Wow, I knew the McCain-Palin team had lost their message consistency, had a lot of in-fighting going on and that Sarah is already beginning to look beyond next Tuesday…. But this is ridiculous.



More fun -- and Senate coverage! -- at BobGeiger.com.

P.S. When a commenter has a good idea, they have a good idea!

Every two years, roughly one-third of the United States Senate comes up for reelection and in 2008 the number of seats up for grabs goes to 35 because of appointed Republican Senators in Wyoming and Mississippi who must now run to actually be elected by their constituents.

Emboldened by the fact that I somehow managed to call every Senate race and the Democratic takeover of the Senate correctly in 2006, I'm just foolish enough to try forecasting this year's outcome.

I'm splitting my predictions this year into two parts because of the sheer breadth of these contests. Today, I'll discuss the races that were almost over before they even started and those that looked to be close six months ago, but where the outcome will be no surprise on Tuesday.

Obviously, the Republicans are in deeply defensive mode this year. In addition to living with the fact that they followed in lockstep with the most despised president in U.S. history, the GOP is on the losing end of a numbers game, with Democrats facing reelection in only 12 of the 35 seats being decided.

The other 23 races represent Republican incumbency in the form of 18 running for reelection or to legitimize an appointment and five seats that have been left open by retiring GOP senators -- Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Wayne Allard of Colorado, John Warner of Virginia, Larry Craig of Idaho and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

First things first: Under no circumstances do Democrats lose control of the Senate -- it simply can't happen. OK, anything can happen but I'll explain today why Republicans stand as much chance of a Senate majority in the 111th Congress as I have of being named People magazine's Sexist Man Alive.

Democrats start the day on November 4th carrying 37 Senate seats into the new Congress -- those not up in 2008 -- and with all 12 contested Democratic seats being locks for reelection. Democrats like John Kerry (MA), Dick Durbin (IL), Carl Levin (MI) and Tom Harkin (IA) ain't losing. The only one that was even remotely in question was Mary Landrieu in Louisiana and she has led her Republican opponent, John Kennedy, in every major poll and has an average lead of almost 13 points over her GOP challenger.

According to Pollster.com, 10 of the other Democrats all have even larger leads over their opponents -- Jack Reed is ahead of his Rhode Island challenger by 52 points -- and those Democrats combined have an average polling lead of 27 percentage points over their hapless opponents. Oh, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas doesn’t even have a major-party opponent.

So this means that we start our drive to a filibuster-proof 60 seats with 49 purely Democratic seats effectively done already.

Similarly, the GOP has a lock on 10 of the 23 Republican seats either currently held or vacated by incumbents as follows:

• Lamar Alexander (TN)
• John Barrasso (WY)
• Thad Cochran (MS)
• Jim Risch (ID)
• Michael Enzi (WY)
• Lindsey Graham (SC)
• Mike Johanns (NE)
• James Inhofe (OK)
• Pat Roberts (KS)
• Jeff Sessions (AL)

And some of those Republican certainties are downright nauseating.

Pat Roberts sat idly by and did nothing for years as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee while George W. Bush shredded our Constitution and tortured in our name. The disgraceful Lindsey Graham has been one of John McCain's biggest mouthpieces in this election and has told so many lies about Barack Obama that the Democratic presidential nominee should just slap him next time they meet.

And nothing would please me more than to see Democrat Andrew Rice take out climate-change denier James "Ice-Age" Inhofe in Oklahoma but it doesn’t look like that's going to happen this time around. The listed Republicans have been leading wire-to-wire in the polls and election-day results will unfortunately bear that out.

So when you consider 37 uncontested Democratic seats, add 12 that there is no way Republicans can win and throw in excellent Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont and repulsive, faux Independent Joe Lieberman, the Democratic caucus is left right back where it started -- at 51 seats with the remaining 13 races deciding not whether Democrats retain control of the Senate but by how much their majority will be increased.

Tomorrow, I talk about those 13, how I think the Democratic caucus will indeed hit the magic number of 60 and -- ugh -- how that may leave Democrats still needing Joe Lieberman, on paper at least, allegedly in their corner.

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

While the McCain-Palin campaign has officially begun their 30-day, swift-boating plan for Barack Obama by saying he likes to "pal around with terrorists," I'm somewhat sure they'll stop just short of Photoshopping Obama attending an al Qaeda planning meeting and focus much more intensely on defining the Democratic nominee as -- horror of horrors! -- a liberal.

"We are looking for a very aggressive last 30 days," said Greg Strimple, a McCain talking head, over the weekend. "We are looking forward to turning a page on this financial crisis and getting back to discussing Mr. Obama's aggressively liberal record and how he will be too risky for Americans."

And in the first presidential debate, McCain himself moved in that familiar direction, crowing that Obama has “the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate."

So I think we can see where this is going.

The Obama-Biden ticket could always hit back that the GOP again using "liberal" as a curse word ignores the fact that liberals are responsible for such all-American favorites as Social Security, Medicare, the minimum wage, the Peace Corps, Clean Air and Clean Water legislation, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

But they might do better right now by breaking down exactly what McCain and Palin are talking about when they cite the National Journal's 2007 Congressional vote rankings from which they cull their reference to the "most liberal" U.S. Senator in their attempts to make Obama look "too risky."

The National Journal looked at 99 Senate votes in 2007 and used those as the basis of what the McCain-Palin team sees as a stinging indictment of the Democratic ticket. Sadly for McCain, looking at many of those votes indicates that Obama is very much in the American mainstream and provides an excellent rationale for why more of us should vote for Obama and not him.

Of the votes used to give McCain his latest name-calling gambit, a good number of them show Obama on what most voters would consider the right side of issues such as the Iraq war, raising the minimum wage, energy independence, stem cell research and increased domestic security.

Two of the votes that will cause McCain and Palin to shriek "liberal" at Obama were in favor of raising the Federal Minimum wage for the first time in a decade -- something Americans overwhelmingly supported -- and against another piece of cruel Republican legislation to kill the minimum wage entirely. And, yes, for all you folks out there making the lowest required wage rate, Senator McCain did vote to abolish it and let your employers decide based on state law or their own kindness how much you earn.

Obama also voted for a whole slew of other popular things including fully funding special education in our schools -- you know, Governor Palin, for kids with special needs -- allowing more children to get basic health care and lowering prescription drug prices on our senior citizens. Here's to hoping our elderly in Florida consider that last one and allow the "liberal" cry from John McCain to send them to the voting booth for Obama.

Stem cell research? The vast majority of Americans support that science and the promise it holds for new treatments and cures for some of the most debilitating and deadly diseases. Barack Obama supported the "liberal" position of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and, as a matter of fact, so did John McCain -- but that won't keep McCain and Palin from using it like a bat to beat Obama with.

The same hypocrisy is true with legislation by that flaming liberal Joe Lieberman that called for the creation of a Senate Office of Public Integrity to, as Lieberman put it, "aggressively investigate allegations of misconduct among Members." Lieberman, McCain and other Republicans voted for that -- but somehow Barack Obama also voting in favor makes him an evil liberal American.

American energy independence is one of the hot topics this campaign season and yet two votes cast by Obama to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil will be assailed by Team McCain -- even though John McCain couldn’t even be bothered to show up for either of those votes.

And on Iraq, caring for our troops fighting there and in Afghanistan and securing America within our own borders, Obama has consistently voted for what "Main Street" thinks is right and which again, in Bizarro Republican World, would make voting in step with the American people a bad thing.

The majority of Americans no longer want us bogged down in the Iraq quagmire and all of Obama's votes to set a timeline to get the hell out of that mess makes for more GOP evidence of his "liberal" ideals. Obama also voted to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations -- how did that become a liberal stance? -- and to fund screening of cargo containers at major U.S. shipping ports… McCain didn’t show up for work to vote on those issues that day either.

Finally, it's a very strange part of the election cycle when the McCain-Palin team thinks it can turn votes Obama made on behalf of America's troops and their families against him -- but they're going to do exactly that when it comes to the Democratic nominee's efforts to limit the duration of Iraq deployments and extend the period of downtime troops receive with their families before they can be sent back.

"This is an amendment that is focused squarely on supporting our troops who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Senator Jim Webb (D-VA), a combat Veteran, arguing for one of two bills he authored to give troops more time between deployments. "It speaks directly to their welfare and to the needs of their families by establishing minimum periods between deployments for both our regular and reserve components."

Obama voted with the troops and their families on that issue, McCain voted against them -- and this is a bad thing for Obama?

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel sponsored a bill to limit Iraq deployments to 12 months saying that the extended tours favored by the Bush administration is "…wearing down the troops and their families, impacting the mental and physical health of our troops."

Again, wherever Sarah Palin speaks in the next month, she will try to convince voters that Obama siding with Hagel and military families was a nasty liberal plot while McCain voting with Bush and against the troops was the right thing to do.

So we're in the homestretch. The Obama-Biden ticket is surging in the polls and even making states like Indiana and North Carolina look like they may vote Democratic this year -- so desperate times will call for desperate and dirty Republican tricks and labeling.

But if they're going to resort to their tired old tactic of standing on the street corner like crazy people yelling "liberal, liberal, liberal," let's at least let them know that, along with Obama and Joe Biden, they're including the mainstream of America under that umbrella.

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

Update: You can go here to see a chart of Obama votes that the McCain-Palin ticket finds so offensive.

One of the goofiest things that happened during the 2004 presidential election was when a national poll asked Americans whether they would rather have a beer with George W. Bush or the Democratic candidate, John Kerry. A majority of those polled indicated they would like to hoist a Heineken with Bush -- how did that method of choosing a candidate work out for us? -- and we appear to be at it again, with this year's version of that nonsense announced late last week.

I'm sure you heard about it over the weekend… An Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll released Friday showed these to be among the most compelling things we should consider when selecting the next President of the United States: Between Barack Obama and John McCain, who would we rather watch a football game with and, as a slightly more dignified follow-up, who would we choose to be our child's teacher.

For the record, Obama was the choice on both counts but let's not endorse these ridiculous questions by dwelling on those results.

It's actually quite sad that in a poll with 34 published pages of questions, these are undoubtedly the only two that made it to your television or newspaper over the weekend.

What I found interesting is that, like most comprehensive polls that include questions about the Iraq war, the AP-Yahoo survey shows once again that the vast majority of Americans want some form of timeline for exiting Iraq -- a result that has not changed much in the last few years.

Please go here to read the rest.

Not content to look like an idiot last week by smearing Barack Obama's patriotism while at the Republican National Convention, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is at it again this week -- but this time he's going back to that old GOP standby of implying that what we're doing in Iraq has anything whatsoever to do with the attacks we suffered on September 11.

In a statement released yesterday, Inhofe patted Team Bush on the back for being willing to bring home a mere 8,000 troops from Iraq over the next six months and applauded their claim that they will actually begin paying a shred of attention to the true al Qaeda stronghold in Afghanistan.

He also took the time to once again link 9/11 and Iraq when discussing Bush's meager troop reduction.

“Seven years ago this week, America felt the brutal acts of terror on our nation’s soil,” Inhofe said. “As we reflect and remember that horrific day this week, we can be encouraged that clear security gains have been made in the War on Terror. In particular, I appreciate the strong leadership of President Bush to keep our nation safe. Today’s announcements recognize the significant progress that’s been made and a plan for the road ahead in Afghanistan that stands as an important step in winning the War on Terror."

The fact that the "brutal acts" Inhofe talks about from 9/11 have nothing to do with Bush's actions in Iraq, never seems to stop Republicans from bringing the two together, does it?

Please go here to read the rest.

Joined by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, George W. Bush on Sunday hosted Tee Ball on the South Lawn, a day of spirited youth baseball featuring the children of active-duty military personnel. Former New York Yankees All-Star Bernie Williams served as first base coach while Peter Pace, Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, coached at third. (Observers noted that Karl Rove appeared to be directing Pace's actions for the entire game.)

The White House reports that Bush went 3 for 4, with a single, triple and home run and that First Lady Laura Bush took the happy president to Baskin-Robbins afterwards for a celebratory double-scoop cone.

I don't know why, but I thought maybe for this convention the Republican party would drop their tired fear-and-smear playbook and try something different. I guess I assumed with the American people seeming to have forgotten that we still have well over 100,000 soldiers and Marines trapped in the Iraq quagmire, that the GOP's main speakers would at least make the economy a centerpiece in their poisoning of the national dialog.

Boy, was I wrong.

Not only did they say next to nothing about the economy -- other than Grandpa Fred Thompson implying that Democrats are imagining the economic distress most Americans are feeling -- but they went right back to the most trusted Republican campaign technique: When you have nothing whatsoever to offer the American people, scare the crap out of them.

In addition to the bizarre repetition perfected by the Marquis de Thompson Tuesday of going over in detail every torture John McCain endured as a POW -- you didn’t yet know he was a POW in Vietnam, did you? -- the other common denominator of all the major speeches was repeated use of terrorist fear-mongering.

"Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America," warned their Vice Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, on Wednesday, adding of Obama the silly statement that "he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights."

"John McCain hit the nail on the head: Radical, violent Islam is evil, and he will defeat it," crowed Mitt Romney, referring to McCain's pandering to the Religious Right in an interview a couple of weeks ago.

Thompson mentioned "terrorists, rogue nations developing nuclear weapons" and, of course, the GOP's ace fearleader, George W. Bush, even invoked 9/11 for the millionth or so time saying ""we need a president who understands the lessons of September 11, 2001: that to protect America, we must stay on the offense, stop attacks before they happen, and not wait to be hit again."

Hell, that sorry excuse for a carbon-based lifeform, Joe Lieberman, even threw in a terrorist reference -- though oddly, there was no mention of the fact that Osama bin Laden is still podcasting threats again us and that the Republican party has done almost nothing to catch him in seven years.

And of course they took the time last night to run the requisite video exploiting the memory of all who died on September 11.

What did not one member of the faux, support-the-troops line-up mention -- not even one time?

The sacrifice of our military families, the number of troops who have returned home in coffins since Bush lied us into the Iraq disaster and the trials of Iraq war Veterans.

To steal from the shrill Rudy Giuliani's speech on Wednesday, they said "nada, nothing."

For a party that wants to convince Americans that the entire Iraq debacle can somehow be reduced to the small amount of time spent on the "surge," every major speech was missing any acknowledgement whatsoever of the troops who have died and those still serving on the ground in Iraq -- except the couple of instances where they used the troops to lie about Barack Obama's record.

Even Veteran John McCain who had run the entire Republican convention under the "Country First" marketing label, spent much of his acceptance speech focusing on himself and his POW resume, without one word for the troops still serving in a war of his party's making. He also said nothing about the nearly 4,200 troops who have died or the Veterans who have come back to neglect and mistreatment under the Bush administration.

And when his surrogates spend so much time hawking the "success" of the surge, they always leave out two critical pieces of information: What did injection of tens of thousands of U.S. troops -- which would naturally improve any situation, anywhere -- accomplish other than securing the capital city of a country having nothing at all to do with U.S. security? And more importantly, what do McCain and his party have to say about the almost 1,100 military men and women who have died since the surge-for-nothing began in February of 2007?

Nada, nothing.

In three nights of speeches by McCain, his running mate and all the major Republican presidential contenders, not one word was said about the troops they claim to adore, the cause they all continue to advance or the Veterans they say they support.

And it is perhaps McCain who has emerged from this scenario as the biggest hypocrite of all.

As he tries to spotlight himself as the oracle of national defense and the selfless proponent of "country first" -- while railing in his speech Thursday night about the " me-first-country-second, Washington crowd" -- McCain spent three days focusing on his life and what he went through 35 years ago without one word about the lives of the military people suffering in his war, today.

Republicans talked a lot this week about highlighting the "stark contrasts" between their candidate and Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama -- and here is that contrast: When Obama spoke last week in Denver, he talked movingly about being "… more compassionate than a government that lets veterans sleep on our streets" and spoke about how "in the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton's Army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the GI Bill."

He also talked, as he has many times in his U.S. Senate tenure, about how he will "give better care for our veterans" and said that, in addition to so many children to protect, we have "so many veterans to care for."

And what did the major speakers at the Republican convention, including McCain and Palin -- the "country first" crowd -- have to say on the subject?

Nada, nothing.

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

* * * * *
Correction: Some right-wing "fans" have been quick to point out that in one tiny portion of his speech last night, Senator McCain did indeed say he wears the bracelet of one of our Iraq war dead and that he intends to honor that one family's sacrifice.

Fair enough. He did mention one of almost 4,200 dead troops. I regret the omission.

But if this was all that was said -- a couple of sentences about one young man -- in the combined 15,000 words spoken by McCain, Palin, Lieberman, Thompson, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee, it hardly detracts from my original premise.

The Iraq quagmire is a Republican war. They want it. They shill for it. They applaud it.

Given that many more troops will die for their war, that over 100,000 families exist on a daily basis missing a husband, wife, father or mother and that tens of thousands of our military men and women will bear the physical and emotional scars of this GOP travesty for a lifetime, couldn’t they have done a lot better than that?

Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee got one of the biggest guffaws out of the stagnant crowd at the Republican National Convention Wednesday night when he ridiculed Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee Joe Biden by declaring that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin got more votes running for Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Biden got in his entire bid for the presidency this year.

"She got more votes running for Mayor of Wasilla Alaska than Joe Biden got running for President of the United States," crowed Huckabee.

Of course, the only problem is that it's not even close to being true.

Please go to BobGeiger.com to read the rest.

The tiny town of St. Paul, Nebraska was shocked to the core on Tuesday when President George W. Bush and his presidential motorcade drove past the Pump & Pantry mini-mart on Highway 281 and pulled into the village of just over 2,000 residents.

"This is so exciting," said Ethel Strahan of rural St. Paul as she was strip-searched on the town's brick-lined main street. "I realize they have to violate my rights to protect the President and me from the terrorists and I'm just pleased as punch that he's come to visit."

St. Paul Mayor Willard Ross disclosed in a press conference attended only by the editor of the town's weekly newspaper that the Republican National Committee (RNC) had contacted him in a panic Monday after Hurricane Gustav spared New Orleans and it became apparent that the unpopular president might try to appear at the GOP's 39th national convention. RNC officials asked Ross for his cooperation after they convinced Bush that the party's nominating convention was being held in rural Nebraska to prevent an embarrassing Bush appearance at the event's actual site in St. Paul, Minnesota.

"They just flat-out didn't want him there," said Mayor Ross, on the town hall's wooden steps. "It's hard to imagine folks not liking Mr. Bush, but I hear that most of the country now thinks he's the worst president in U.S. history, so what are ya gonna do?"

Bush spoke to a crowd of 12 maintenance workers who happened to be at the small town's fairgrounds cleaning up from the recent county fair and remarked on how excited he was to be there.

"I'm thrilled to be here in St. Paul for the convention," said Bush, as tumbleweeds and corndog wrappers blew past his feet. "I expected bigger crowds for the convention but it's still exciting to be in one of our most important coastal states."



Meanwhile, Diane Marvicka the manager of the town's best hotel, the Super 8, was grateful for the business and said it was exciting to meet Bush, who carried the town in the 2004 election with over 80 percent of the vote.

"With the president, Secret Service guys and all the other people, this is the first time I've been sold out since the big Central Nebraska Tractor Pull and Pig Races in 1997," said a harried Marvicka. "But George seems like a real nice guy -- though he was disappointed that we close the pool so early and that we no longer get Cartoon Network with our cable TV."

Sid Badura, owner of the Bum Steer Saloon on main street, enjoyed a brisk business as the president stopped in looking for convention delegates and to play the bar's old-style Space Invaders game.

"It's nice to have him here and everything," said Badura. "But I'm not real crazy about how the Secret Service came in and made me hide all my Jack Daniels. I know the president's had a bit of a problem, but that's not going to go over with a lot of my customers."

"And, by the way, isn’t the Republican convention in Minnesota?"

Mayor Ross, who was busily trying to organize the town's 2,000 residents into a "pretend convention" to maintain the RNC's ruse, looked tired but kept a smile on his face.

"I'll tell ya, I voted for him twice, but that boy is as dumb as a bag of rocks."

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com

It doesn’t really come as a surprise to those of us who have watched John McCain over the years that he's about to make a campaign stop in New Orleans after Hurricane Gustav hits this week. After all, he's been exploiting the troops for years, what's a few hurricane victims after that?

What does seem odd is that McCain thinks Gulf Coast residents will forget how he, George W. Bush and the then-Republican Congress turned their backs on them so many times in the months after Katrina thundered ashore in 2005.

Sure, McCain was big on rote sympathy right after the disaster, saying on September 1, 2005 "American citizens have proven time and again how generous and selfless a people we are, and now we have an opportunity to come to the aid of those in need." A week later he stridently said "Our work to help the victims of this national tragedy has just begun, and Congress must do all that is necessary to fund essential relief and recovery efforts and help those in need."

It must be nice to have staffers writing that stuff for you.

Too bad he spent the months to follow leading the Republican charge against every Senate bill that would have actually helped Katrina victims or mandated investigations on how the Bush administration could have blown disaster response so thoroughly.

Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden jumped immediately to the aid of hurricane victims in the week after the 2005 disaster, authoring S.Amdt. 1661 "…to provide emergency funding for victims of Hurricane Katrina."

Biden's legislation would have provided many things including money to purchase
interoperable communications equipment to help first-responders dealing with the disaster, $10 million "to find, unite, and transport children impacted by Hurricane Katrina to their parents, legal guardian, or next of kin" and funding to assist victims of domestic violence in affected areas.

"The devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina has revealed the best and the worst about our great Nation. It has revealed a great economic divide that exists among our citizens, while it demonstrated as well the capacity of the majority of our citizens to be compassionate and even heroic during times of great need," said Biden in arguing for his bill. "It also exposed the demons of some who will use any opportunity to prey on the weak."

"The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has reported that over 1,000 children have been displaced by this storm -- that means they are not with their parents or guardians -- and in this amendment we provide $10 million for that effort," Biden continued. "We also provide $9 million to support domestic violence victims impacted by the storms. We all heard of the reports of sexual assaults in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and we will support those victims who have not been moved to new shelters."

But with John McCain's help, the Republican-led Senate shot down the funding on a 41-56 vote with McCain voting against, while Biden and Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama voted for the funding.

(Continued)

Please go to BobGeiger.com -- yes, he's back! - to read the rest of this article

When ABC News went to press with their latest investigative earth-shaker on Wednesday, you would have thought they found D.B. Cooper or discovered Amelia Earhart's final landing place. Instead, what you got from Brian Ross and ABC's "investigative unit" was the most shocking revelation they could find so far in 17,481 pages of Senator Hillary Clinton's first-lady schedule, released this week by the National Archives: That the Democratic presidential candidate "may have been in the White House when the fateful act was committed," referring to her husband's dalliance with Monica Lewinsky.

"Hillary At White House on 'Stained Blue Dress' Day," screamed the headline on the ABC News web site Wednesday, in reference to the dress that the Starr Report would later say was proof of President Clinton having sex with Lewinsky and obviously in shock that on a given day the First Lady might actually be in the White House.

"Hillary Clinton spent the night in the White House on the day her husband had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, and may have actually been in the White House when it happened, according to records of her schedule released today by the National Archives," people claiming to be journalists at ABC actually reported.

I have obtained through top-secret, clandestine sources a pre-release of ABC News' next major investigative report. They have high hopes that this will also rock Senator Clinton's presidential campaign to the core and I present it here in the interest of the public's right to know

* * * * *

What Did Socks Know and When Did He Know It?



An in-depth investigative report by ABC News continues to show disturbing evidence that Socks, the White House cat during the Presidency of Bill Clinton may, like then First Lady Hillary Clinton, also have been present in the White House when the former Chief Executive was having sex with intern Monica Lewinsky.

"We've been going after this story for years, all the while being stonewalled by Socks," said Brian Ross of the ABC News Investigative Unit. "It's obvious that, like Senator Clinton, Socks may have been in the house during the Lewinsky affair, but he has continued to maintain his silence for well over a decade -- which if you think about it, is a really long time for a cat."

"Socks may have ducked Ken Starr, but he won’t escape the bulldog reporting of ABC News," snarled Ross, with obvious disdain for the black and white tabby.

As recently as last weekend, Team ABC staked out the home of Betty Currie, former secretary to President Clinton, and with whom Socks currently lives, and tried once again to ambush-interview the former First Cat. A partial transcript follows:

Brian Ross: "Socks. Socks! Were you in the White House on the day the blue dress was stained?"

(Ross and ABC News camera crew run frantically after Socks who once again eludes them by running up a tree.)

Ross: "Socks, the American people have the right to know: Did you know about Monica Lewinsky?"

Socks: "Meow."

Ross: "Answer the question, you fallacious feline. Were you or were you not in the White House on February 28, 1997?"

At this point Currie emerged from her suburban Maryland home and chased correspondent Ross away while beating him severely with an umbrella.

"The Clintons can keep running away from this and continue to maintain that Socks was just a, quote, 'family pet,'" said a breathless Ross. "But we will not rest until we get to the truth in this vital story."

As the investigation continued, ABC News moved to Chappaqua, NY, the current Clinton home and the place where Buddy, the Clinton's White House dog died under what Ross called "mysterious circumstances" on January 2, 2002.

Buddy, a youthful Labrador retriever was killed when he was struck by a car near the Clinton's Westchester County home.

"It's no secret that Buddy and Socks did not get along," said Ross, referring to the period when both domestic animals occupied the White House and fought like, well, cats and dogs. "Socks has continued to cover for the Clintons, while Buddy was the more talkative of the First Pets. Isn’t it convenient that Buddy suddenly got 'hit by a car' so soon after leaving Washington?"

ABC News spoke to Jeffrey Tiedrich, a neighbor of the Clintons, as he unloaded his car from a grocery-shopping trip.

Brian Ross: "Sir, do you know the Clintons?"

Tiedrich: "Of course, I do, they live across the street. Very friendly."

Ross: "Do you remember when Buddy was killed?"

Tiedrich: "Uh, yes, it was a very sad day in the neighborhood."

Ross: "Do you think Socks had anything to do with it?"

Tiedrich: "What?"

Ross: "Socks, the Clinton's cat, who's been running from us for 11 long years."

Tiedrich: "Who are you again?"

Ross: "ABC News. Do you think Buddy knew too much about the blue dress? Is it true he tried to bury it in the back yard of the West Wing?"

Tiedrich: "You're an idiot."

The tenacious ABC News Investigative Unit continued to run into even more evasive behavior on the part of everyone surrounding the Clintons, including failed attempts to interview other White House employees who, according to Ross, "saw their employment mysteriously end in January of 2001."

But Ross remains undeterred.

"We'll get to the bottom of this," said the frustrated reporter. "We also know that Barack Obama may have visited the White House sometime during the Clinton Presidency. And we'll find out what he knew about that dress as well."

You can read more from Bob at The Agonist.

When ABC News went to press with their latest investigative earth-shaker on Wednesday, you would have thought they found D.B. Cooper or discovered Amelia Earhart's final landing place. Instead, what you got from Brian Ross and ABC's "investigative unit" was the most shocking revelation they could find so far in 17,481 pages of Senator Hillary Clinton's first-lady schedule, released this week by the National Archives: That the Democratic presidential candidate "may have been in the White House when the fateful act was committed," referring to her husband's dalliance with Monica Lewinsky.

"Hillary At White House on 'Stained Blue Dress' Day," screamed the headline on the ABC News web site Wednesday, in reference to the dress that the Starr Report would later say was proof of President Clinton having sex with Lewinsky and obviously in shock that on a given day the First Lady might actually be in the White House.

"Hillary Clinton spent the night in the White House on the day her husband had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, and may have actually been in the White House when it happened, according to records of her schedule released today by the National Archives," people claiming to be journalists at ABC actually reported.

I have obtained through top-secret, clandestine sources a pre-release of ABC News' next major investigative report. They have high hopes that this will also rock Senator Clinton's presidential campaign to the core and I present it here in the interest of the public's right to know

* * * * *

What Did Socks Know and When Did He Know It?



An in-depth investigative report by ABC News continues to show disturbing evidence that Socks, the White House cat during the Presidency of Bill Clinton may, like then First Lady Hillary Clinton, also have been present in the White House when the former Chief Executive was having sex with intern Monica Lewinsky.

"We've been going after this story for years, all the while being stonewalled by Socks," said Brian Ross of the ABC News Investigative Unit. "It's obvious that, like Senator Clinton, Socks may have been in the house during the Lewinsky affair, but he has continued to maintain his silence for well over a decade -- which if you think about it, is a really long time for a cat."

"Socks may have ducked Ken Starr, but he won’t escape the bulldog reporting of ABC News," snarled Ross, with obvious disdain for the black and white tabby.

As recently as last weekend, Team ABC staked out the home of Betty Currie, former secretary to President Clinton, and with whom Socks currently lives, and tried once again to ambush-interview the former First Cat. A partial transcript follows:

Brian Ross: "Socks. Socks! Were you in the White House on the day the blue dress was stained?"

(Ross and ABC News camera crew run frantically after Socks who once again eludes them by running up a tree.)

Ross: "Socks, the American people have the right to know: Did you know about Monica Lewinsky?"

Socks: "Meow."

Ross: "Answer the question, you fallacious feline. Were you or were you not in the White House on February 28, 1997?"

At this point Currie emerged from her suburban Maryland home and chased correspondent Ross away while beating him severely with an umbrella.

"The Clintons can keep running away from this and continue to maintain that Socks was just a, quote, 'family pet,'" said a breathless Ross. "But we will not rest until we get to the truth in this vital story."

As the investigation continued, ABC News moved to Chappaqua, NY, the current Clinton home and the place where Buddy, the Clinton's White House dog died under what Ross called "mysterious circumstances" on January 2, 2002.

Buddy, a youthful Labrador retriever was killed when he was struck by a car near the Clinton's Westchester County home.

"It's no secret that Buddy and Socks did not get along," said Ross, referring to the period when both domestic animals occupied the White House and fought like, well, cats and dogs. "Socks has continued to cover for the Clintons, while Buddy was the more talkative of the First Pets. Isn’t it convenient that Buddy suddenly got 'hit by a car' so soon after leaving Washington?"

ABC News spoke to Jeffrey Tiedrich, a neighbor of the Clintons, as he unloaded his car from a grocery-shopping trip.

Brian Ross: "Sir, do you know the Clintons?"

Tiedrich: "Of course, I do, they live across the street. Very friendly."

Ross: "Do you remember when Buddy was killed?"

Tiedrich: "Uh, yes, it was a very sad day in the neighborhood."

Ross: "Do you think Socks had anything to do with it?"

Tiedrich: "What?"

Ross: "Socks, the Clinton's cat, who's been running from us for 11 long years."

Tiedrich: "Who are you again?"

Ross: "ABC News. Do you think Buddy knew too much about the blue dress? Is it true he tried to bury it in the back yard of the West Wing?"

Tiedrich: "You're an idiot."

The tenacious ABC News Investigative Unit continued to run into even more evasive behavior on the part of everyone surrounding the Clintons, including failed attempts to interview other White House employees who, according to Ross, "saw their employment mysteriously end in January of 2001."

But Ross remains undeterred.

"We'll get to the bottom of this," said the frustrated reporter. "We also know that Barack Obama may have visited the White House sometime during the Clinton Presidency. And we'll find out what he knew about that dress as well."

You can read more from Bob at The Agonist.

What should have been a watershed moment in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination occurred last month in a debate sponsored by MSNBC in which moderator Tim Russert asked the candidates if they would "…pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq."

What came next from the media-anointed "leaders" in the Democratic field was a festival of ass-covering and hedging in which Hillary Clinton said that "it is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting" in backing away from the pledge, Barack Obama opined that "it's hard to project four years from now" in refusing to commit and John Edwards flat-out said "I cannot make that commitment."

Bear in mind that Russert was not asking if the presidential contenders would advocate withdrawing troops that week, the following month or even sometime in 2008. He was simply asking if they would commit to ending a war that has nothing to do with America's national security -- except in making us demonstrably less safe -- is killing our troops, bankrupting our nation and destroying our global reputation and if they would do that within the next half a decade.

Cue crickets chirping and silence from the three primary-poll leaders.

Russert then turned to Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and said flatly "I want to put you on the record. Will you pledge, as Commander-in-Chief, that you'll have all troops out of Iraq by January of 2013?"

"I will get that done," said Dodd firmly.

"You'll get it done?" clarified Russert.

"Yes, I will, sir," said Dodd.

Period. End of story.

Dodd pointed out after that debate that the most "remarkable" thing about the response to Russert's direct question was that, "The so-called leading candidates were unwilling to say whether they would have our troops out of that country by 2013."

"The idea that we could be embroiled in combat for at least another five years should set off alarm bells for anyone with a modicum of foreign policy experience," said Dodd. "Sacrificing American lives to engage in a civil war is a deeply corrupt strategy and one I have been working to combat in Congress. I call on my fellow candidates to help me bring an end to this war long before 2013 - we need to end this war now before it passes Vietnam as the longest war in American history."

Perhaps it’s a dismal sign of how unaccustomed we've become to presidential-like leadership that we don’t recognize it when it slaps us in the face, but his firm stance on Iraq and many other reasons make it obvious to me that Chris Dodd should be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008.

In addition to saying unequivocally that he will get our troops out of Iraq when he assumes the role of Commander-in-Chief, Dodd has voted for troop withdrawals at every opportunity since Democrats took control of Congress in January and has been a leader in all efforts to end the Iraq quagmire.

But Dodd has been at his best most recently in showing immense leadership and the truest understanding of our nation's meaning in standing strong against attempts by the Bush administration to let telecommunications companies off the hook for aiding and abetting the White House in their illegal domestic spying on American citizens. Despite little support from his Senate colleagues and eerie initial silence from his fellow presidential candidates, Dodd came out and said last week that he would place a Senatorial "hold" on any bill granting immunity to companies that have assisted George W. Bush in spying on Americans without required warrants and announced that he would filibuster any such legislation to keep it from passing.

Here's Dodd on the Senate floor on Friday:

"While it may be true that the proposed legislation is an improvement on existing law, it remains fundamentally flawed because it fails to protect the privacy rights of Americans or hold the Executive or the private sector accountable if they choose to ignore the law.

"That is why I will not stand on the floor of the United States Senate and be silent about the direction we are headed.

"It is time to say 'no more.' No more trampling our Constitution. No more excusing those who violate the rule of law. These are our principles. They have been around at least since the Magna Carta. They are enduring.

"What they are not is temporary. And what we do not do in a time where our country is at risk is abandon them."

"The right of privacy and the Constitution don’t belong to any candidate, or belong to any political party," said Dodd in Iowa last week, when speaking of the need for anyone wanting to be president to understand our country's principles. "It’s incumbent upon all of us to stand up when those rights are being jeopardized and that’s what I intend to be doing over the coming days here, depending upon the outcome of this process, moving through the United States Senate."

As Glenn Greenwald said in Salon last week, Dodd is showing leadership and the will to back up his rhetoric at a time when the very foundation on which our country was conceived is being gutted.

Wrote Greenwald: "Dodd is not the planet's greatest orator and is never going to be. But he has something, at least right now, that is far more important: authenticity and passion about defending the Constitution and the rule of law, along with the resolve to accompany those convictions with action, even if it risks alienating his 'friends and colleagues,' in the oh-so-august Senate."

Greenwald also implies the key question all Democratic voters need to ask as the primary-voting months draw near: What the hell is with the deafening silence coming out of the Clinton and Obama camps on the subject of domestic spying and trampling on Americans' Constitutional rights?

"Contrast Dodd's leadership and conviction on this matter with the complete passivity and invisibility of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama," writes Greenwald. "Whatever that is, it's the opposite of leadership. And it is this passivity and amorphous, shapeless, inspiration-free invisibility that has come increasingly to characterize both of their campaigns, along with the leadership of their party."

And as one who has covered the Senate for a few years, I can tell you without hesitation that Dodd's leadership and steadfast loyalty to Progressive ideals and doing the right thing did not begin when he announced his presidential campaign this year.

The Connecticut Senator has long championed increased funding for emergency first responders and, in 2005, authored and fought for legislation that would have funded "...urgent priorities for our Nation's firefighters, law enforcement personnel and emergency medical personnel." Dodd's bill was killed by the Republican Senate but he kept pushing for similar legislation to bolster domestic security for the remainder of the 109th Congress.

On judicial oversight, Dodd helped lead a small number of Democratic Senators who attempted to block Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to be the next right-wing hack on the Supreme Court, saying of the ultra-conservative Alito that "his legal philosophy is outside the mainstream. That philosophy has caused him to support dramatic new powers for the government and fewer rights for ordinary citizens. In Judge Alito’s America, the President would act with radical new powers -- unchecked by either the Congress or the courts as envisioned by the framers of our constitution.”

In March of 2006, Dodd stood with Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) in filibustering the USA Patriot Act renewal.

Clinton and Obama? They voted against Feingold and Dodd's attempts to keep the Bush-Cheney-Rove axis from further making the Founding Fathers spin in their graves.

Later in 2006, Dodd stepped up to the plate again, authoring the Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act, which sought to neuter Bush's awful Military Commission Act and restore some of the moral authority America lost with the rest of the world when it gave the White House the sweeping ability to breach civil liberties in a manner more like a dictatorship than a democracy.

"It’s clear the people who perpetrated these horrendous crimes against our country and our people have no moral compass and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law," said Dodd in speaking for his bill, which also would have restored Habeas Corpus rights. "But in taking away their legal rights, the rights first codified in our country’s Constitution, we’re taking away our own moral compass, as well.”

On domestic issues, Dodd has been on the front lines with Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) in leading the fight for a minimum wage increase, full funding of the Head Start program and in making college more affordable for middle-class and low-income families. What many voters also don't know is that, despite its passage being attributed to newly-elected Bill Clinton in 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act -- one of the most popular and substantial pieces of social legislation in decades -- was written by Dodd and promoted by him long before it was finally passed.

And while Republicans boast about supporting the troops when their actions are so often contrary to those hollow claims, Dodd has led in those battles as well, authoring legislation in March to provide $38 billion to restore National Guard readiness -- both for Iraq combat and for preparedness to address large-scale domestic emergencies by providing Guard troops with the equipment they have lacked under Team Bush and that's been depleted by ongoing Iraq deployments.

Finally, after years of having a president who either directly causes national problems or who reacts badly when they occur -- Hurricane Katrina, anyone? -- most Americans are ready for a Chief Executive who actually sees difficulties coming and takes action in advance.

While the whole country was aghast this year at the discovery of inhumane conditions encountered by returning troops at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, it was Dodd who a full year before proposed a measure that, had it not been defeated by the Republican majority, would have provided additional funding to shore up the failing infrastructures at Veterans hospitals all over the country, including Walter Reed.

Said Dodd back in February of 2006: “We know last year that over 100,000 Iraqi veterans returned home. Yet the administration's fiscal year 2006 budget for the VA was only prepared to handle 23,000 veterans. There are shortfalls in every state across the country. There are shortfalls in private facilities as well as public ones. This amendment is for us finally to say let's do something for these people.”

Again, for those of us who have forgotten, this is what real leadership looks like.

So as you prepare to watch the latest Democratic presidential debate tonight, try to stay away from asking if Barack Obama sounded strong enough, if Hillary Clinton stumbled and lost some of her polling lead or if John Edwards did anything to close the gap.

Instead, take a longer look at Dodd, who consistently leads in a way that voters should demand of the person who wants to be the next president.

We've lived with George W. Bush for many terrible years and America is in very perilous times as a nation, both in national security terms and in the degree of damage being done daily to our heritage, creed and reputation in the world. It is insane for we as voters to do anything but look at presidential candidates very carefully and see how they stack up when viewed through that prism and how their deeds match their words.

Nobody should base a presidential vote on who the media is telling them will be elected; we should each make our choice based on who we believe should be elected.

And Senator Chris Dodd has earned my vote.

You can reach Bob Geiger at geiger.bob@gmail.com

Please go to BobGeiger.com to see many more great cartoons from this week in politics.

Please go to BobGeiger.com to see many more great cartoons from this week in politics.