Pardon Campaign on the Move

An interesting article in the today’s Wall Street Journal, Fess Up, Mr. Armitage, it notes that Mr Armitage has not publicly admitted that he leaked the name of Valerie Plame and states that the President should think about giving Mr Libby a Pardon. As the charges are an extension of the main charge. It seems if you agree with the Main Stream Media about the reason for the Iraq war and the present condition of the Iraq then you can get way with leaking confidential information due to a mistake, while minor matter of forgetting information due to pressure of work gets you on trial. This is where Presidential leadership come to the for, the President should make it known through the Press if the charges are not dropped by the start of the New Year then he will use his Presidential Prerogative to Pardon Mr Libby and appoint him back to the administration. If those pardon under the Bush 41 can come back and work for the administration then those that have served the President and Vice President should be able to come back to work in a role that does not require Congressional Approval.

In fact this debate could be used to get the political base out, we have had years of conspiracy theories about how the Bush White House was out to destroy Mr Wilson due to his critical review of Bush Policy on Iraq, well its time to take the fight to the Liberals. The Attorney General should ask for an investigation of the New York Times for its release of Secret Information, it should drag in the Reporters who wrote the Stories about the National Security Agency following the money of Terrorists and its checking of calls to mine for more information. This is a time of War, can you imagine Roosevelt or Churchill putting up with this during World War Two. If the New York Times had reports about the Manhattan Project it would have been on the front pages years before it was develop. This is a different type of WAR, it uses all polices of government, military, intelligence, economic, culture, all are important. A wise Supreme Court Justice once stated that the Bill of Rights was not an automatic right to suicide, there are limits, the government needs to protect its people, that is it main aim. The impression one gets from very Liberal Democrats, that as long as there rights are protected they don’t care about the War on Terror, as they tend to very rich Liberals and live in California, that is a very liberal view of Liberals. In today’s world, any one any place is a target, 9/11 and 7/7 should be a wake up call to those who seem more interested in civil liberties than in one liberty above all, the right to live an happy life not under the threat of terror. The government needs to use all its assets; the first priority of any government is to protect its citizens.

Thus the role of the President is to protect the people, but this can also mean to stop injustice, lets start a positive campaign to Pardon Mr Libby.

The Campaign to Pardon Mr Libby

It is reported today in the New York Times (Register Required) and on CNN, that Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State in the First Term of George W. Bush leaked the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak. As usual the Times shows how biased it is in coverage of the Bush administration, the article stresses that the leak was a mistake, even shows how it happened. As Mr Armitage is seen as a moderate, he will be given a pass by the MSM, Main Stream Media. I would guess if the name was Karl Rove one would be hearing calls for an Independent Council and what did the President learn the information and when did he forget. One can hear the Liberal Bloggers now stressing that it was a mistake and it does not matter that the real case is the one that will take place next year for Mr Libby. A charge by the way that has nothing to do with the first point of the investigation. It is about time for Conservatives to ask the President to Pardon Mr Libby. It would save the American Tax Payers and would follow the example of George H.W. Bush when he gave a pardon to those involved in the Iran – Contra Affair.

The Plamegate Incident

An interesting article by Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff, on the release of Valerie Plame’s name by Robert Novak. After the entire guess work it seems it was Richard Armitage who released the name by mistake during a chat with Novak and then before that with famed Watergate Reporter Bob Woodward. While on Meet the Press Today, Novak stated that his source should out himself. The story in one way would be finished, the all the players would be known, we would then just have the trial of Mr Libby at the start of next year.

For the benefit of Views Readers

At the time of the Incident, as Secretary of State we have Colin Powell, former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, and National Security Advisor to Ronald Reagan. As his Deputy, Richard Armitage, a moderate within the Administration and a critic of the Bush policy on Iraq.

The Neo Cons in the Administration, Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defence Secretary under Bush 41. Member of the House of Representatives, Chief of Staff to President Ford.

Afghanistan

UK Soldier killed in Afghanistan, as the BBC reports eight this month.

Iran

Two interesting articles on Iran in Today’s London Times. One by Anatole Kaletsky, The Iranian paradox: to gain victory the West must first concede defeat as can be see from the title, a counter view to my recent Blog. And also an Article by Bronwen Maddox, the Times Foreign Editor, The power is real - but so are the fears about how the Iran nuclear debate is developing on the International Front.

Simple International Politics

After reading Francis Fukuyama, After the NeoCons, America at the Crossroads, (Profile Books, 2006), I have summarised after reading a few chapters that in modern scene of International Politics has three theories on how the system is run, we have realist, Neo Conservative and Internationalist or Liberalism. I will use past references as Fukuyama does to explain how the three theories are used in International Politics and from there to look at the present international system, for a more detailed history of highly recommend by Views the above Book. The realist school of thought sees International Politics as a matter of self interest by states and how each states deals with that issue, thus we have the historical case of the Soviet Union and its role in the International system. In the realist view, it was important to deal with the Soviet Union and to keep peace within the international system, thus we have the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, SALT of the 1970s. In the realist corner we have Presidential Administrations of Nixon, Ford and their National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. In this perspective the powers had self-interests and it was important to deal on various issues as both sides gain from these agreements. The aggressive polices of the USSR in the 1970s destroyed this idea; these agreements had a might opponent in the shape of Ronald Reagan. Reagan had a simpler view, the Western Democracies had to win and the Soviet Union had to lose and how the Soviet Union dealt with the World Community was based on her suppression of her own people and her Satellites. Thus to recall Reagan’s “ Evil Empire” remarked in the early 1980s. There could be only one winner, it has been argued that in theory there was nothing wrong with the theory of Karl Marx, about the suppression of the workers by the those that run business as to make more money. It has one flaw, its rubbish, business needs well paid workers to buy its goods, more goods sold, more profits, the better paid the worker they will spend more on luxury items beyond just living. As more goods are needed, more workers are needed, thus more workers are hired and they are paid which creates more economic development. In essence the Soviet Union entire economic make up was based on a rubbish idea and developed by Communists for the purpose of self wish rather than real economic facts, it was noted by academics in the 1970s that the population growth of the Soviet Union was more in the Third World. They system was dieing on its feet. By the Mid 1980s the economy was a basket case as stated my President Reagan on many times. By the end of the Reagan Presidency the Cold War was at end. In retrospect it has been argued that Reagan was a Neo Conservative, but this in an interesting argument and one I will come back to later. In this perspective Views was a Neo Conservative after watching the film Nicholas and Alexandra; released late mid 1970s; the film on the final years of the Tsar. At the end of the film I recall saying to myself, they have to go, that being the Communists and didn’t really care how they where got rid off either.

On the International front argument, the structure of the International system is base on International Law and the United Nations, this group tended to be for the Nuclear Freeze of the 1980s, against SDI, or Star Wars in their view, the arming of Space and also wanted talks with the Soviet Union and Saw Reagan as the problem not the solution to the Cold War.

The past few years we have had the problem of Iraq, Francis Fukuyama in the above mentioned book, looks at the historical development of NeoCons and how this has effected American Foreign Policy in the 1990s and in the Bush Administration from 2001. It looks at the history of NeoCons and its development of Policy after 9/11. As it deals with a Current Foreign Policy it hard to see where Iraq will be in the next six months never mind by the end of the Bush Administration. Thus this brief essay will look at the case of Iran and what policy the United States should follow should Iran fail to agree to stop it military nuclear development.

The Iran nuclear dispute, allows us to look how future developments in the dispute can be seen from the perspective of the above theories. At present we are in the International frame, the United States and Europe is working through the UN, much good it seem to do, the government in Iran is banking on the fact that with the USA and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan and the drain on the military that the main Super Power and her ally would rather have a deal. In some respects this is a fact, but on the other hand no American President is going to allow Iran to become a nuclear threat not after the constant threat to Israel from its President. Thus we come to sanctions, as China and Russia have important economic links with Iran, think France and Iraq and you get the problem, thus soft sanctions nothing that would really damage their economic investment. The United States and the UK thus have a problem, allow Iran to become a nuclear power or to do something. The something is a problem, it should be noted that Reagan was placed by in the Neo Conservative group by Francis Fukuyama but Reagan was willing to talk to Iran, he thought he was in discussion with Moderates, but in the end this was an illusion, the generic population might want peace with the West but the powers behind the government don’t, Iran is an Islamic run nation, and its been a major problem for the West since the 1979 Revolution, which removed the Monarchy. It should be recalled that after the 1917 revolution in Russia, that in the end for communist regimes only started in 1989 after decades of a Cold War. Reagan in the end bankrupted the communists system and since the foundation was weak it was finished by 1991 with the break up of the Soviet Union.

Although talking heads point out that a majority of the population was born after the revolution and want more freedom, this argument has been trotted out many times over the years, at this rate the population with be Old Age Pensioners before they react and remove the government themselves, but then they have something to fear. Iran is not San Francisco; if you step out of line they have enough prisons and worse. Thus the people of Iran are in the same position as those people in the Soviet Union for the early decades of the Cold War. The next option, the use of CIA and SIS to create local opposition and to arm them, possible, the Americans have enough bases around the area and regimes that don’t want a powerful Iran. But can the West wait and the regime develop nuclear weapons. Thus we come to the Neo Conservative option and to strike before Iran becomes a major problem.

This option has of course pro and cons, the USA – UK has military commitments already can it afford another long and costly mission in Iran. Should the Allies go with or without their European Partners and the blessing of the UN. The pros of such an operation is that, Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, thus what ever the cost, massive bombing of all places of interest, nuclear, chemical, military, Intelligence, security services, in essence cut the leadership head off and allow the people the chance to raise against the government. It could be argued that the people under such a massive and constant attack would support the government. It would depend on the damage, keeping it to the above targets, making sure maps are up date and making sure no hospitals or any other public building are hit would allow the people to see that it was the government that the West was after. But those critical of military action have pointed out Iran could cause havoc in Iraq, either by supporting the insurgents or even should the West strike, invading, the Iran/Iraq war took up most of the 1980s. Any military action in Iran would come at a cost in men and machinery, as the latest action in Lebanon has shown, air power alone does not work, there has to be troops on the ground, either as in Afghanistan working with local opposition too help air strikes or a heavy military present for invasion. Thus this is the reason that all options when it comes to Iran are bad or worse.

In the end is there an answer to Iran that does not cost the use of military firepower. The first is of course the use of the UN, it’s a talking shop lets use it as such, it is a matter of finding what both sides can live with and what they cant lose in public. The United States can not seem to fall in to the trap that it did in the mid 1990s over North Korea, an agreement that fails and is seen overall as to made things worse in the end, Iran wants civil power and more access to world community. It really depends to use the old phrase where is the line in the sand, the USA and the UK will not tolerate Iran with Nuclear weapon, the threat is just too much, but they are willing for civil nuclear power and more economic development. It really depends what Iran wants, if she wants civil Nuclear power that is great and more access to the world economy that is also great but if she wants a nuclear weapon then the world will have another crisis. It could be argued that the West should give One month for talks with Iran, if Iran will or cant talk to the West, the should blockaded Iran, freeze her assets, support the opposition and the get the CIA in to have another operation Mongoose, if all that does not work, then give Iran a deadline. If by a certain date, the government of Iran will not place itself under the UN, in other words the UN would take over Iran and the Powers would run her like West Berlin during the Cold War and the old League of Nations Mandates. If this did not happen all force should be used to remove the regime once and for all and start from the start with Iraq and Iran and while at the start, set a firm framework for peace between Israel and Palestine.

AMERICAN POLITICS

The latest news from American political Front, interesting article on the Senate Race of Joe Lieberman, Click here . On the Presidential Race for 2008 an Article from Time, Click here

The White House Race and the Mid Term Elections

Two new polls have Joe Lieberman ahead in the Senate race; this casts an interesting question for the Junior Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton. If she wants an easy victory in the Primaries for President in 2008 she has to move to the left, otherwise this gives Senator John F. Kerry, the 2004 Nominee a chance, also added to this list should be ex – Senator John Edwards the Vice President Nominee in 2004. The Big Political Polar Bear in the question is Al Gore, the 2000 Presidential Election Nominee; he did win more votes that President George W. Bush and he has been anti Iraq war from the start. Lets look at why Al Gore would want to put himself through another Presidential Race again and against Hillary of all people, the wife of his old boss.

When looking at the future it is sometimes fun to look at the past, how and why people run for the President a second time after being defeated. One of the best known is of course Richard M. Nixon, the President of the United States between 1969-1974. In 1960, Nixon was up against John F. Kennedy, at the start of the power of Television to define political characters, it could be argued than Kennedy should have had an easy ride in the election. It can be argued in even on black and white film, Kennedy had magic, intelligence, urbane, witty and did not take himself to seriously and of course he had the move star looks. Nixon on the other hand and lets be honest here, Intelligence of course, the rest not, he had climbed the greasy political pole, Congressman, Senator and Vice President of the United States of America under President Eisenhower. But in 1960 he had his chance to be President, Eisenhower’s help could be described at best as a minus, not even lifting a finger to help really, by comparison Ronald Reagan was George H. W. Bush’s best supporter, here is an example of a minus and positive help, when asked by the Press what his Vice President had done to help the President and the Administration, Eisenhower replied it would take him a week to come up with an answer. On the other hand Ronald Reagan when asked by the Press if he thought Bush’s opponent should release his medical records, the President responded he would not make an opponent disability an issue. This of course raised the question in VIEWS mind what had the President read for him to make such a very blunt statement for Ronald Reagan. In the end George H.W. Bush won and Reagan could transfer the helm to his Deputy, thus a successful Presidency.

It should also be noted that Ronald Reagan had two previous attempts to run for President before 1980. In 1966 he was elected Governor of California, in 1962 his fellow Republican Richard M. Nixon had been defeated, in 1968, with only a few years in politics he was considered a dark horse candidate for the 1968 Republican Nomination, in the end this was won by Nixon. After Vietnam War and Watergate, Gerald Ford was President, he won the nomination in the end but only after Ronald Reagan had fought him in every state and taken the fight all the way to the Convention Hall. In the end Jimmy Carter won the election and Reagan’s time would come again in 1980, the rest is history.


In 2000 Presidential Election, Al Gore had the following great problems to deal with, a great economy and the United States at Peace, irony abounds, so what real problems did Al Gore have heading in to the Election, one answer Bill Clinton, it should be recalled that the fictional West Wing President was not Bill Clinton, he was the clean one without the messy personal problems and had not been impeached and tried by the Senate, the first elected President to suffer this fate, President Johnson after the civil war had succeeded after thee assassination of his President. Thus Al Gore faced the a double problem, getting out of Bill Clinton’s shadow and Monica Mess created by Bill Clinton. If Monica had not happened and Bill Clinton could have been used in the campaign the result might have been different, but although people on the whole supported the policies of Bill Clinton they did not agree with his character and the impression this had created in the country. Thus George W. Bush could go around the country and say he would bring honour back to the White House, he did not have to mention Bill Clinton the statement itself was implicit.

Thus in the end Al Gore won the popular vote by over a half a million votes but lost the Electoral College Vote. It was hard to feel sorry for him when he lost his own state, if his own state would not vote for him; it was hard to feel he had been cheated. It is reported that Bill Clinton told Al Gore to take care of his home state over the years; it looked like Gore had not listened. In the end it was a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court that finished Al Gore hopes for the Presidency. Although Al Gore had reason to be upset with Supreme Court it was Bill Clinton in some respects that got most of Al Gore anger, it has been reported that after the campaign was finished Al Gore told President Clinton that in many respects the result was due to his failure to control himself. Al Gore had a problem during the campaign on the one hand he had been Vice President during a time of great economic development in the United States but also there was always the character issue with Bill Clinton which turned off voters, Bill Clinton was good for himself but it has to bee asked what did he give the Democratic Party in the long term, they lost Congress, a majority of the Governors in the States where from the Republican Party, and economic development also had a effect on the voters, it has been noted by analysts that Bill Clinton had in the eyes of the voters fixed the economy, more people had jobs and thus where wealthy. In many respects the Democratic Party is for those without, the underclass, pressure groups, green issues, etc. If the country feels things are getting better and the Stock Market is going through the roof, people tend to care about Social Issues, and they tend to be quite or very conservative, thus Al Gore was the victim of his own success and of Bill Clinton, he had to appeal to those that during the eight years of Bill Clinton had not achieved the American dream, so he had to distance himself form Bill Clinton and then he had to make sure Bill Clinton was not a negative on his campaign with conservative voters thus he was sent to safe states where he was still popular. So Ronald Reagan helped Bush 41 get elected while Bill Clinton was hid in the attic as best as Al Gore could do keep Bill Clinton out of the headlines.

In the end it was not Bill Clinton that lost the election but Al Gore, the turning point was the debates, it was argued that Al Gore would win these with not much trouble, the point was missed, a good debater does not mean a politician that connects with the voters, of the three debates, on debating points Gore won but on the personal level it was a disaster, in the first he was seen as patronising, which was spotted as the days went on, then he tried to be co – operative in the Second Debate, it has been argued the voters had two Al Gore’s to study and then in third debate he tried more balanced approach, so three Al Gore’s. George W. Bush just had to be him self. It shows that being Vice President or President can make one less at ease as a debater, in the 2004 election, Bush had a bad first debate like Ronald Reagan in 1984, he recovered in the other two and Kerry another good debater made the same mistake as Gore, good debaters try win the argument, Kerry bought up the personal life of the Vice President daughter also his aide, that was a major turn off for voters. So winning a debate is more than winning an argument on Technical points it is about connecting with the voters. Gore and Kerry failed in 2000 and 2004.

In this modern age, it is surprising that the main stream media, MSM, have not show their favourite Hillary Clinton more as in speeches. Views did catch a few minutes of one, lets be clear, now ever much you want transference, pop psychology, Senator Clinton is not Bill, she does not have the charm, the good old boy networking skills, she has a shrill at times speech, she is not Bill Clinton, her views might work with New York state and California and the other Blue States but America is more that just those states, thus the Electoral College. Hillary Clinton can win the nomination but she is in some respects the same position as Robert Kennedy was in, Vietnam had heated up under President Kennedy. In a speech Kennedy made an interesting point, that Vietnam was not the fault of Lyndon Johnson there was blame to go around. Hillary Clinton could easily go after George W. Bush more and be more critical of the war and say she was wrong and follow the Kerry line of getting out next year, but if she did that she might as well not spend a year and a half on the campaign trial as she would lose to either Senator John McCain or the ex Mayor Rudy Giuliani, she has to appeal to more that the Democratic base if she it to stand a chance in hell of winning a national election. Thus we come to Al Gore and why he might throw his hat in to the ring and why he could really beat Hillary in the Primaries.

The first reason, to lose the Presidency by one vote in the Supreme Court must be a constant pain and what has happened since and the What if’s he had been elected President. Since losing in 2000 Al Gore has moved to the left, always critical of the War in Iraq and Bush’s policies since coming in to office. This would be his chance to change America Foreign Policy to the better in his view, out of Iraq, removal of Bush’s tax cuts, more stress on green issues, the list goes on. Also it would be a rebuke to Bill Clinton, would place Bill Clinton in an odd position, his wife against his former Deputy. In political geek world a great campaign McCain versus Gore. It should be noted that with the defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman the left wing Bloggers if they wanted to could go after Hillary if she does not move to the left and denounce her vote to approve the War in Iraq. Thus the defeat of Joe Lieberman my not just be a turning point for him but for the Junior Senator from New York and the Democratic Party.

What a Week in News

Well we started last week with the Primary contest in which Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic Nomination but then decided to run as an Independent, in effect the Republican Candidate in the State, the actual Republican candidate is nowhere in the field. As this is about Iraq, the Republicans are supporting Joe Lieberman. Then we had Lebanon, would there be a ceasefire and would it hold, but after the arrests of what could have been Britain’s 9/11 or as some papers using an American expression, 8/10. Lebanon might as well have not as existed in the rolling news of that day, Israel missed a chance, with the world’s eyes on London it really could have smashed Hizbollah, but in the end agreed to a cease fire as demanded by most of the World. An interesting article in today’s London Times, reports on Germany’s decision to send troops as part of the peace keeping force, considering its past history this is a major move by the new German Government under the Christian Democrat Chancellor Angela Merkel. But it should be noted that the German Air Force played an active part in the NATO action in Bosnia. This action of placing German troops to protect Israel would also place the past in the past, not forgotten but also looking to the future. The writers of the article, Roger Boyes and Richard Beeston write the following, ‘German soldiers might give the Israelis the benefit of the doubt. ’ should the cease fire fail, in essence Germany would have no choice but to support Israel, the past would be a ‘ Foreign Country’ as today’s alliances would be based on, in some respects the past but also the present democratic nature of Israel and Germany compared to those on the opposite side.

It is interesting as we are discussing war, the news wires have reports that the government is about to present a bill to Parliament that would give a pardon to those shot at dawn by the army during the First World War. Although today we appreciate the suffering of those that got through War does that give us the right to change history. Let it be plain I support the move but can we change history, an example, do we pass a bill to say the Titanic did not sink, World War did not start in 1914, the Battle of the Somme did not happen, no Russian Revolution thus no Lenin or Stalin. History only happens once, we can empathise we can understand it but we are not Time Lords.

Independent Joe

On Tuesday, Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic Primary for the Nomination of his Party to serve another term as a Senator. The final result was 52% to 48% against Lieberman. The Democratic Nominee for the Democrats is Ned Lamont; Lieberman has decided to run as an Independent. It has to be admitted that the Liberal Bloggers have had their first victory. The question that has to be asked after that is it a shallow victory, is this another shift to the left by the Democratic Party and will it force Hillary R. Clinton, the Junior Senator to move to the left if she wants the Democratic Nomination for President in 2008. It has been argued that the Senator can win the Nomination but if she moves to the left she would be defeated in the general election as she would be seen as Liberal and weak on National Security.

As for Joe Lieberman he has announced he will run as an Independent, Dick Morris, President Clinton's old political strategist states the following, “ Lieberman has lost a battle, but he can still win the war running as an independent. “ Morris argues that that Lieberman can attract beyond the Democratic base in Connecticut and that he has a record he can run on. It should be remembered that a often bit of data used on the airwaves is the fact that Lieberman has voted with his fellow Democrats 90% of the time. Thus the blue state voters of Connecticut can vote for Lieberman and be sure he will still vote with the Democratic caucus on most issues just not Iraq.

No Guts No Glory!! ?

According to news reports, the agreement between the United States and France is falling apart over a cease-fire in the Middle East. It seems France does not want to lead the Multi National Force in to the South of Lebanon. The French are know saying if reports are true, that Israel should leave at once and that the army of Lebanon should move in to the South and thus they are not needed. President Bush has stated from his ranch that this is a line in the sand, there has to be a European Force in the South, as this will protect Israel but also allow Lebanon to have control in the South.

It has to be asked what are the French playing at if the above is true, does seem to raise the old question, no guts no glory, lets hope there is an agreement and the above story is false otherwise another self defeat for France.

Middle East and American Mid Term Elections

Middle East

On the news wires we have reports of a cease fire deal struck between the USA and France, it is reported so far that the deal allows Israel to hit back if attacked.. Developing

Mid Term Elections

It looks like Joe Lieberman will lose the Democratic Primary; a new poll has him trailing by 13 points..

Off Subject :

Books

An Interesting read : The Harold Nicolson Diaries 1907 – 1964, Edited by Nigel Nicolson. UK: £9.99

Views view: An interest in politics and history of the inter war period then well worth a read.

Madam Secretary, A Memoir. Madeleine Albright. Macmillan. UK: £20.00

Views view

The memoir of Clinton’s former Secretary of State is a must read for those with an interest in the international politics of the 1990s. The effects of those decisions from North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Middle East are with us today.

DVD

Good Night, And Good Luck, Directed by George Clooney.

Views view

An excellent film, Mr Clooney and views don’t share the same politics, but what ever your political position it is a matter of Intelligence to listen to the other side and on this issue Mr Clooney is right but one should try to avoid looking at present issues in the context of the issues that the film deals with, context is all important.

Up Date, Joe Lieberman and John Kerry

August 8th Primary in Connecticut

The result of the Democratic Connecticut Primary could have an effect on who runs the House of Representatives, an interesting article by Kevin Rennie for RealClearPolitics argues. If the Democrats don’t nominate Joe Lieberman, this could lead to split voting in November, if the Senator follows through with his threat to run as an Independent, the voters might decided to split their vote and vote for Republican Candidates. Thus as mentioned in previous Blog, Joe Lieberman’s political fate is very much tied up with the fate of the Republicans Controlling the House of Representatives.

2008 Shadow Primary

I noted that Drudge ran a picture of Senator John F. Kerry in Iowa; from the picture it looked like a small group, wise strategic move by the Senator? It should be noted that Iowa is the starting point for the Democratic Nomination. It should be noted that Iowa holds a caucus to select who gets their support. I wonder if Hillary has been to Iowa or does she take it for granted?