Who's supporting the Republican presidential candidates?

A surprise announcement today: Pat Robertson, a popular conservative Christian and televangelist, has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president. This comes about a month after other prominent conservative Christian leaders had a conference to discuss the idea of putting forth a third-party candidate if Giuliani won the Republican nomination. The New York Times article about the endorsement points out that the announcement today may overshadow former candidate Sam Brownback's announcement that he is endorsing John McCain (poor McCain, he can't seem to catch a break).

When making his endorsement, Robertson focused on Giuliani's stance against "the blood lust of Islamic terrorists" and admired Giuliani's record as a "true fiscal conservative" (it's so hard for me to write this objectively, so I have to add this in now: being a "Christian" and a fiscal conservative is hypocritical). Robertson conveniently left the subject of abortion, which Giuliani has previously supported, out of his speech. First neocons, now this. News flash, Giuliani, neocons and the New Christian Right are fading along with the popularity of the Iraq War.

And on to an interesting article from the Washington Post about the family of the "the decider." The Bushes are all over the place in terms of endorsements for president. Well, that is, all over the place on the Republican side, of course. The three most visible members -- the president, his father and his brother Jeb -- are keeping quiet, but their relatives aren't being shy about who they want to win the Republican primaries. From Fred Thompson, to Rudy Giuliani, to Mitt Romney, this family can't seem to stand united.

Did Obama really say he was going to start attacking Hillary?

Prior to last week's Democratic debate, all the talk was about how Barack Obama had promised (in a New York Times interview) to beef up his attacks on Hillary Clinton. A Talk of the Town this week by one of my favorite authors, Hendrik Hertzberg, suggests that perhaps it was the Times reporter, and not Obama himself, that claimed Obama would step up attacks. Hertzberg bases this conclusion on a transcript of the actual interview.

But those were the reporters’ words, not Obama’s. His words, which could be found in an excerpted transcript on the Times Web site, were calmer. “I think she is an admirable person, I think she’s a capable senator, I think there’s overlap between some of her ideas and mine,” he said. “The case I’m making is not that she’s a terrible person or would be a terrible President. The case I’m making is that I would be better at those things that the country needs right now.”

And it was really John Edwards who led the attacks on Clinton last Tuesday. And he didn't stop there. His campaign staff is taking advantage of YouTube for some cheap advertising, putting ads that attack Clinton on the Internet instead of paying to put them on television. And the best part is that the ads see TV time anyway when they are played on political talks shows.

Check out this ad posted by "ohio4edwards."

Is Hillary playing the gender card?

Both the LA Times and NY Times suggest that Hillary plays the gender card when pressed for answers to hot questions. This issue sparked from Tuesday's debate where other democratic candidates as well as questioners repeatedly challenged Clinton to the point where it was a "pile-on." Her words.

Here's are some excerpts from former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America Kate Michelman's blog from yesterday morning:

When unchallenged, in a comfortable, controlled situation, Senator Clinton embraces her political elevation into the "boys club." She is quick to assure listeners she is plenty tough enough, that she's battled tested, ready to play be the same rules as the boys.

But when she's challenged, when legitimate questions are asked, questions she should be prepared to answer and discuss, she is just as quick to raise the white flag and look for a change in the rules. She then calls questioning, 'attacking;' she calls debate among her peers, "piling on."

It's trying to have it both ways; walk the fence, something Senator Clinton's good at. At one minute the strong woman ready to lead, the next, she's the woman under attack, disingenuously playing the victim card as a means of trying to avoid giving honest, direct answers to legitimate questions.

According to the LA Times article, Hillary's camp was quick to shoot back and say:

Phil Singer, spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said Saturday that Edwards, who represented North Carolina, and the other candidates were fabricating an issue out of desperation.

"The other candidates aren't going after Sen. Clinton because she's a woman, they're going after her because she's leading in the polls," Singer said. "Voters will make a decision about whether John Edwards' pledges to be positive" were anything more than just a political tactic.

And how is this different from when John Kerry played the Vietnam veteran card? Or Bush, the bumbling idiot card? Oh c'mon, let people play whatever hands they've been dealt in life.

Meet Fred Thompson

Set your clocks right for daylight savings because Fred Thompson is going to appear on NBC's “Meet the Press” tomorrow for the seventh installment of the "Meet the Candidates" series. It'll be his first time since starting his campaign for presidency.

It should be an interesting interview. Let's hope he does just as well as Colbert.

Other candidates soon to make appearances: John Edwards on ABC’s “This Week,” Joe Biden for CBS’s “Face the Nation” and John McCain and Christopher Dodd on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

Colbert denied, rest of us must suck it up

Let's take a look at the South Carolina polls again, courtesy of the AP. Clinton leads Obama for the Democrats, and there's a three-way tie among the GOP. But among this list of presidential candidates, guess who's not there?

Stephen Colbert.

Unfortunately, the very talented and eccentric comedian's request to be on South Carolina's Jan. 26 Democratic and Republican primary ballots were refused Thursday. (Reuters)

The Numbers - Democrats
Hillary Rodham Clinton Barack Obama John Edwards Joe Biden	33 percent 23 percent 10 percent 2 percent
The Numbers - Republicans
Fred Thompson Rudy Giuliani Mitt Ronmey John McCain Mike Huckabee Ron Paul	18 percent 16 percent 16 percent 9 percent 5 percent 2 percent

Scandalous

Which presidential candidate has a secret sex scandal? I wish I could tell you, but since I'm just a lowly student journalist, I'm not up on all the gossip of the mainstream media elite in Washington. The LA Times is sitting on the juicy story, and Ron Rosenbaum, who apparently knows the secret, analyzes the media dilemma of doing so in his blog.

Halloween feud!

I don't think anyone's surprised that Biden and Giuliani's feud (since the debates not too long ago) didn't take a break, even for Halloween. It was scary.

Last night, Joe Biden's campaign manager sent out statements against Giuliani, reiterating shots from Tuesday's MSNBC debate where Biden said "there’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11.”

“Rudy Giuliani seems to be increasingly worried that Joe Biden is questioning his lack of leadership and his use of 9/11 for his own political purposes. This criticism is grounded in reality: there are numerous examples of Mr. Giuliani using 9/11 as a substitute for real experience and real answers to important topics.’’

NY Times article showing three examples of Giuliani playing the 9/11 card.