TGIF

I really think that Obama's 20 year affiliation with a church and a pastor who spews hate from his pulpit should give pause to anyone who is thinking of voting for him. If that sort of relationship was in Hillary's backround or McCains or anyone else running for president the mains stream media would be all over it. Oh sure a little pasting here and there but not the kind of going over they gave Clinton over say white water.
BTW- don't be surprised by a McCain/Romney ticket.
The republicans go mainstream appeal to the general public while Democrats do what?
______________________________________
Is Al Gore the ‘way out of a mess’?

The political world spent a fair amount of time last year mulling over whether Al Gore would run for president, who his running mate would be, whether he could win, etc. Once it became clear that Gore wouldn’t run, speculation shifted to who he’d endorse, when, and what kind of impact it might have.
Now, however, we should probably get ready for a new wave of Gore-related scuttlebutt, centered around a new idea: Al Gore, compromise candidate.
The first I heard of this was earlier this week, when Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-Fla.), considering the prospects of a brokered convention, told a Florida paper, “If it (the nomination process) goes into the convention, don’t be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket.”
A compromise candidate could be someone such as former vice president Al Gore, Mahoney said last week during a meeting with this news organization’s editorial board.
If either Clinton or Obama suggested to a deadlocked convention a ticket of Gore-Clinton or Gore-Obama, the Democratic Party would accept it, Mahoney said.
The comments didn’t generate much in the way of attention, in part because Mahoney isn’t an especially high profile lawmaker, and also because he made the remark to a small paper with a limited audience.
But when Time’s Joe Klein starts talking about the same idea, one gets the sense a small boomlet might be in the works.
______________________________________

On Monday, the NYT’s Paul Krugman wrote some fair criticism of all three presidential candidates: they’re talking about the economy in general, but they aren’t sufficiently addressing the ongoing fiscal crisis. More importantly, they aren’t offering the kinds of regulations the system needs.
Now, the shadow banking system is facing the 21st-century equivalent of the wave of bank runs that swept America in the early 1930s. And the government is rushing in to help, with hundreds of billions from the Federal Reserve, and hundreds of billions more from government-sponsored institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks.
Given the risks to the economy if the financial system melts down, this rescue mission is justified. But you don’t have to be an economic radical, or even a vocal reformer like Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, to see that what’s happening now is the quid without the quo.
Last week Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary, declared that Mr. Frank is right about the need for expanded regulation. Mr. Rubin put it clearly: If Wall Street companies can count on being rescued like banks, then they need to be regulated like banks. […]
[Clinton and Obama] are running more or less populist campaigns. But at least so far, neither Democrat has made a clear commitment to financial reform.
_____________________________________
* At a townhall meeting in North Carolina yesterday, Barack Obama was asked about the role that Jesus and his teachings have had in the senator’s life. “I’m a Christian,” Obama said. “What that means for me is that I believe Jesus Christ died for my sins, and his grace and his mercy and his power, through him, I can achieve everlasting life.” He added, “I think it’s very important to think that you do not have to have the same faith as me to be a moral person – there are a lot of Jewish people who are as moral, or more moral than I am, there are a lot of Muslims who are decent kind people. I don’t think they are any less children of God.”
* Bill Clinton said yesterday the Obama and Clinton camps should “just saddle up and have an argument.” Obama told reporters he didn’t have a problem with that, but he added that one of his goals in politics was still “to see if we can change the tenor a little bit so it’s more productive.” Obama said he agreed with Clinton’s point about the intensity of politics, saying it was “a contact sport,” but emphasized he didn’t want to see this go too far. “There’s a line that can be crossed where you stop focusing on the American people’s business and it just becomes about sport.”
* Obama’s electability argument got a bit of a boost this morning when a new Public Policy Institute of California poll showed Obama leading McCain in a general-election match-up by nine points (49% to 40%), while Clinton leads McCain by three (46% to 43%).
* Joe Lieberman’s support for McCain doesn’t appear to be especially helpful in Connecticut, with a new Quinnipiac poll showing McCain trailing both Dems in general-election match-ups in the state. Obama leads McCain by 17 (52% to 35%), while Clinton leads McCain by three (45% to 42%).
* The first Mitt Romney sighting in a while: “In their first campaign swing as allies, Romney planned to meet McCain at the airport in Salt Lake City and appear with the likely Republican nominee at a fundraiser. The two then were traveling to Denver for a second fundraiser.”