is a nice place to kill time... but it's not.  The airport is grimy and smoke-filled... and there are only two restaurants:  "Popeye's" and "Pizza Hut."

The bigger problem today came after piling into the the Fokker F-28 aircraft bound for Baghdad around 1 p.m.  Our NBC engineering crews suddenly noticed that some of the gear was sitting on the Amman airport tarmac and was being left behind.   Which of the 70 cases were being held back and how would we match the proper baggage claim tickets with the missing items at the Baghdad airport?  Thankfully, that was our only headache. 

The flight to Baghdad was "routine."  During the landing, we couldn't see more than a handful of military aircraft and vehicles.  And from the air, there were no bomb craters, airport destruction, or obvious signs of the war.  The airport itself is surprisingly  nice.  The floors are all marble, the immigration/customs area has some modern glass touches and design.  And there is a sparkling new shine in  the airport baggage claim. The facility did have a quiet and empty feel... another sign that the facility is not getting the business or passenger traffic that had once been expected early in the war.  

The front of the airport reminded me of a downtrodden LAX. Part of the building provides a nice area of overhang/shade along the front sidewalk.  And across the 3 lanes dedicated for vehicle traffic, there is a large imposing parking garage.  The garage is still in use, though it is old, dark, and musty.

The trip from the airport to our NBC bureau was interesting. We got a briefing from our security staff, put on our armored vests, watched our security team check for bombs underneath our armor plated sedans, and then climbed in.  The driving route is changed every day, and our team has an elaborate communications and convoy system in place.  The highway from the airport to town looked vaguely familiar, perhaps because of all the video we've all seen of bombed out U.S. military humvees. In any case, all vehicles in Baghdad are now required to stay at least 100 meters from military vehicles.  And as we had been told, the nerve rattling gridlock we experienced was largely due to the slow down of Iraqi drivers not wanting to get near a military convoy.  At several intersections in the city, Iraqi police directed traffic while armed with machine guns (and while wearing black ski masks to hide their identities from insurgents). 

Baghdad has the potential to be a very pretty city— The Tigris river is lovely... and some of the neighborhoods are lush and green.  But, I was struck by the huge amount of garbage strewn on so many sidewalks... and the rubble that litters block after block.   Plus, the tension in the air is overpowering. Everybody in this city looks afraid...  and the sight of childen playing soccer today seemed noteworthy simply because they were the first Iraqis I saw smiling (after, of course, the Iraqi sky caps at the airport who got one look at the equipment being brought in by NBC.)

More tomorrow on the sights and sounds of Baghdad. Plus, I'll have a blog for you on the green zone and the preparations across the city for the election.  There are lots of stories and anecdotes to share with you... and we will start putting some of them on MSNBC primetime tomorrow night.   Thanks in advance for tuning in. 

Questions/comments:   

• January 24, 2005 | 6:30 p.m. ET

Baghdad diary day 2 (David Shuster)

Amman, Jordan— The moment is almost here. When we landed in Amman, Jordan tonight, a couple of 737s were parked on the tarmac with the block lettering "Iraq Airways."  

It was a strange feeling as we rolled past the aircraft— a mixture of excitement, anticipation, and nervousness.

This evening we learned that our flight out tomorrow will include colleagues who couldn't get into Baghdad on flights earlier today. Apparently, there were "issues" today at the Baghdad International Airport. One issue was a nasty sandstorm.

Another issue was that for a brief part of the day, the airport was under mortar attack. (To all of my friends who got stuck in airports in New England... you now owe me dinner for my patiently listening to your complaints a few days ago.)  

I'm told that the coalition troops at the Baghdad airport do a very effective job of finding the source of the mortars in short order and "eliminating them."  The airport is expected to be open tomorrow for our flight in.

Today, I was reminded of how much of what you see on NBC and MSNBC depends on the calm, brilliant, and often ingenious work of countless people behind the camera.  I'm traveling to Iraq with a terrific NBC field engineer from DC named Hans Juergens.  Hans will be working with an NBC team embedded with U.S. forces on patrol this week. Between the weather problems on the East coast, changed flights, and a tight connection in London...  Hans is missing two bags, including one with his engineering tool kit. Talk about a headache. 

In Iraq tomorrow, Hans will be responsible for operating, adjusting, and fixing a portable satellite contraption that will enable an NBC team at locations tba to feed video tape, report live, and stay connected via computers and phones.  It's no small task to keep a mobile unit like that running in the middle of a war zone.  Hans has quietly figured out what wrenches, screwdrivers, and assorted other equipment he needs to borrow to make sure the reports and broadcasts go off without a hitch.  So, when you see reports later this week on NBC from reporters in the field... remember the resourcefulness of countless professionals like Hans Juergens.  None of us would ever get on the air without them. 

One final note about Amman, Jordan: I couldn't help but notice the pictures at the airport and on city billboards of King Abdullah and his late father King Hussein. I've written about them before. And I know I've mentioned how inspiring and important the family is to the Middle East peace process.  But anybody who visits Amman, even for just for a few hours, will see that the family is truly beloved by the Jordanian people.

Blogs from Baghdad tomorrow... I hope.

Questions/Comments: 

• January 23, 2005 | 8:47 p.m. ET

Baghdad diary... day 1 (David Shuster)

Dulles Airport— I had just landed in Salt Lake City, Utah on Friday night when I got the message on my cell phone.  Instead of putting together a story on the Sundance Film Festival for Chris Matthew’s Hardball special on Monday, my bosses were interested in sending me to Baghdad. 

I’ll admit to a few moments of trepidation. After all, hanging out with Robert Redford’s colleagues in Park City would be a lot safer than covering the Iraqi elections. And what would I tell my family?  I spoke to my wonderful bosses Tammy and Phil about the assignment in Baghdad... what I would be doing, where I would be staying, and etc.  And it didn’t take long for me to put aside my initial concerns and say “I’ll go.”  It also helped when I called my MSNBC colleague Joe Trippi and his first reaction was, “cool!!!”  (Joe offered some great blog ideas which will serve as a blueprint for me throughout the week.)

As I’ve explained to family and friends over the last 24 hours, (in between a flight back to DC, packing, and intense research on Iraq’s political parties) there is nothing I love more than covering politics and elections.  And there is no election story that will be quite like the one leading up and through “voting day” in Iraq on Sunday, January 30.  It’s a great story for Hardball, MSNBC’s primetime coverage, and for all American political junkies. The future of Iraq (and of the U.S. military presence) may come down to little things like ballot fraud, polling access, party influence, religious themes, vote tabulations, election integrity, and the like.

I am not a war correspondent.  I don’t have the courage, nerves, or battle tested stomach of my brilliant NBC colleagues in Baghdad like Richard Engel, Jim Maceda, Martin Fletcher, and all the rest.  But, as somebody who has spent more than a decade reporting on every aspect of American politics and elections, I’m excited to bring you my perspective on the events this week in Iraq.  (And yes, for everything else that is part of “life in Iraq,” I’m thankful in advance for the help I’ll be getting from my NBC colleagues.)

At the moment, I am writing to you from Dulles airport where I’m waiting for my flight to London. From London, I’ll connect to a flight to Amman, Jordan.  From Amman, I’ll be taking a flight into Baghdad. Later this week, the election ballots will follow a similar final path.  They are being printed in Switzerland and will be flown into Iraq to eliminate forgeries or fraud allegations.

One other thing about the Iraq election that I’m already intrigued by: To prevent Iraqis from voting more than once, they will each get an indelible ink stamp on their thumb after they vote.  (It shows up under a special light.) As one of my family members noted, “Maybe we should deploy that system for our own elections?” 

I’m thrilled and excited with all of the election stories and general Iraq news that will unfold this week and be told on MSNBC.  And just like our coverage of the “Battle for the White House 2004,” you can be assured that we will report agressively and in a straightforward matter-of-fact fashion.  And, we will let the chips fall where they may.

In addition to reporting for Hardball and MSNBC primetime,  I’ll try to blog as often as possible. I'll write you some personal stories, like my impressions about landing at Baghdad International, making the trip into the city, and etc. It should make for some interesting blog reports, I hope. 

Anyway, thanks in advance for tuning into MSNBC and reading the blog all week.  Chris Matthews is going to have a heck of a show Monday from Sundance and from Camp Pendleton’s Marine Corps base on Tuesday.  I’ll look forward to contributing from Iraq by Wednesday.

Questions/Comments:

• January 21, 2005 | 7:51 p.m. ET

Your e-mails, weekend edition

President Bush has not yet learned that what you say and how you say it is very important, particularly when your words are going out to other countries.   His speech could be interrupted as threatening and I don’t think that is the message our country wants to send out to other nations at this critical point in time.  I fear that the President is feeling “all-powerful” and you know what they say “power corrupts” and “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.   He just got through admitting that perhaps he should not have said “Bring em on” and “Dead or Alive”.   I don’t know who writes his speeches, but he should realize that the only thing America needs to do is to set a good example, in words and deeds.  –SQBrown

Chris, have you read the speech?  I think you just skimmed over parts to draw your own one-sided conclusion. —Mary Jo MC.

The people who voted for Bush did not expect him to enforce freedom.  How can freedom be “free” if it is enforced?   He enforced freedom in Iraq at the shock an awe of bombs and guns, over 100,00 innocent people in Iraq killed,  all our treasure dead and mamed, not to even count the cost to all Americans in money, which is the least of it. –JbFra

The only “our way or the highway” that petrifies me is exemplified daily by fundamentalist Muslim fanatics.  Meanwhile, I’m happy to keep our highway as my way. The speech was not a frightening claim of American moral authority over the world because it doesn’t apply to most of the rest of the world.  The fundamentalist Muslim fanatics are unabashed in declaring their moral authority yet receive less criticism in our own press than this speech.  Anyone who would be petrified by it must already be intractably afraid of his/her own shadow, mostly devoid of normal human hope and optimism and of the belief that America causes most of the world’s problems. —Richard Heinzman, Walla Walla, WA

Chris - You were the only journalist that I heard articulate the questions that are on most thinking people’s minds last night. Thank you.  How are we, as Americans, supposed to hold our head toward the light of better, more peaceful years to come, when we have a president who is determined to spread his vision - through violence and takeover if need be -  of moral authority thorughout the world. How terribly scary. —Shali Wade, Kansas City, MO

Take the speech transcript and replace every “ Freedom “ and/or “Liberty” word with CHRISTIANITY and you will get an idea of what GW had in mind to say. —Alex, Bunin

We took it upon ourselves to lead the effort in the 20th Century to “make the world safe for democracy.”  Assuming we were correct in that leadership (and I think you’ll agree we were), why not now take the lead in making the world itself democratic?  It may take a generation, or a century, but it may still be possible.   I am one of those rare people who, while voting for Kerry, share the president’s vision of spreading democracy across the globe.  Executing this vision won’t always call for the use of military force.  And although the invasion of Iraq may well turn out to be a mistake, poor execution of a good vision doesn’t make the vision itself flawed.  —Marc D. Sokol

• January 21, 2005 | 2:30 p.m. ET

One-themed inaugural address (Chris Matthews)

We Americans like to celebrate our democratic traditions. And on an inaugural week, the nation's capital was one big political party, honoring the man millions of Americans voted back to office for a second term. And from concerts and fireworks on the Mall, to intimate candlelit dinners, to his fellow Texans and their Black Tie and Boots Ball, MSNBC had this uniquely American event all covered. 

The beauty of the Capitol Dome stood behind us on Hardball every night.  On a radiant winter day in Washington, thousands of people gathered to watch all the pomp and pageantry of the official swearing-in ceremony and the rousing parade which capped off a day as traditionally patriotic to Americans as the Fourth of July. 

The nation's 43rd president delivered a one-themed, one-message secular sermon, his inaugural address, a promise to fight for freedom in the world.

President Bush spoke of America's mission to end tyranny:

"The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause."

President Bush seemed to be speaking directly to the Iraqi people at one point:

"America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way."

The president of the United States is the chief law enforcement official of this country. The president yesterday committed to his personal responsibility that he enforce freedom around the world.

A couple of questions I asked my guests last night:

• The world listened to that speech. They got it in many languages.  Putin, Chirac, Tony Blair, Mandela, and all the Arab leaders. I wonder, what do they make of it?  
• Was the speech reflective of maybe too bold a mission of democratizing the world?  Aren't we saying "our way or the highway?"  Is that America saying, if you don't have a form of government we like, we're going to change it?  

I think if you're not caught up in the charm of the president, if you're not caught up in the charm of inauguration day… and if you just read this speech, you might be petrified by it. It is a frightening claim of American moral authority over the world. It is a powerful statement of mission, an almost open-ended commitment to bring down tyranny in the world, to pay the price. 

It's one thing to speak as a world visionary, it's another to realize the consequences of that...

It nevertheless was a big day for the country and a  happy day for many people.  And it is a day of hope for everyone, as all these great rituals of American inaugurations are. 

E-mail me at

• January 21, 2005 | 2:13 p.m. ET

Inauguration blog round-up (Erick Woods-Erickson, guest blogger)

With the inauguration yesterday, I thought I would scour the web this morning to see what bloggers thought of the speech’  not much apparently.  The New Donkey thinks most of the country was not really invited to the inauguration.  The Bullmoose suggests that the President talks of expanding freedom abroad "while he imposes economic policies that promote plutocracy at home." 

Armando, at the Daily Kos, says the president's words are meaningless.  As for MyDD, Kos himself, Kevin Drum, Josh Marshall, TalkLeft, and a host of other bloggers on the left, they've moved on to defending SpongeBob against James Dobson and Social Security against the Republicans.

The more pointed analysis of this president's inaugural has come from the right side of the blogosphere, which is both excited and alarmed. Austin Bay at his self-titled blog and Augustine at RedState think the President said in his speech what he says every day.  Mark A. Kilmer says the inaugural address "read almost like something President Lincoln could have read. Like President Reagan, and like the old song says, 'he freed a lot of people.' President Bush clearly has his eye on that prize." 

Law Professor Stephen Bainbridge disputes Hugh Hewitt's praise of the speech. Bainbridge, like former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan, thinks the speech was too grand and poorly delivered.  Bainbridge writes, "[T]he President seems to have succumbed to the same failure as modern liberalism; namely, that man is perfectible provided those who rule us are allowed to act upon the desires of their "good hearts." It's Hillary Clinton's 'It takes a village' crap with private retirement accounts and tax cuts."  Whether folks on the right liked the speech or not, there is virtual unanimity that the President has set the bar very, very high.

Now that the speech is over, the fighting can really begin. While bloggers on the left have not said much about the speech, they are united over social security reforms. Josh Marshall leads the charge. Kevin Drum points out that Bush's success means there are less Democrats who fit the "bipartisan" mold.  (Meanwhile, Kos and TalkLeft are focusing on SpongeBob.)

The right, while talking about the speech, also notes Democratic obstruction of the president's nominees, in particular Condoleeza Rice.  Captain Ed notes that, if appearances matter to the Democrats, it might not have been wise to let Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the KKK, lead the obstruction against Rice, the first black woman ever nominated to be Secretary of State.  It will be interesting to see if this blows up the way Trent Lott's comments did when he praised Strom Thurmond.

Let the political battles resume.

—Erick-Woods Erickson blogs for RedState.Org. Click here for how to write to Erick.

We thank Erick for being a guest blogger for the president's inauguration. Do you want to be a Hardball guest blogger? Let us know. E-mail us at .

• January 21, 2005 | 1:30 p.m. ET

The politics of inaugural fashion (Sarah Muller, associate web producer)

Through the pomp and circumstance of today’s inaugural festivities, the president’s fashion sense grabbed much attention in the media.  He chose a simple, French blue tie to compliment his inaugural attire.

It’s a nice tie. Looks sleek, modern. No stranger to controversy, the president made people wonder if this was more of a political statement than a fashion statement. 

Is he reaching out to Kerry voters in the “blue” states?  And how could a president, so clearly elected by Red State America, not wear any red at all? Is he abandoning he base? With the gray undertones of the French Blue, does this mean he plans to create a stronger sense of unity with the international community?

Do we even care?

While fashionistas speculate, one person really knows the answer.  Clothes might make the man, but, in the manner of Sigmund Freud, sometimes a tie is just a tie.

E-mail Sarah at

• January 20, 2005 | 7:01 p.m. ET

Vice President Dick Cheney and his new friend, Don Imus

  We can't let the day pass without pointing out Don Imus' interview with Vice President Cheney on MSNBC this morning.

Imus was a Kerry supporter, and on his radio show has nicknamed the vice president "Pork Chop Boy," and "The only person in DC who knows his butcher by his first name."

As you can imagine, the interview started out awkward. And then one of Imus' first questions— "What do you do most days? I mean, do you have a schedule?"

NBC's Tim Russert picked up on Imus after his interview and told the I-man "You have the vice president of the United States sitting here on Inauguration Day and how about the lead off hardball question— 'What do you do all day?' What goes on in your head?"

Here's a link to the transcript and video.

Another funny/interesting exchange:

Imus: Do you want to be president now?

Vice President Dick Cheney: No.

Imus: Are you the president now? 

Vice President Dick Cheney: No. But that was a nice try.

Interesting to note that at the end of the interview, the vice president and his wife offered Imus a present: some porkchops.

• January 20, 2005 | 4:01 p.m. ET

Will the president actually do what he says? (Joe Trippi)

I watched President George W. Bush’s second inaugural speech today, and much of the after speech coverage on MSNBC.    

To me, Ron Reagan seemed to sum it all up when he said that everyone will agree that it was a beautiful speech, with inspirational goals and deeds.  Ron went on to ask what looks like has become the central question after the president’s address “Will he actually do what he says?”

So my prediction is yes he will.  

After watching the president’s address for me the question was not "Will he do what he says he wants to do?" For me the question becomes immediately by what methods does he intend to accomplish the goals and vision he has now placed before the nation?

One of the reasons the nation is so divided is not because the American people differ over the goal of fighting terrorism for example.  The division in our country today exists precisely because the American people are divided in their support of the methods and means with which President Bush has conducted the war on terror. I saw a speech on which most Americans can agree with the goals— the question now is will the Bush administration work to unite the nation around the means and policies it seeks to achieve these goals.

All Americans can agree that social security must be in place for future Americans.  But it is doubtful that all Americans will come to agree that social security should be privatized.

How did we get to where we are today?   What are the lessons Democrats should learn from the Reagan Revolution that began in 1976 with a losing campaign for the presidency?

Check out about a new book “Reagan’s Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign that Started It All” by Craig Shirley. It’s a must-read to understand the movement that has put President Bush in the Oval Office for a second term, what drives that movement, and why President Bush will implement an aggressive plan to achieve his goals.  For Democrats it is a must-read because the book provides an object lesson on how a party thought to be void of ideas, moribund, and on life support 29 years ago, rose up and changed course and is now defining the debate at home and abroad.

And check out my “Trippi’s Take” on the book.

Let me know what you think at .

• January 20, 2005 | 2:42 p.m. ET

Quick notes on the inauguration coverage:

• Citizen journalists react to the president's speech, many finding it moving. (Also, many e-mails in mourning.)
• Kerry offers his own inaugural message
• By the numbers: the word "freedom" was used 27 times, "liberty" 15 times, and "unite" about 4 times.
• Norah O' Donnell's behind-the-scenes ancedote:  Rev. Dr. Luis Leon, rector at St. John’s Episcopal Church, Washington, D.C., who gave the benediction, used strong words in his prayer, advising for more unity and less partisanship. "This is interesting to note because this is the president's closest spiritual advisor. They talk all the time, sometimes everyday, and they pray together."
• Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who is suffering from cancer, left his seat before President Bush's inauguration speech was over. This fuels speculation that Rehnquist might step down soon, and that one of the president's new challenges in the second term is choosing a new Supreme Court justice.
• MSNBC's Amy Robach shared the extreme range of emotions she witnessed from the stands: During the speech, Bush supporters tried to drown out protestors by cheering and clapping. Some protestors were ultimately removed from the site by the police, but were pelted with some snowballs as they were being dragged out.
  At the same time, a wounded soldier was listening intently to President Bush with his tears in his eyes, moved by the speech.
  

• January 20, 2005 | 12:46 p.m. ET

A great speech for red state voters (Erick Woods-Erickson, guest blogger)

  Those who think the president talks too much about God probably did not care for the inaugural address.  Those who think the president is too into jingoism probably did not care for the address either. Those who do not like current American foreign policy probably did not like the president saying, "The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world," and all that flowed forth from that.  For red state voters like me, it was a great speech.

The president, it seems, does truly believe that the United States is what is right in the world and intends to, through various means, spread liberty abroad and support champions of liberty from jailed dissidents in Cuba to the starving in North Korea.  One is left to wonder what the President might have in store for his good friend President Putin who appears intent on a transition back to dictatorship.

On the home front, conservatives like me enjoy hearing about the "ownership society."  The problem conservatives have, though, is that when this president speaks we tend to hear cash registers ringing up in the background.  Notwithstanding that, the president's expected budget should please conservatives and restrain government spending.  They will also be pleased with this line from the president's speech: "By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal."  That is a pretty good summation of modern conservatism.  Conservatives are left to wonder what role the President intends the government to play and liberals will be left annoyed that the President, instead of conciliation after an ugly election, is intent on asserting an aggressive agenda.

Regardless, the speech, available here, was well written—  a conservative version of John F. Kennedy's inaugural speech, which will leave many on the left unsettled and confounded.

Thoughts? E-mail

—Erick-Woods Erickson blogs for RedState.Org

• January 20, 2005 | 11:42 a.m. ET

MSNBC is covering the inauguration live from 9 a.m. ET to 11 p.m. ET.

Chris Matthews and his panel— Newsweek's Jon Meacham, Ron Reagan, Monica Crowley, and Joe Scarborough— are all commenting on the sights, sounds, and the politics of the day.

Jeannie Ohm, Norah O'Donnell and David Gregory are at the White House; Chris Jansing, Bob Kur and Andrea Mitchell are at Lafayette Park; Amy Robach, David Shuster, Kelly O'Donnell, Andrea Mitchell and Campbell Brown are at Capitol Hill; and Lester Holt, Natalie Morales, Natalie Allen, Alex Witt, Sean McLaughlin, are on the parade route.

Not to be missed moments so far:

• Chris commenting on the past and future leaders. Everyone is in town including former presidential candidates, and those who could be candidates in 2008. "There's a lot of political ego and ambition here," he says.
• Monica Crowley teaching Chris the merits of the color "winter white," which is the color of First Lady Laura Bush's suit.
• An insightful interview with Sen. John McCain on torture, the Geneva convention, and when it should (or shouldn't) apply.

Stay tuned. And if you're nowhere near at TV, click here to watch.

• January 19, 2005 | 7:40 p.m. ET

Fresh blanket of snow (Nina Bradley, MSNBC producer)

It is still very cold, but today also brought the nation's capitol a fresh blanket of snow.

Washington D.C. became a winter wonderland in a matter of about two hours today. MSNBC meteorologist Sean McLaughlin was enjoying every minute of the snowy story. 

We were all monitoring the airports, to see if people trying to get in to DC for the Inauguration would actually be able to make it in.  Last check, there were still many delays at both Reagan National and Dulles airports. 

One of our producers, Steve Shapiro, is at the Patagonia store right now in Georgetown buying a bunch of pairs of warm socks and some extra long-underwear for all of us to wear tomorrow.

The MSNBC set is gorgeous, and is centrally located in the middle of the mall.  Chris Jansing anchored four hours of our inaugural coverage today from there, and we had a lot of great guests on.  Ralph Reed (former Bush-Cheney regional campaign chairman) told me how excited he is to be here, because "the President deserves this, and we're enjoying it with him." Reed will be attending the Constitution Ball tomorrow night at the Hilton. 

Tomorrow, there is a slight chance of snow again. Chris Jansing and I will be broadcasting live from Lafayette Park, across from the Presidential Reviewing stand.  We will be bundled up!

E-mail .

• January 19, 2005 | 7:31 p.m. ET

Eye of the hurricane (Chris Matthews)

Inauguration day could be called the eye of the hurricane between the roaring campaign that just ended, and the clash of wills over the new national agenda.

Following months and even years of intense partisan battles, inauguration day is the one day when the new president and both parties try hardest to leave behind their differences in a spirit of unity.

Sometimes it’s the start of a honeymoon, and their time with the Congress, the press, and with the country.

Since 1789, we’ve been doing it pretty much in the same way. Someone is elected president, he gets sworn in, and the nation waits to hear what his plans are. It’s a ritual that has been part of American culture.

The inauguration is a time to appreciate the constancy of our political process. Like clockwork, since 1789, we’ve sworn in our presidents and recommitted ourselves to our republic. No country in the world can match this record of legitimate government.

Watch Hardball's special coverage starting 9 a.m. ET on Thursday.

"Picking our Presidents: Leaders and Legacies" also re-airs Wednesday at 9 p.m. ET.

• January 19, 2005 | 7:29 p.m. ET

Interesting stories  only slightly inauguration-related

Can you believe it was one year ago today? John Kerry won Iowa’s Democratic caucuses, while John Edwards placed second; and Howard Dean, who finished third, delivered a fist-pumping, bellowing concession speech that was viewed as politically damaging.

Red and blue divide extends to brand names: Bush voters like Wal-Mart, while Kerry voters prefer Target. Bush voters like Microsoft, and Kerry voters are more likely to be fans of Dell. But when it comes to remodeling, there is no political divide— everybody likes Home Depot.

A VW viral ad or a hoax?  Courtesy of the NY post: A provocative video clip released on the Internet showing a suicide bomber behind the wheel of a Volkswagen left viewers wondering if it was a car commercial or a hoax.

Bloggers on the take? Was the WSJ story on this fair? Wonkette takes a look and posts, "prostituting yourself for a political position is the new black." Whatever you think, this certainly is another dimension to the discussion about blogs as the emerging new medium. Harvard actually has a conference this weekend on "Blogging, Journalism, and Credibility."

—Jesamyn Go, Hardball web producer, .

• January 19, 2005 | 4:40 p.m. ET

Capitol police v. Mother Nature (David Shuster)

I'm told the police, security forces, and secret service are now "concerned" about a new potential problem with demonstrators. Mother Nature has already dropped about two inches of snow. And there is enough of the stuff along Pennsylvania avenue for an endless supply of "counter-inauguration snowballs."

Obviously, the presidential limousine can withstand something far more powerful than a chunk of packed snow hitting the windshield.  But if you are a Secret Service agent walking or riding along, you never know it's a snowball until it lands.  And I don't blame the Secret Service or any of the inauguration security personnel for being concerned.

A few weeks ago, D.C. police told demonstration groups they would not be allowed to carry umbrellas, large puppets, or signs that had a wood or broomhandle type of backing.  The idea was to keep objects away from the parade that could be flung in the air and used as a type of weapon.

Most demonstrators, I'm convinced, have no interest in throwing anything at police or the participants in the inaugural parade. But if past is prologue, there will be at least ten thousand demonstrators.  And you can do the math.  I'm sure there will be at least a few knuckleheads.

D.C. law allows for police to charge somebody with "assault" for throwing a snowball.  Stay tuned. 

E-mail

• January 19, 2005 | 4:30 p.m. ET

Your e-mails

On Erick Woods-Erickson's blog:
There are many countries world wide, (let's see:  Canada, The entire EU, Australia, New Zealand etc) that have the same peaceful transitions.  Stop playing the "last bastion of freedom" card.  It's pretty uninformed.—Marc

  On last night's show (video link):
Thank you for grilling Sen. Hutchinson from Texas about continued optimism regarding unchanged Iraq policy.  Wishful thinking is what got us here, it is not what is going to finish the job. —Bill Godnick, Professor Political Science, Barry University, Miami, FL

Lots of e-mails on inauguration costs:

The costs would not seem so outrages IF...
We did not have soldiers fighting in a war without protection.
We were not already fighting an unjust war.
We had not just had a natural disaster.
We did not have a huge deficit.
—W Ashton

Fuel's use of the F-word may be considered obscene but the biggest obscenity is the three-ring circus costing $40 million+ going on in Washington this week, while our kids are being killed in a war that never should have happened.  Polls show that only around 27 percent of the American people will watch this extravaganza so who is the Bush administration trying to impress? —K Davenport

I believe that if John Kerry were the one being sworn in on January 20th, he would have already had the decency and integrity to scale back the "festivities" because that is in his character to do so.  This would have been a fantastic opportunity for George W. Bush to show some integrity and humility of his own.  I believe that those of us on the "other side" would have been humbled ourselves if Bush had announced that he was donating most of the proceeds that would have gone to material excess to the young men and women who have lost their limbs in service to this country (and this commander). Their lives will never be the same.  Once again, he is out of touch. Maybe he should have opened his Bible at this point to ask "What would Jesus do?" What a sorry day for this country...  —Anonymous

• January 19, 2005 | 2:40 p.m. ET

The counter-inaugural (Erick Woods-Erickson, guest blogger)

The Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution states that "[t]he terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January . . . and the terms of their successors shall then begin."  Thus, on Thursday the country will witness its 55th Presidential Inauguration.  Tradition holds that the Chief Justice of the United States administers the oath of office to the President, but there is no such tradition as to the Vice President.  The Speaker of the House, Denny Hastert, will administer the oath to Vice President Cheney tomorrow.  One thing to watch for will be whether William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States, is the person administering the oath of office to the President. The chief justice is suffering from cancer and has made only limited appearances at the Supreme Court.  Recent newspaper reports have indicated the CJ is wheelchair bound.  He also has reportedly had a tracheotomy.  Chief Justice Rehnquist has expressed his intentions to participate in the inauguration and is listed in the program, but the extent of the Chief Justice's participation remains to be seen.  Political junkies everywhere are speculating that the CJ might just issue the oath of office and, within a few weeks, retire.

While everyone is focusing on the official inauguration, here's a look at what those who oppose the president are doing. The Daily Kos has a press release from a group calling itself the "Internet Liberation Front," which claims to have "hacked and defaced six Republican websites."  The anarchists have set up a Website advocating "anarchist resistance to the 2005 Presidential Inauguration."  A Counter-Inaugural has been set up by lefty activists that will include a concert, a pre-inaugural candlelight vigil, and (my personal favorite) a "meditation for peace."  Another group advocates turning your back when the president takes his oath.  Still another group wants high school students in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia to walk out of school tomorrow. There's also the "Not One Damn Dime" campaign, spread via e-mail, which is an economic boycott encouraging Americans to "open your mouth by keeping your wallet closed." For 24 hours, nothing gets spent (not one damn dime), to remind leaders and politicians "of their moral responsibility to end the war in Iraq and give America back to the people." (Click here for more on planned protests.)

It remains remarkable that for 200 years our nation has peacefully transitioned from one administration to another without the violence and bloodshed that so many countries experience.  Even better, unlike so many other countries in the world, include the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, is that groups dedicated to anarchy and groups viscerally opposed to the just re-elected administration can protest and make their presence known.  In that respect and with that level of freedom, the United States remains relatively unique among countries.

For information on the official inauguration activities, check out the website of the Presidential Inauguration Committee. For information on the counter-inaugural, check out Counter-Inaugural.org.

Thoughts? E-mail

—Erick-Woods Erickson blogs for RedState.Org

• January 19, 2005 | 9:16 p.m. ET

The JibJab guys are back

One of the best laughs the nation had during the election was JibJab.com’s parody of Woody Guthrie’s “This Land Is My Land.”  The flash computer animation had candidates Bush and Kerry, with their sidekicks Cheney and Edwards singing across the nation.  The JibJab guys are back.  This time they take a look at the president’s upcoming inauguration and second term.  Enjoy!

Thoughts? E-mail

—Erick-Woods Erickson, RedState.Org

• January 18, 2005 | 10:08 p.m. ET

This Inaugural requires long underwear! (Nina Bradley, MSNBC Producer)

Greetings from Washington!!

The temperature is now 19 degrees F, but it feels more like 9.  It is colder than cold.

Today, Chris Jansing and I and our crew were outdoors braving the elements all day doing live reports from the World War II Memorial as part of MSNBC's Inauguration coverage.  Our last hit for the day was for "Hardball" at 8:25pm ET tonight, so it was a long and cold day.

More than anything else, covering this 2nd George W. Bush Inaugural requires long underwear and the ever-growing popular drug called "Airborne" to make sure we do not get sick.

One of the funniest things I saw this evening at the memorial was a big group of young Texans wearing black cowboy hats and black cowboy boots heading to the youth concert at the DC Armory.

The last time I saw so much Texas influence was when I was in Crawford covering the President at his ranch.  The nation's capitol is not used to seeing so much of the Lone Star.
The nation's capitol is also not used to so much frigid weather.  Many schools in the area were closed or delayed today due to the cold.  Tomorrow, we are expecting snow here.  We are also preparing for much tighter security starting tomorrow.  It is all about having the right credential to make sure you can get through the tight security.  Whatever happens we need to stay warm. 

Chris Jansing and I look forward to tomorrow when she will anchor in the afternoon from a heated stage on the Washington mall.  We will both be wearing our UGGs, just in case!

E-mail us at

Be sure to watch MSNBC TV's full live coverage of the Inauguration on Thursday from 9:00 a.m.ET - 11:00 p.m. ET

• January 18, 2005 | 5:27 p.m. ET

On inaugural costs, complaints (Erick Erickson, Guest Blogger)

A lot of pundits, still not quite happy that the president was re-elected, have now found something else to complain about: the costs of the inauguration.

Unfortunately, given this time in our nation's history, the District of Columbia and the federal government are saddled with just less than $20 million in security costs.  If that was not bad enough, complain some, the actual inauguration will cost $40 million, though the money comes from private contributors.  Many, like Bernard Ries want a scaled down inaugural and some have made the argument that this is the most expensive inaugural ever.  Actually, these complainers in chief are off the mark.

As PoliticalCP points out over at RedState, Bill Clinton's first inaugural, adjusted for inflation, was the most expensive inaugural at $44.5 million.  In fact, President Bush's first inaugural in 2001, came in at $43.9 million inflation adjusted dollars.  While we can debate the merits of an elaborate inauguration, something tells me that most of those crying foul would not be doing so if president-elect Kerry were being sworn in on Thursday.

Thoughts? E-mail

—Erick-Woods Erickson, RedState.Org

• January 14, 2005 | 2:21 p.m. ET

Why is D.C. paying for the inauguration security costs? (David Shuster)

Washington, D.C. is getting ready for one heck of a party next week. President Bush's second inauguration will be the most expensive and elaborate in American history. Fine by me. 

But I was thunderstruck today when I saw this quote from the administration's inauguration spokesperson: "We recognize this time that we are a nation at war."

Huh?  Next week's festivities will include 9 inaugural balls, a huge youth concert, a  massive parade, and an unprecedented fireworks display, etc. The cost will be $40 million.

To be fair, this portion of the inauguration is going to be paid for by private donors.  And if the president's supporters want to spend $40 million for an extravaganza in the midst of the troubles in Iraq or the Tsunami disaster... go for it.

I do find it a bit peculiar, however, that when it comes to the separate security costs of the inauguration... the Bush administration is telling Washington, D.C. that the city is on its own.

As reported earlier this week in "The Washington Post," the Bush administration wants Washington, D.C., for the first time in inauguration history, to pay all of its own expenses.  This move will cost Washington, D.C. an estimated $12 million. The administration has told D.C. that in order to pay for next week's police overtime, security fences, and bleachers.... the city should dip into homeland security funds allocated for hospitals, firefighting equipment, and transit command centers. 

Some of my fellow D.C. residents have begun to use this as an excuse to revive the debate over DC statehood and the lack of voting representation in Congress. I have a better idea.  Given that the administration's decision amounts to a $12 million dollar "inauguration tax" on Washington, D.C.... the city should respond in kind by passing it on to all inauguration participants as a "security tax."

For next week alone, DC should impose a "commuter toll" on all visitors from outside of DC.  All vehicles that do not have DC tags would have to stop and pay a fee before entering the city.  And every supporter/protestor who wants to line the parade route, would have to pay $5 to get through inauguration security.  Furthermore, every band and bugle corps member would have to pay the five bucks before being allowed to line up for the parade along Pennsylvania avenue.  On inauguration morning, and after a long bus ride, I'm sure that groups like the "West Monroe High School Marching Band" (Monroe, LA) wouldn't mind writing out an 800 dollar check to the D.C. Treasurer.  And most groups would recognize the appropriateness of this "security" tax.  

After all, this is Washington, D.C... one of the juiciest targets for terrorists around the globe.  And as the administration has already stated about next week's inauguration, "we recognize this time that we are a nation at war."

Comments/questions: 

• January 13, 2005 | 6:23 p.m. ET

Trippi on the politics of the DNC chair

  On Hardball last Tuesday, Joe Trippi said he'll support Simon Rosenberg for DNC Chair (and not Howard Dean).

On his Trippi's Take column today, he explains the politics behind the choice for DNC chair, as well as his working relationships with Mike McCurry, Sergio Bendixen, and Rob Stein— who also think Simon Rosenberg is the right choice.

Click here to read the column, and e-mail for your thoughts and reactions.

• January 12, 2005 | 6:27 p.m. ET

The search is over

A Washington Post headline today says the search for weapons in mass destruction has ended— so it's official— there are no weapons of mass destruction... which was the reason for the war in Iraq.

From today's Washington Post:
The hunt for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq has come to an end nearly two years after President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein. The top CIA weapons hunter is home, and analysts are back at Langley.

In interviews, officials who served with the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) said the violence in Iraq, coupled with a lack of new information, led them to fold up the effort shortly before Christmas…

The ISG has interviewed every person it could find connected to programs that ended more than 10 years ago, and every suspected site within Iraq has been fully searched, or stripped bare by insurgents and thieves, according to several people involved in the weapons hunt.

Many of you wrote in after Shuster’s blog yesterday, questioning why there hasn’t been enough accountability in government, particularly about the lack of WMD, as well as Chalabi’s document flap (Chalabi gave documents to civilian leaders at the Pentagon that allegedy proved Iraq was an imminent threat).

Here’s what some of you wrote David:

Thank you for your blog about the appropriateness of the firings at CBS and the tie to Chalabi documents.  These stories and these analogies need to be made more often and more publicly, so that we all begin to hold our government to the highest standards. I was intrigued recently by President Bush praising Rumsfeld’s “success” in Iraq.  I wonder if he would be half as happy if Karl Rove had been equally “successful” in running his campaign?  Shouldn’t the Sec’y of Defense need to plan as carefully and thoroughly as a campaign manager? —Cathy Willis

Right on! I’m with you. I think we should start at the top. Someone’s head should roll for the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. George Tenent got a medal for is role in our intelligence. I also find it difficult to believe that a sergeant in Iraq set up our policy of torture in Abu Graib. Higher ups allowed the torture of prisoners, they should suffer the consequences. This administration does not think it should be responsible for anything. Scott Kesselman —Cary, NC

Now wait a minute David, George and the gang don’t make mistakes. Er, uh, hmm, I am sure that he made a mistake sometime or another. Besides firing someone would be admitting to a mistake and George can’t remember making any recently. —Brian Blacketer

As far as the Chalabi documents go, you are comparing two very different things.  I agree that people should be held accountable for the documents that they provide, but to compare that to the CBS debacle is inappropriate.  The Chalabi documents in and of themselves did not lead to the loss of life.  They were a very very small part of a large volume of data that was used to make the US decisions about Iraq.  The same actions would have taken place in Iraq whether or not the government had the documents from Chalabi. On the other hand, the CBS story was based almost entirely on the documents that Dan Rather presented. —Larry Zivkovich

If we should “fire” everyone who uses bad info or documents to help there cause, then you will need to update your resume ASAP. —Anonymous

On Hardball tonight, Sen. Ted Kennedy talks more about accountability.“There was submariner who ran his submarine into that mountain underneath the sea. That area wasn't even charted, and they’re talking about cashiering him. But we haven't held one person accountable for the mistakes that we've got in Iraq, not one person. I think the American people want to know why.” Click here for an exclusive preview.

—Jesamyn Go, Hardball web producer,

MORE FROM HARDBALL

Hardball Section Front

Do Tea Parties help or hurt GOP? Officer who quit over Afghan war speaks out Full jobless picture even bleaker About face! Crist denies backing stimulus Did religion play a role in Ft. Hood shooting? Does Pelosi have enough votes? More on shooter’s identity Gov. Perry: Texas suffered ‘significant loss’ Fort Hood usually a ‘disciplined’ place Ft. Hood shootings: Was terrorism a motive? Hardball Section Front   Add Hardball headlines to your news reader: