Beware Islamist Plants In Debates
Election '08: Muslim activists are in a full-court press to influence the presidential debates — and war policy. No matter what they say, they don't represent ordinary Muslim citizens.
What they really represent are the interests of the radical Muslim Brotherhood, which are decidedly anti-American. Groups tied to the Brotherhood are planting questioners at the debates, and CNN and other hosts aren't the wiser.
In the past three presidential debates, Muslims were picked to challenge candidates about homeland-security and war policy as it relates to Muslims. Despite prescreening, the questioners were presented to the public as moderate Muslims concerned about alleged anti-Islamic excesses in the war.
Yet they are associated with two Muslim groups that U.S. prosecutors have linked to the Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement that, according to recent court documents, has secretly plotted to take over America from within. They plan to do that precisely by using our political freedoms against us.
Islamists are stealthily injecting into the political debates their militant agenda, which includes: withdrawing from both and Iraq and Afghanistan, ending airport terrorist profiling, killing the Patriot Act and giving special rights to Muslims.
They're influencing the national security dialogue in a way that drums up sympathy for the enemy while lowering our collective guard in the middle of a war on Islamic terrorists.
The terror-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations managed to plant a questioner in each of the past two debates. We know this because CAIR bragged about its coup on its Web site in both cases.
During the Democrat debate in Des Moines, Iowa, the head of CAIR's Chicago chapter complained that U.S. Muslims face "abuses and prejudices and discriminations on a regular basis."
Ahmed Rehab asked Sen. John Edwards if he would help them fight the "culture of fear-mongering" since 9/11, to which Edwards replied, "We've got to stop this racial profiling that's going on."
For good measure, Edwards also vowed to "close Guantanamo, which I think is a national embarrassment," and end "illegal spying" on terrorist suspects.
Rehab flashed him a thumbs-up sign, and his coterie of Muslim activists broke into applause and cheers.
At last month's GOP debate in St. Petersburg, Fla., a former CAIR intern was selected by host CNN to ply White House hopefuls. Appearing in a video, veiled in a hijab, Yasmin Elhady made a stink about both the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, from where Osama bin Laden safely ordered the attacks on New York and Washington.
"My question has to do with both the current crisis in Iraq, as well as the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan," said Elhady, identified only as "Yasmin from Huntsville, Ala."
"After living abroad personally in the Middle East for a year, I realized just how much damage the Iraq War and perception of invasion has done to the image of America," Elhady added. "What would you do as president to repair the image of America in the eyes of the Muslim world?"
Hey, Yasmin, what would you do to repair the violent, intolerant image of Islam in the eyes of the rest of the world? Oh, that's right, intern with CAIR, which according to the Justice Department is not only a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, but an unindicted co-conspirator in a scheme to funnel $12 million to Hamas suicide bombers and their families.
More than a dozen CAIR officials — including its founder and its current executive director — have been named or prosecuted in terrorism investigations. Several have been convicted of felonies.
The same group that claims to be the moderate voice of Muslims in America still refuses to condemn the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. CAIR is even suing the Department of Homeland Security to forego complete FBI background checks on thousands of Muslim men from the Middle East and Pakistan who have applied for U.S. citizenship.
A sister organization of CAIR is the Muslim Student Association. A former leader of MSA, who now runs the largest mosque in Nevada, stood up at last month's Democrat debate in Las Vegas.
Again, CNN introduced Khalid Khan as an ordinary Muslim who happened to have a grievance. "I am an American citizen and have been profiled all the time at the airport," he griped. "Since 9/11, hundreds of thousands of Americans have been profiled. And, you know it is like harassment."
But Khan, an immigrant from Pakistan, is no ordinary American citizen. He's president of the Islamic Society of Nevada, formed from the MSA. He also hired a "radical" imam for the mosque, according to terror expert Steve Emerson.
Imam Aslam Abdullah has likened Marines in Iraq to the 9/11 terrorists, and publicly questioned whether videotapes showing Osama bin Laden gloating over the attacks were authentic. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Khan, who frequently travels on business, had his security access badge revoked by local airport officials in 2004.
CNN and these other debate sponsors must do a better job weeding out these Islamist activists. Or perhaps they don't want to exclude them. Perhaps that's why no anti-jihad hawks are picked to ask questions.
Colombia Pact Rising
The Hemisphere: The U.S.-Peru free trade pact, to be signed Friday, will not just bring our ally closer and assure its prosperity. It also seems to be generating momentum for the more critical trade deal with Colombia.
That's important, because extending free trade with Peru while denying it to Colombia sends a bad message to our 34 southern neighbors that the U.S. isn't all that committed to the region — or reliable as a partner.
Congress achieved something marvelous last Tuesday when the Senate gave a big thumbs up for the Peru pact, approving it 77-18.
Peruvian President Alan Garcia greets Colombian President Alvaro Uribe in Lima on Tuesday, vowing to help his ally win U.S. free trade.
But it's not a complete victory by any means. The House and Senate have yet to OK the almost identical trade pact for neighboring Colombia, which has been singled out for disapproval by some labor groups. U.S. unions cynically claim to be "concerned" about violence against trade unionists in a nation that's only now emerging from the violence of a long war.
It matters little to them that Colombian trade unionists arrived this week from Colombia to urge passage of the pact that will beef up Colombia's unions. They want to punish an ally to show they still matter. Many obedient Democrats may still be in their pocket.
But two events this week may change that.
First, the captains of American industry stepped forward, urging Congress with one voice to extend the pact to Colombia. "Congress' vote on the U.S.-Colombia (pact) will shape the next decade of America's engagement with our hemisphere," the 19 chief executives wrote in a Dec. 11 letter. It was sponsored by the Emergency Committee for American Trade, representing CEOs from Microsoft, Citibank, McGraw-Hill, GM, Oracle, Intel, Coca-Cola, 3M, Procter & Gamble, Target, Wal-Mart and Exxon Mobil, companies that together employ six million Americans.
Hopefully, that might just focus minds in Congress.
In fact, some of these companies — such as Citibank, Oracle, Target, and Microsoft — have leaders associated with Democratic causes and campaigns.
But it's not just about big business or big labor. As the Office of the U.S Trade Representative has noted, the U.S. now has about $16 billion in trade with Colombia, $6.7 billion of that in exports. More than 8,000 U.S. businesses sell to that country. Those businesses aren't the big boys: 84% are small and midsize firms.
Latin America is a fast-growing market. With businesses of all sizes speaking up for the Colombia pact, change may be in the offing.
Peru is the other helpful factor.
Colombian President Alvaro Uribe made a spectacular state visit to Peru on Dec. 11. Not only did the leader get the red-carpet welcome, he got a big pledge from Peruvian President Alan Garcia to help his old ally get free trade.
"I want to say to everyone, Peruvians and especially to Colombians: This treaty of free trade that Peru has signed with the U.S. will not be complete until Colombia has signed the free trade treaty with the United States," Garcia declared.
Because Garcia is headed to Washington to sign the free trade agreement on Friday, it is likely he will urge congress to sign off on the Colombia pact, too.
It makes sense. The two pacts are about equal, were negotiated at the same time and required the same reforms.
Both nations willingly made the changes because they wanted free trade so badly.
To give one free trade while leaving the other in the cold will not only alienate both, but will send a message to the region that the U.S. is a mercurial partner unworthy of alignment.
Garcia has long favored integrating the region to create a better framework for prosperity.
His support for Colombia, along with the emergence of American business' support for Colombia, hopefully will help seal the deal.
The Fed's Lifeline
Monetary Policy: The Fed giveth, and the Fed taketh away. That's how markets reacted to central bank moves in the last two days to ease fears that a financial crisis is brewing. Too little? Too late? Stay tuned.
With investors clamoring for a more aggressive move, financial markets plunged after what was widely regarded as a disappointing rate cut of 25 basis points on Tuesday.
Then, less than 24 hours later, the markets soared on news the Fed would join other major central banks to address the world's dollar-liquidity crisis. Most of the gains evaporated after oil prices surged, but the market's basic message had been delivered:
If the too-small rate cut was a mistake, the Fed's additional move to prevent a global credit crunch, and possibly recession, was not.
Like others, we were flummoxed by the Fed's decision to trim rates only a quarter-point to 4.25%. It was like administering cold medicine to stop an outbreak of the plague.
We also wondered why the Fed waited a day to announce the new lending tool, by which the Fed will inject billions in dollar-based liquidity into global markets. Hopefully it wasn't desperation.
Using its novel "Term Auction Facility" — a fancy name for letting banks bid in the open market for funds instead of having the stigma of borrowing from the central bank's discount window— the Fed will push upward of $40 billion of short-term liquidity into the world financial system and maybe more.
The Fed will also set up lines of credit to let foreign banks borrow dollars when they need them — thus easing their dollar crunch.
This should do two things: (1) make more money available to lend at capital-constrained banks, and (2) lower the cost of funds. And maybe, just maybe, these moves will keep the world from sliding into a recession.
We don't want to get too bullish about the Fed's move. But it beats doing nothing.
The new auction lending system is a creative response to a potential problem. It shows that the Fed's not sitting on its hands. But we still think the Fed should have been more aggressive on the domestic side by cutting the Fed funds rate a full half-point.
Despite inflation fears, many signs of economic weakness that didn't exist a month ago have emerged, thanks in large part to the uncertainty surrounding U.S. financial and housing markets.
Those who still believe there's a serious inflation threat need to understand that most of our recent price pressures come from just one commodity: oil. After a report Wednesday that U.S. crude stockpiles fell unexpectedly, oil leapt $4.37 a barrel to $94.39.
As for those who fear the Fed's actions will only encourage banks to take more bad risks — what economists call "moral hazard" — we ask: What would they have the central bank do? Let dozens of banks fail, taking billions of deposits with them and turning a still-manageable credit crunch into a full-blown financial crisis?
The answer to us is clear, despite any philosophical objections we might have about government meddling in markets.
The Fed's statement justifying the rate cut gave ample clues that even policymakers are worried. It noted signs that housing's woes are starting to hurt business and consumer spending. Worse still, it said financial markets appear to be "deteriorating." Neither is a recipe for future economic success.
Will the Fed's strategy work? Estimates for fourth-quarter GDP are all over the board, with some even expecting a downturn. For next year, the consensus seems to be centered on growth of 2% or so — not great, but no meltdown.
So far this week, the Fed is batting .500 — a great average for a baseball player but a lousy one for a central bank. To show it's really on the ball, the Fed needs to cut rates again — and soon.
Venezuela accused in Argentina campaign probe
The arrest of four men in Miami could unravel a scandal linking alleged illegal contributions from Venezuelan President Chávez to the new Argentine president.
Video | Argentine first lady wins presidency
Federal prosecutors dropped a bombshell in a federal courtroom in Miami on Wednesday, alleging for the first time that the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez secretly tried to funnel nearly $1 million in cash to the presidential campaign of newly elected Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.
The accusation came during a hasty hearing for four foreign nationals -- including two wealthy South Florida Venezuelans. Each is charged with being unregistered foreign agents for the Venezuelan government.
Their mission from the Chávez government, prosecutors say: to hush up a local Venezuelan man who was caught in August with a suitcase full of campaign cash as he arrived at a Buenos Aires airport with a high-ranking Argentine official. They pressured him not to reveal the source of the cash or its recipient.
''The money was meant for the campaign of Cristina Kirchner,'' Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Mulvihill told U.S. Magistrate Robert Dube. ``These defendants were instructed to keep the role of Venezuela in the matter quiet.''
REACTION TO COME
The arrests and allegations are certain to spark major scandals in both Argentina and Venenezuela, where Chávez has been widely accused of using his overflowing petrodollars to spread leftist-populist ideology around Latin America and the Caribbean.
Named in Wednesday's federal complaint: Franklin Duran, 40; Carlos Kauffmann, 35; Moises Maionica, 36, and Rodolfo Edgardo Wanseele Paciello, 40. All have homes in or ties to Miami-Dade County. A fifth suspect, Antonio Jose Canchica Gomez, 37, remains at large. If convicted, they each face 10 years in prison.
Prosecutors said Duran and Kauffmann, to get the cooperation of alleged ''bag man'' Guido Alejandro Antonini Wilson, threatened his children. Both men were Antonini's friends and business partners.
Federal prosecutors had taped conversations among Antonini, Duran and Kauffmann -- one at Jackson's Steakhouse in Fort Lauderdale. Antonini wore a wire for investigators.
Wednesday's arrest was prompted out of fear that Duran and Kauffmann -- both well-heeled Venezuelans with homes in Key Biscayne and Coconut Grove -- would flee in Duran's private jet, Mulvihill said.
`NO EVIDENCE'
Michael Hacker, attorney for Duran and Kauffmann, said his clients did nothing wrong.
''If any crime was committed, it was committed in Argentina,'' Hacker said. ``The government has no evidence they violated any laws. These men have led squeaky-clean lives. Yes, they have money, because they deal with oil.''
Hacker said the defendants had no plan to flee South Florida, but they were deemed a flight risk and denied bail.
In Argentina, Fernández de Kirchner said she would have no comment. Her husband and predecessor, Néstor Kirchner, has been one of Chávez's closest allies in Latin America. Chávez attended Fernández de Kirchner's inauguration as president on Monday.
In Venezuela, Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro, speaking live on Dando y Dando, a national television program, accused the U.S. government of engaging in a ``political, psychological and media war against the progressive governments of the hemisphere.''
The judicial action against the four men in Miami was a ''desperate effort'' to lend veracity to the ''political and media ambush'' against the Venezuelan and Argentine leaders and ''do damage that they were not able to do at the time [when allegations first surfaced in August] and they will not be able to do,'' Maduro said.
''They have removed their mask,'' he said. ``The hand that was behind [the Antonini case] is now revealed.''
In a statement, Kenneth L. Wainstein, assistant attorney general for national security, called the defendants' actions ``an alleged plot by agents of the Venezuelan government to manipulate an American citizen in Miami in an effort to keep the lid on a burgeoning international scandal.''
Added Miami-based U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta: ``This is not the first time in recent years that we have charged individuals with operating illegally in South Florida as agents of foreign powers, and likely will not be the last.''
RAMPANT SPECULATION
Even before Wednesday's announcement, many opposition leaders in Argentina had speculated that the confiscated money had been meant for supporters of Fernández de Kirchner.
But no evidence surfaced until Wednesday's hearing.
Argentine political analyst Julio Burdman predicted the complaint will cause a stir in Argentina, though the political impact would be muted because it comes well after Fernández de Kirchner's Oct. 28 landslide victory.
''It would have been much stronger if this had happened weeks before,'' Burdman said.
In recent years, the Venezuelan government has purchased billions of dollars in Argentine bonds.
Argentine federal Deputy Adrian Perez, leader of the opposition Civic Coalition's congressional delegation, said Wednesday's news confirmed many Argentines' fears that their government was too close to Venezuela's.
''If this turns out to be true, it is a grave fact,'' Perez said. ``What we're learning is that all these economic and business ties between Argentina and Venezuela were not transparent at all.''
The scandal first emerged Aug. 4, when Antonini and seven others flew in a private chartered Cessna Citation from Venezuela to an airport in Buenos Aires.
Antonini was accompanied by Claudio Uberti, a senior Argentine government official. Uberti later resigned as head of an Argentine government agency that controls toll roads. He had also been the main Argentine negotiator in several trade and investment agreements between Buenos Aires and Caracas.
When the Argentine customs service inspected luggage offloaded from the plane, they found approximately $800,000 in U.S. currency in Antonini's bags. Argentine authorities seized the money. No charges were filed against Antonini, who returned to South Florida.
The conspiracy to cover up the source of the money began shortly after August, prosecutors said.
JOB OF CONVINCING
According to the federal complaint, the defendants asked for a series of meetings with Antonini soon after authorities confiscated the money. Their goal: convince Antonini to conceal the real source of the cash, which was ``a contribution to the political campaign of a candidate in the recent Argentine presidential election of Oct. 28, 2007.''
At one meeting, Duran and Kauffmann told Antonini that various high-ranking Venezuelan government officials, including the office of the vice president of the republic, members of the Intelligence and Preventive Services Directorate and a high-ranking official from the Justice Ministry of Venezuela, were aware of the cash.
As late as Tuesday, some of the defendants had met with Antonini to discuss the creation of false documents to cement the coverup.
U.N. Human Rights Council is little more than a bad joke
By ANDRES OPPENHEIMER
T here wasn't much to celebrate on International Human Rights Day earlier this week. There is growing evidence that a recently created United Nations Human Rights Council that many hoped would step up international scrutiny of rights abusers worldwide has turned out to be a fiasco.
So much so that, as I learned in a telephone interview with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., on Wednesday, most Democrats and Republicans -- who cannot agree on almost anything these days -- are supporting a bill that would withhold about $3 million in U.S. annual contributions to the United Nations to protest the council's performance.
''You shouldn't have human rights abusers on a human rights committee, and that's what we have, with countries such as Angola and Cuba,'' Reid told me. He added that ''we have a better than 50-50 chance'' to pass the bill that would cut U.S. funds for the council.
The 47-member council was created in 2006 after several years of discussions to replace the widely discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission, which had turned into a sort of mutual protection club of some of the world's worst dictatorships. But the council is hardly an improvement.
Since its creation, it has spent virtually all its energies in condemning Israel, while failing to issue similar warnings about human rights violations in North Korea, Zimbabwe and dozens of other countries. What's more, the council has closed down its offices to monitor abuses in Cuba and Belarus.
The council has issued 13 condemnations, of which 12 have been against Israel, and one against Burma. Most rights advocates agree that while Israel should be subject to close scrutiny, the council has become a largely one-issue body. And even when it comes to Israel, the council's rulings have failed to include Palestinian acts of terrorism against Israeli civilians in its condemnations.
''We are quite disappointed,'' says Peggy Hicks, of Human Rights Watch, a group that denounces abuses in dozens of countries, including the United States. ``The council has engaged in a very limited agenda and hasn't taken up a number of human rights issues that ought to be addressed.''
There are at least 26 countries that deserve the council's attention, according to Human Rights Watch. They include Afghanistan, Belarus, China, Colombia, Ivory Coast, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Uganda, the United States, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe.
''The council is far worse than the [now defunct] Commission,'' says Hillel Neuer, director of U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based group affiliated with the American Jewish Committee. ``The Commission, despite its many defects, at least had managed to speak out for victims in North Korea, Cuba and other countries.''
Most international human rights groups don't go as far as saying that the council is worse than its predecessor because the new body includes more democracies than the former Commission.
But it still has dozens of members with dubious human rights credentials -- such as China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia -- that trade their positions in other U.N. agencies for seats on the council and then defend one another against outside scrutiny, they say.
The United States is not a member of the council because the Bush administration decided not to seek a seat. U.S. officials say the White House didn't want to legitimize the council, while critics point out that the United States may not have gotten the 96 votes it needed at the General Assembly to become a member in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo scandals.
Despite their criticism of the council, Human Rights Watch and other international monitoring groups are still holding out some hope that the U.N. body will redeem itself once its newly created mechanism of ''universal periodic review'' goes into effect in 2008. Under the new system, every U.N. member state has to undergo scrutiny by the council every four years.
My opinion: If the council doesn't start to denounce human rights abuses in China, Cuba, North Korea -- and, yes, at the U.S. Guantánamo base and in Iraq -- when it launches its periodic review mechanism next year, international human rights groups should jointly denounce it as a sham. So far, it has been a joke.
At Last, a Vote!
Iowa's January caucuses finally arrive for a face-weary electorate.
The Iowa caucuses are in earshot, so naturally one's thoughts turn to fairy tales. Joy comes from entering the fairy-tale world only if one chooses to believe. Oz worked only so long as the locals believed the Wizard was real. Which means we're in Iowa now, with Huck, Hillary, Obama, Oprah, Rudy, Mitt and all the political dreams that money and muscle can muster.
Three weeks from today, Jan. 3, while you're watching the FedEx Orange Bowl between Kansas and Virginia Tech, Iowa's most politicized citizens will caucus and vote. When they're done, we'll know whether Mike Huckabee really has become the Wizard of Iowa.
As we all know too well, it's been a long, hard slog. During Mitt Romney's visit to the Journal's offices last month, he told us, with pride, that he'd done 462 events in Iowa and New Hampshire this year. More than a few eyes widened at the thought. Last weekend even Hillary's mom campaigned for her in Iowa, and Oprah was somewhere else in the state for Barack. A few days ago, Bill Clinton was in Ames, where he said that years ago he told Hillary to dump him so she could run for office. "I thought it would be wrong for me to rob her of the chance to be what I thought she should be," the former president said. "She laughed and said, 'First, I love you and, second, I'm not going to run for anything, I'm too hardheaded.' "
You have to ask yourself: No matter how many times Iowans have been down this path, what can they make of it all? What can anyone make of it?
Iowa matters. After nigh a year of magic bus tours through the state by the presidentially ambitious and after the Jan. 3 caucuses finish the most arcane voting game on the planet, two people will have won Iowa and most of the rest will be gagging down their losses. If Huck beats Mitt, Mitt's campaign is an empty husk. If Barack comes a close second to Hillary's dream team (this first-name game will be elaborated on in a moment), then he'll have the Iowa caucus's famous second-fiddle momentum, which carried Iowa second-place finishers George McGovern to the party nomination in 1972 and Jimmy Carter in 1976.
If you were an Iowan, what would be the basis for your vote that frosty night? Would you vote the man, gender, pigment or an issue? Nonstop across nearly the whole of 2007, the candidates and our ever-malleable political "system" have thrown all of these at the American electorate, hoping some of it will stick. For most of the year, Barack Obama has tried to prevent the inevitable Hillary ascension by running as a reasonable, intelligent young man. With the clock running down, Team Obama decided to throw Oprah the length of the field. Who knows, it might work.
Gallup a few days ago reported what its polls say are on people's mind. The war in Iraq remains No. 1, at 36%, with the interest level then dropping by half to 16% for the economy. Immigration, the great GOP catfight, is said to be at only 10% for the general population. A Washington Post poll yesterday put the economy at 44%, the war at 37% and, oh yes, immigration, at 10%.
There is a plausible school of thought in our politics which says that most voters wait until the final week to look out the window, discern what strikes them as important, check out the candidates, press the two pieces--issues and candidates--against the template of their own beliefs, and vote.
This is probably as good a way as any to run a democracy. But politics risks turning to glue if the voters' moment of decision is preceded by nearly 100 weeks of constant campaigning. Like wary Olympic cyclists pedaling side by side around the velodrome, these front-runners aren't going to get out in front of the pack with a strong theme or issue. With a race this long, the whole world could change. Ask the Democrats. They thought they'd ride into the White House aboard one issue--national disaffection over Iraq. That's not going to happen. Now what?
Afraid that a turn in the economy, a terrorist bomb or an October (2008) surprise will turn a commitment way back when into an embarrassment 14 months later, most of the candidates are running campaigns more or less about nothing. Hillary Clinton is especially famous for having no set opinion about anything, other than that it's all George Bush's fault. There was palpable excitement as Fred Thompson's candidacy rumbled down the runway. But now that he's aloft, few can make out what he's about, other than joining most of the other Republican candidates to pistol-whip the Mexicans occasionally. Rudy Giuliani published a piece in The Wall Street Journal Dec. 3, "The Meaning of Fiscal Conservatism," a correct, but careful, tour d'horizon. As an astute friend described the piece, "It was without a galvanizing theme, to put it kindly." The Huckabee Fair Tax and the Thompson voluntary flat tax are more punch-list talking points than a defining, core commitment.
With the issues seen by these long campaigns as mercurial or dangerous, what does one run on for a year, or two years?
Yourself.
In an age in which media and marketing sell everything else as celebrity or self, there is logic in reducing one's campaign to biography. Nearly all these candidates want to be on a first-name basis with the nation. The Washington Post currently has a series running each day on the candidates in which one of the articles is done by the paper's fashion writer ("How He Looks"). Why not? It's a perfect fit for the shape of our politics now.
Voters will play the hand they've been dealt, and at last with Iowa the big moment has arrived. We should all be pumped. But the press reports disinterest and waning enthusiasm for the candidates. Before a single vote is cast, much of the electorate is experiencing issues fatigue and face fatigue. Hillary most of all didn't need this much face time with the voters. No one does.
Let's not do this two-year run again. Here's how: Dump the federal campaign-finance law, which forces candidates to raise millions in $2,300 dribs and drabs. That is why they've been running since last winter. The campaign isn't about us. It's designed as a sales pitch. It's about their fund-raising imperative. The result: Mike Huckabee may win Iowa in large part because he gives people a good laugh.
Not funny.
